2017
POINT-IN-TIME

Count of Homelessness  in
Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County, Oregon

Published October 2017

 Uma Krishnan, PhD
Research Assistant Professor, Population Research Center
Portland State University
Uma Krishnan was a research faculty member of the Population Research Center in the College of Urban and
Public Affairs at Portland State University from July 2016 – July 2017. She has worked on affordable housing
policies and programs for over a decade. Broadly, her research and teaching interests include applied social
demography and affordable housing. Of particular interest are housing issues faced by people of color and
older adults, everyday struggles of female-headed households, and methods of integration/assimilation used
by immigrant and refugee groups. She has a PhD in Urban Planning and Policy Development.
Debi Elliott, PhD
Director, Survey Research Lab
Senior Research Associate, Regional Research Institute for Human Services
Portland State University
Debi Elliott has been Director of the PSU Survey Research Lab since 2002. She holds a joint appointment
with the Regional Research Institute for Human Services in the School of Social Work and has been a human
services researcher for 25 years. Since arriving at PSU in 1992, she has focused her research on substance
abuse and mental health services, criminal justice, supported housing, domestic violence, and more. She
is a member of PSU’s Human Subjects Research Review Committee, with expertise in research ethics and
participant protection. She has a PhD in clinical child psychology.

This report was prepared in collaboration between the Population Research Center and the Survey Research
Lab at Portland State University for the City of Portland, the City of Gresham, Multnomah County and the
Coordinating Board of A Home for Everyone. A Home for Everyone is a community-wide collaboration to
house homeless Multnomah County residents by making smart investments in the areas of housing, income,
survival and emergency services, healthcare, and systems coordination. Key partners in the effort include
Multnomah County, the City of Portland, the City of Gresham, Home Forward, Meyer Memorial Trust, local
nonprofits, businesses, faith leaders, and people with experience of homelessness.
The Population Research Center at Portland State University provides population data, information, and research
and analysis for Oregon and its communities. Center staff engages in a variety of demographic activities,
including the Oregon State Data Center, the Oregon Population Estimates and Forecast Program, and a
variety of population research projects. PRC staff teach in the Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and
Planning, supporting a graduate concentration in applied demography and a graduate certificate program
in applied demography.
Original graphic design elements by Ted Cobb, Cobb Graphic Design
Updated layout and design by Victor Tran, Portland State University
Cover photos courtesy of Joe Glode

 More Work Awaits, But Signs of Hope Emerge

E

very two years, the Point in Time Count shows us a snapshot of housing and homelessness in
Multnomah County. It offers us a chance to reflect on the hard work that’s helped thousands of
our neighbors off our streets and back into homes of their own, and it reveals how much work we
have left to do.
Like in other big cities on the West Coast, housing costs are rising faster than incomes, particularly for
people on the outside of our booming economy. That growing gap pushes thousands more people
into homelessness each year. It also makes escaping homelessness even more difficult for those
already on our streets.
Our community is struggling with a crisis in access to mental health services and an opioid epidemic that
afflicts a growing number of our most vulnerable neighbors. And our communities of color continue to
still face the legacy of historic discrimination, even as they face the discrimination that still lingers today in
access to housing, employment and education.
That’s why we were disappointed this year, but not surprised, to find that 4,177 people were counted
experiencing homelessness on a night in late February this year. That’s nearly 10 percent higher than in
2015. People of color continue to be over-represented on our streets and in our shelters. And the number
of people who report being chronically homeless or having a disabling condition continues to rise.
But in the midst of these negative trends, we also saw some hard-won progress.
After we delivered on a pledge to effectively double emergency shelter capacity in our community, the
number of people counted sleeping outside, in the worst conditions and with the least safety, dropped
nearly 12 percent since 2015, to 1,668.
In fact, we actually counted more people sleeping in emergency shelters than outside. That’s a first in
all the years we’ve been doing this federal count. We also said we’d do more, after past counts, to help
veterans, people of color, and survivors of domestic violence come inside and off the streets. And this
year’s results show we’ve done that.
After the 2015 count showed a spike in unsheltered homelessness among African Americans, we made
substantial and specific investments to meet that community’s shelter and housing needs. Though
disparities remain, we counted fewer African Americans experiencing homelessness overall this year, and
fewer sleeping without shelter.
We also invested in shelter and permanent housing for families with children. We saw the unsheltered rate
among families fall by half. And even as we counted more people experiencing homelessness overall, we
saw no increase in the number of families.
That progress speaks to the promise of a community coming together to solve a problem that affects
every single one of us. It’s why we believe in the collaboration behind A Home for Everyone, our region’s
comprehensive plan for ending homelessness.
Every year, despite the challenges that confront our work, we’ve helped more people out of homelessness and
back into permanent housing. In 2015-16, our partners helped a record 4,603 people—55 percent more than
just two years before. And data from the first nine months of 2016-17 shows us on track to eclipse that mark.

Page 3

 Every day, our partners help hundreds of people find a safer place to sleep, stay in housing they might
otherwise lose or find a new home after years of going without. Sometimes it’s a mat in a shelter.
Sometimes it’s help with the rent or a utility bill. Sometimes it’s a plea to a landlord and the jangle of
apartment keys.
Those numbers aren’t tracked in the Point in Time Count. Progress can feel elusive when the economy is
punishing neighbors faster than we can help them. But we can see we’re making a difference. And our
hope keeps us coming back to this work, even when times are tough.
The Point In Time Count helps tell us how many of our neighbors struggle with homelessness every night.
It’s a stark reminder that we must push as hard as we can, ensure the best results from the money we
invest, work closely with our partners in the business, faith and philanthropic communities, and build on
the strengths of those among us already working so hard to escape homelessness.
We know what it takes. Homelessness isn’t inevitable, and with your support, we can create a community
where homelessness, if it happens at all, is rare, brief and one-time.

Ted Wheeler

Deborah Kafoury

Portland Mayor

Multnomah County Chair

Page 4

 CONTENTS
Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
1. Point-In-Time Count Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
1.1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
1.3. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
1.4. Summary Findings of PIT Count 2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
1.5. Changes from 2015 to 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
1.5.1. Change in PIT Count Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
1.5.2. Doubled Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
1.5.3. Change in Per Capita Rate of Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
1.6. Interpreting the Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
1.6.1. Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
1.6.2. Local Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
1.7. Comprehending the Change in PIT Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
2. Demographics of Homeless Population and Subpopulation Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
2.1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
2.2. Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
2.2.1. Count and Distribution of Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
2.2.2. Changes in Race/Ethnicity Compared to 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
2.2.3. Variations by Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
2.2.3.1. Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
2.2.3.2. Gender Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
2.2.3.3. Chronic Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
2.2.3.4. Disabling Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
2.2.3.5. Domestic Violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
2.2.3.6. Veteran Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
2.2.3.7. Household Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
2.3. Household Composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
2.3.1. Count and Distribution by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
2.3.2. Sleeping Location of Unsheltered Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
2.3.3. Changes in Household Composition Compared to 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
2.3.4. Variations between Household Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50

Page 5

 2.3.4.1. Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
2.3.4.2. Household Types of People of Color and Total Homeless Population Compared. . . . . . . . .  51
2.4. Children and Youth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
2.4.1. Count and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
2.4.1.1. Children under the Age of Eighteen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
2.4.1.2. Unaccompanied Youth Ages 24 and Younger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
2.4.2. Children and Youth Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
2.4.3. Variations among Children and Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
2.4.3.1. Differences within Children and Unaccompanied Youth by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . .  54
2.4.3.2. Differences within Children and Unaccompanied Youth by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
2.5. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
2.5.1. Count and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
2.5.2. Age characteristics—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
2.5.3. Variations within Age Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
2.5.2.1. Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
2.6. Gender Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
2.6.1. Count and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
2.6.2. Changes in Gender Distribution Compared to 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  62
2.6.3. Variations by Gender Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63
2.6.3.1. Differences within Gender Identities by Housing Situation—All Ages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
2.6.3.2. Differences in Household type by Gender
(Adults Only). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
2.6.3.3. Differences in Prevalence of Domestic Violence (Adults Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
2.6.3.4. Differences in Duration of Homelessness—Unsheltered Population Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65
2.7. Chronic Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  66
2.7.1. Count and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  66
2.7.2. Changes in Count and Distribution of Chronically Homeless Compared to 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
2.7.3. Variations between Chronically Homeless and Not-Chronically Homeless Respondents. . . . . . .  67
2.7.3.1. Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
2.7.3.2. Household Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  68
2.7.3.3. Gender Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69
2.8. Disabling Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69
2.8.1. Count and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70
2.8.2. Changes in Count and Distribution of Respondents with Disabling Conditions–2015
and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  71
2.8.3. Variations between Subpopulations with and without Disabling Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  71
2.8.3.1. Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  72
2.8.3.2. Gender Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  72
Page 6

 2.9. Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  73
2.9.1. Count and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  73
2.9.2. Count and Distribution of Domestic Violence in 2015 and 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74
2.9.3. Variations between Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience Domestic Violence . . . . . .  75
2.9.3.1. Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  75
2.9.3.2. Gender Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  76
2.9.3.3. Household Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  76
2.10. Veterans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  76
2.10.1. Count and Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77
2.10.2. Changes in Count and Distribution of Veterans—2015 and 2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  78
2.10.3 Variations between Subpopulations with and without Veteran Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
2.10.3.1. Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
2.10.3.2. Chronic Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
2.10.3.3. Disabling Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
2.10.3.4. Gender Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
3. Additional Unsheltered (Street Count) Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81
3.1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81
3.2. Sleeping Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  82
3.3. Geographic Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  85
3.4. First-Time Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  88
3.5. Length of Homelessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  89
3.6. Attending School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  90
3.7. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  93
3.8. Migration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  95
4. Doubled Up Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.2. Multnomah County School District Data on Doubled Up Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.3. Estimating Doubled up Population from Doubled up Student Count. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5. Nonparticipant Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2. Timing of Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.3. Homelessness Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.4. Reason for declining to Participate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.5. Location of Nonparticipants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.6. Characteristics of Nonparticipants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.7. Age of Nonparticipants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.8. Race/Ethnicity of Nonparticipants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Page 7

 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Appendix A: Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Appendix B: Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Definition of Homeless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Timing of the Count. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Data Collection Method (Street Count and Shelter Count). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Street Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
One Night Shelter Count. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Planning & Execution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Data Entry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Notes on Analysis and Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Methodological Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Appendix C: Gresham and East County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Appendix D: Street Count Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Appendix E: ONSC Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Appendix F: Survey Forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proportion of People Who Slept in Various Housing Situations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
Figure 2. Share of People Sheltered and Unsheltered­­—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
Figure 3. Review of PIT Counts by Housing Situation, 2009−2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
Figure 4. Portland and United States Rents Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
Figure 5. Percent Homeless by Race/Ethnicity—2017 PIT Count and Multnomah County Compared . . . .  33
Figure 6. Excess Rate of Homelessness Among People of Color Compared to White,
Not Hispanic Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
Figure 7. Differences in Housing Situation by Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
Figure 8. Differences in Gender Identity by Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
Figure 9. Chronic Homelessness Status — Differences within Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
Figure 10. Disabling Conditions and Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
Figure 11. Domestic Violence and Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
Figure 12. Veteran Status and Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
Figure 13. Household Types and Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
Figure 14. Distribution of Homeless Households by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
Figure 15. Household Types of People of Color and Total Homeless Population Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51

Page 8

 Figure 16. Differences in Housing Situation for Children under Age Eighteen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
Figure 17. Differences in Housing Situation for Unaccompanied Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
Figure 18. Differences in Housing Situation by Age Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
Figure 19. Differences in Housing Situation for Male, Female, and Transgender Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
Figure 20. Distribution of Household Types by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
Figure 21. Differences in Prevalence of Domestic Violence within Gender Identity-Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . .  65
Figure 22. Differences in Housing Situation for Chronically-Homeless and
Not-Chronically-Homeless Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  68
Figure 23. Differences in Household Types for People Who Are Chronically Homeless and
Not Chronically Homeless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  68
Figure 24. Differences in Gender Identity for Chronically-Homeless and
Not-Chronically-Homeless Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69
Figure 25. Differences in Housing Situation of Subpopulations with and without Disabling Conditions. . .  72
Figure 26. Gender Identity Differences between Respondents with and without Disabling Conditions. . .  72
Figure 27. Differences in Housing Situation of Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience Domestic
Violence—Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  75
Figure 28. Differences in Gender Identity of Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience
Domestic Violence—Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 29. Differences in Household Types of Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience
Domestic Violence—Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 30. Differences in Housing Situation for Veterans and Nonveterans—Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
Figure 31. Differences in Chronic Homelessness for Veterans and Nonveterans—Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . .  79
Figure 32. Differences in the Presence of Disabling Conditions for Veterans and
Nonveterans—Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
Figure 33. Differences in Gender Identity for Veterans and Nonveterans-Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
Figure 34. Number of People Who Were Unsheltered, 2007−2017 PIT Counts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81
Figure 35. Sleeping Location of People Who Were Unsheltered—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . .  84
Figure 36. Geographic Location of the Unsheltered Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . 87
Figure 37. Duration of Current Episode of Unsheltered Homelessness—2015 and 2017 Compared . . . . . .  90
Figure 38. Unsheltered Homeless Population Attending School—2015 and 2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . .  92
Figure 39. Employment Status—2015 and 2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  94
Figure 40. Day the Refusal Form Was Completed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 41. Homeless on February 22, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 42. Reasons for Declining to Participate in the Street Count Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 43. Type of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 44. Nonparticipants Who Slept in a Tent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 45. Gender of Nonparticipants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 46. Age Group of Nonparticipants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Page 9

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2017 PIT Count Results at a Glance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
Table 2. People Who Were Counted as Homeless During PIT Count 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
Table 3. Number of People Experiencing Homelessness–2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
Table 4. Per Capita Rate of Homelessness­—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
Table 5. PIT Subpopulation Data from HUD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
Table 6. Race/Ethnicity of People Unsheltered and Sheltered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
Table 7. Inclusive Identity Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
Table 8. Race/Ethnicity by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
Table 9. Changes in Race/Ethnicity­—2013, 2015, and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
Table 10. Race/Ethnicity Distribution by Housing Situation—2015 and 2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
Table 11. Composition of Households Experiencing Homeless by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
Table 12. Sleeping Location of Households Who Were Unsheltered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
Table 13. Housing Situation by Household Composition—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
Table 14. Count and Distribution of Children under Age Eighteen by Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
Table 15. Count and Distribution of Unaccompanied Youth by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
Table 16. Children and Youth Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
Table 17. Count of Unaccompanied Youth—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
Table 18. Differences in Race/Ethnicity of Unaccompanied Youth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
Table 19. Differences in Race/Ethnicity of Unaccompanied Youth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
Table 20. Distribution of Age Groups by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
Table 21. Age of Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
Table 22. Gender Distribution by Housing Situation—All Ages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
Table 23. Gender Distribution by Housing Situation—Adults (Age 18 Years and Over). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  61
Table 24. Gender Distribution of the Homeless Population (Adults and Children)—2015 and
2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  62
Table 25. Gender Distribution of the Homeless Population (Adults) by Housing Situation—2015 and
2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63
Table 26. Duration of Homelessness by Gender Identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65
Table 27. Distribution of Chronically Homeless Population Unsheltered and in Emergency Shelters. . . . . .  66
Table 28. Chronically Homeless Unsheltered and in Emergency Shelter—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . .  67
Table 29. Disabling Condition by Housing Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70
Table 30. Types of Disabling Conditions by Housing Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70
Table 31. Housing Situation of People with a Disability—2015 and 2017 Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  71
Table 32. Distribution of Responses to the Domestic Violence Question-Adults Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  73
Table 33. Fleeing Domestic Violence—Adult Unsheltered Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74

Page 10

 Table 34. Count of Female Respondents Experiencing Domestic Violence—Adult Females Only . . . . . . . . .  75
Table 35. Distribution of Responses to the Veteran Status Question-Adults Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77
Table 36. Count of Veterans in 2015 and 2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  78
Table 37. Sleeping Location of People Who Were Unsheltered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  82
Table 38. Other Unsheltered Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 39. Use of Tent at the Sleeping Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  85
Table 40. Geographic Location of the Unsheltered Homeless Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  86
Table 41. Respondents Experiencing First-Time Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  88
Table 42. Duration of Current Episode of Unsheltered Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  89
Table 43. Unsheltered Homeless Population Attending School—All Ages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  91
Table 44. Unsheltered Homeless Population Attending School – by age categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  91
Table 45. Employment Status of Unsheltered Homeless Population—All Ages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  93
Table 46. Employment Status of Unsheltered Homeless Population by Age Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  93
Table 47. Length of Stay in Multnomah County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  95
Table 48. Homelessness Status When Moving to Multnomah County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  96
Table 49. Reasons for Migrating to Multnomah County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  97
Table 50. Reasons for Migrating to Multnomah County Based on Homelessness Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  98
Table 51. Origin of Migration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  99
Table 52. Origins of Migration to Multnomah County Based on Homelessness Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Table 53. Number of Doubled up, Pre-K, and K−12 Students, 2015–2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 54. Estimating Doubled up Population Based on Student Count. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 55. Geographic Location of Nonparticipants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Table 56. Race or Ethnicity of Nonparticipants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 57. PIT Count Methodology—2015 and 2017 Compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Page 11

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2017 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count of Homelessness provides a snapshot of people who were
experiencing homelessness on the night of Wednesday, February 22, 2017, in Portland, Gresham, and
Multnomah County, Oregon. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires
communities to count people living in emergency shelters, transitional housing or places not meant for
human habitation (these people are collectively known as “HUD homeless”) on a single night (a “point in
time”) at least once every two years. This enumeration is one way of understanding the levels and trends in
unmet need for shelter and permanent housing within the community. The last PIT count was conducted
on January 28, 2015.
The PIT count consists of two components:
•• the street count, which captures information on people who are unsheltered (e.g., sleeping outside, in
a vehicle, tent, or other place not intended for human habitation)
•• the one night shelter count (ONSC), which tallies people sleeping in emergency shelters and
transitional housing for the homeless
Table 1. 2017 PIT Count Results at a Glance
Housing Situation

Number

Unsheltered

1,668

Emergency shelter

1,752

Transitional housing

757

Total

4,177

Figure 1. Proportion of People Who Slept in Various
Housing Situations
Transitional Housing
18.1%
Unsheltered
39.9%

Emergency Shelter
41.9%

Page 12

 Overall, this represents a 9.9 percent increase in the total population counted (4,177) compared to
the 2015 PIT count (3,801). Notably, though, this year’s figures represent an 11.6 percent decrease in
the unsheltered population since 2015, and a 31 percent increase in the sheltered population. The
unsheltered population count is the lowest it has been since 2009 (when it was 1,591). The decline in
the count of unsheltered individuals, despite ongoing challenges such as rapidly increasing housing
costs and stagnant incomes for low-income households, likely reflects the community’s significant
expansion of prevention, housing placement, and emergency shelter capacity over the past two
years. Because of the expansion of emergency shelter, the number of people counted in shelter beds
increased from 872 in 2015 to 1,752 in 2017, a 100 percent increase.
The count did not capture comprehensive information about people who are sharing the housing
of others for economic reasons (a situation frequently referred to as “doubled up”), but an analysis of
available data from local school districts indicates that there are at least twice as many households with
school age children attending public schools who are living doubled up than in 2015. It is important to
note that such an estimate is partial and does not cover other types of households. See Section 4 of this
report for a discussion of doubled up population.
Due to the inherent difficulty of obtaining a complete count of everyone who experiences
homelessness on a given night, the actual number of people who were homeless in Multnomah County
on the night of the count is undoubtedly higher than the number documented in this report. It is also
important to note that many more people experience homelessness over the course of a year than on a
single night. Point-in-time counts provide a useful profile of the homeless population on one night, but
they are merely a snapshot in time. They do not capture the full picture of homelessness over time, and
they do not enable us to understand seasonal or episodic variations in the homeless population and in
service-use patterns over the course of the year.
Portland and Multnomah County, like similar communities along the West Coast, continue to
struggle with overall increases in HUD homelessness. Recently released data from King County
(Seattle), Los Angeles County, and Alameda County (Oakland) suggest even larger increases in the
overall homelessness in those communities. And while Multnomah County’s unsheltered population
decreased, each of these communities saw increases in their unsheltered populations. Common to
these communities are growing disparities between incomes and rents, record-low vacancy rates, a
critical lack of deeply affordable housing, and insufficient access among very low-income households to
quality employment, adequate benefit levels, and health care, especially mental health and addictionrelated care.
There are some important differences, however, for Portland and Multnomah County. Not only did
our HUD homeless count increase at a lower rate than other big West Coast communities, but our
reported unsheltered population also declined. Since 2015, while our unsheltered count declined nearly
12 percent, Seattle’s count rose 45 percent, Los Angeles County’s went up 48 percent and Alameda
County’s climbed 61 percent.

Page 13

 Key Findings
»» Racial Disparities: People of color made up 36.6 percent of this year’s HUD homeless count, up
slightly from 35.6 percent (see page 36). By contrast, people of color make up 28.7 percent of
Multnomah County’s population. Within the unsheltered population, 32.1 percent were people
of color. This reflects a continuation of racial disparities in homelessness observed in previous
point in time counts.
• • The most substantial disparities were seen among Native Americans, who were more than 400%
more likely to be homeless compared to people who are white and not Hispanic or Latino. Native
Americans who were HUD homeless increased from 82 (2.2%) in 2015 to 424 (10.2%) in 2017. It is
very unlikely that this change reflects an actual five-fold increase in the number of Native American
people experiencing homelessness over just the past two years. Rather, it is likely a correction of
an unexplained issue with the 2015 count. The 2015 PIT report called out its extremely low tally of
Native Americans and noted that no practitioners believed the count accurately reflected reality
for Native Americans at that time. The 2017 number of 424 much more closely mirrors the 2013
number of 386, which was 9 percent of the HUD homeless population. Compared to 2013, Native
Americans have seen an increase in both their real numbers (38) and their percentage of the HUD
homeless population (up 1.2%).
• • Hispanics/Latinos saw a small numeric increase (39 people), but no change in their percentage of
the HUD homeless population at 10.2 percent.
• • There were 186 fewer African Americans in the HUD homeless population, compared to 2015,
resulting in their percentage of HUD homeless falling from 22.7 percent to 16.2 percent. That
included a 57.6 percent decrease in African Americans experiencing unsheltered homelessness,
from 396 in 2015 to 168 in 2017. Even with these reductions, African Americans are still 180% more
likely to experience homelessness than people who are white and not Hispanic or Latino.
• • Asians and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders each saw their percentage of the HUD homeless
population change by less than half a percentage point. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islanders are 198% more likely to experience homelessness than people who are white and not
Hispanic or Latino.
The CoC sums up these findings as continuing persistence of disparities in rates of HUD homelessness
for African Americans, Native Americans and Native Pacific Islanders compared to their overall share of
Multnomah County’s population. Further, the CoC observes that over the last two years, the disparity
has declined for African Americans consistent with the priority that A Home for Everyone has placed
on increasing services to this group. However, African Americans, like Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islanders, continue to experience homelessness at a rate more than twice as high as their percentage
of the population in Multnomah County. The greatest documented disparity is for Native Americans,
whose rate of HUD homelessness is about four times higher than their percentage of the population.
»» Families: People who were part of families with children made up 15.7 percent of those who were
experiencing homelessness on the night of the count. Most (83.9%) of the remaining PIT respondents were people in adult-only (no minor children) households. The Portland/Gresham/Multnomah
Continuum of Care (CoC) has made a commitment not to turn any family away from shelter, and
has significantly expanded family shelter capacity over the past two years. This may explain why the
trend from unsheltered homelessness toward sheltered homelessness is most pronounced among

Page 14

 families. Although the number of homeless people in families remained essentially unchanged between 2015 and 2017 (rising from 653 to 654), the unsheltered count dropped from 152 to 77, a 49
percent reduction.
»» Chronically Homeless: Just under one-third (30.9%) of the population who were homeless met HUD’s
current definition of chronic homelessness. While the number of chronically homeless people rose
by 24.9 percent, a rate higher than the overall increase in homelessness, the number of unsheltered
chronically homeless individuals increased by less than 5 percent, rising from 875 to 917 between 2015
and 2017. Instead, a larger increase in the number of chronically homeless people in shelter can be observed; that number more than doubled from 158 to 373, reflecting the CoC’s commitment to creating
low-barrier shelter that better meets the needs of our disabled and long-term homeless population.
A significant majority of chronically homeless people remain unsheltered, at 71.1 percent, but that is
down from 84.7 percent in 2015.
»» Gender: Overall, 1,355 women (adults only) were counted as homeless in the 2017 PIT count, making
up 36.2 percent of the total HUD homeless population. This was up 16.7 percent from the 1,161
women counted in 2015. The CoC observes that the drop in unsheltered adult women from 566 in
2015 to 471 in 2017, a 16.8 percent decrease, along with well more than double the number of women
in emergency shelter, aligns with targeted expansions in emergency shelter serving women, including
women in couples.
Another important change from 2015 to 2017 is in the number of individuals who identified as transgender. While the total number remains small, 44, it is more than double the number who identified as
transgender in 2015 (20). Also notable is that, at 27.3 percent, those who identified as transgender had
a lower unsheltered rate than those who identified as men or women.
»» Veterans: Among the population experiencing unsheltered and sheltered homelessness, 446 adults,
representing 11.9 percent, identified as being veterans. In comparison, according to most recent
figures from the Census, 5.2 percent of Multnomah County’s population has veteran status. So, there is
an overrepresentation of veterans in the County’s population experiencing homelessness. This number
was 422 in 2015. While the total number is up by 24, the question in 2015 defined veteran status
more narrowly than the question in 2017. Therefore, the two years are not comparable for purposes
of showing a trend. But this year’s number closely mirrors the number of veterans counted as “active”
(e.g., engaged in housing process) and “inactive” (not currently engaging) on the community’s Veteran
By-Name Registry.
According to the CoC, the observed increases were not surprising. While over the past two years, more
than 1,300 veterans have been moved from homelessness into permanent housing, it is also true that
even as one veteran escapes homelessness, another is likely becoming homeless. For the CoC, these
current PIT data primarily illustrate the urgency of continuing to fully support the housing placement
capacity for veterans built over the past two years.
»» Disability: Of the 4,177 people counted, 2,527 (60.5%) reported living with one or more disability, including a mental disability, chronic physical condition, and/or a substance-use disorder. A sizable share
(71.6%) of the unsheltered population reported that they have one or more disabling conditions. In addition, 47.0 percent of the population in emergency shelters and 67.1 percent of people in transitional
housing reported one or more disabling conditions. The number of people with disabling conditions
increased by 350 (a change of 16.1 percent) between the 2015 and the 2017 PIT counts.
Page 15

 »» Domestic Violence: Just over one-third (33.7%) of the respondents experiencing unsheltered and
sheltered homelessness reported that they have experienced domestic violence. The proportion of
respondents who reported having experienced domestic violence was nearly the same in unsheltered
locations (36.7%) and among those in emergency shelters (33.1%). Just over one quarter (27.5%) of
people in transitional housing reported experiencing domestic violence.
Because of significant confusion about the domestic violence question on the 2015 survey, the
2017 survey used a different question designed to better capture the experience of intimate-partner
violence. As a result, a meaningful contrast between results from 2015 and 2017 is not possible. Consistent with national data, however, a very high percentage of women experiencing HUD homelessness
report having a history of domestic violence. In 2017, 743 women (54.8% of the women counted)
reported experiencing domestic violence.
»» Selected Findings from the Street Count: Information about the unsheltered population was
collected through an in-person survey that included several questions not posed to those counted in
shelter and transitional housing. Findings from these questions include the following:
• • Sleeping location. Street/sidewalks served as a sleeping location for just under a third (29.9%) of the
unsheltered homeless population (1,668). A greater portion (15.4%) reported sleeping in vehicles
than in 2015. 104 people (6.2%) slept at Dignity Village, Hazelnut Grove and Right 2 Dream Too.
• • Geographic location. SE Portland (river to 82nd) at 22.1 percent and Downtown/Old Town/Pearl
at 20.7 percent were the geographic areas where a higher share of the unsheltered homeless
population slept than all other listed areas.
• • First-time homelessness. The 2017 PIT survey included a new question to assess whether the
respondents were experiencing first-time homelessness. Well over half (54.6%) of the people
experiencing unsheltered homeless reported that this was not the first time they were experiencing
homelessness. Just under one-third (29.1%) of the unsheltered population reported that this was
the first time they were experiencing homelessness. Notably, the proportion of unknown responses,
at 16.3 percent, was rather high.
• • Duration of homelessness. Just over one-third (33.8%) of those counted as unsheltered reported
being homeless a year or less during their current episode of homelessness. This includes 5.5
percent of the respondents who had been homeless for less than one month, 15.1 percent whose
current episode of homelessness lasted one to six months, and 13.2 percent who had been
homeless for seven to twelve months. Just over half (52.6%) reported that their current episode of
homelessness had lasted longer than one year, and responses for 13.5 percent are unknown.
• Migration.
•
Just over one-fifth (20.4%) of those counted as unsheltered reported being originally
from Multnomah County, and an additional 46.2% reported being in Multnomah County for
over two years. This indicates that at least two-thirds (66.6%) of people experiencing unsheltered
homelessness are not newcomers to the county. Among those not originally from Multnomah
County, the most common reasons cited for coming here were connections to family or friends
(34.7%) or job opportunities (13.8%). Only 83 people (6.3% of the total unsheltered population who
were originally not from Multnomah County) reported that they were homeless when they moved
here and cited access to services as a reason for moving here.

Page 16

 INTRODUCTION
The 2017 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count of Homelessness is a count and survey of people across Multnomah
County who either slept in unsheltered locations, slept in emergency shelters or transitional housing,
or who received vouchers to sleep in motels on the night of February 22, 2017. The Portland/Gresham/
Multnomah County Continuum of Care (CoC) is required to conduct this count at least biennially during
the last ten days in January. However, because of inclement weather conditions, the 2017 count was
conducted in late February.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates all CoCs to plan and conduct
the PIT count. The purpose of this count is to collect reliable data on the total number and characteristics
of all people who are homeless (sheltered and unsheltered) on a single night. At the national level, HUD
uses the PIT count data as a measure of local and national progress toward preventing and ending
homelessness. Submission of the data is also required in order to participate in the annual competitive
application process for CoC homeless services funding disbursed by HUD.
The objective of this report is to share the results of the 2017 PIT count. The data analysis and findings
provide the following:
•• a snapshot of people experiencing homelessness (unsheltered and sheltered) on the night of
February 22, 2017
•• demographic characteristics of people in unsheltered and sheltered locations
•• additional findings on the population that is unsheltered
The 2017 PIT count was a collaborative effort between the Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) and
Portland State University (PSU). The Population Research Center and the Survey Research Lab at PSU were
directly involved in planning, coordination, execution, analysis, and reporting of the count. The current
count builds upon the work of Kristina Smock Consulting, which facilitated and analyzed past counts.
The report has five main sections:
1.  Point-in-time count numbers
2.  Demographics of the homeless population and subpopulation data
3.  Additional unsheltered (street count) findings
4.  Doubled up estimates
5.  Nonparticipants analysis

Page 17

 The geography of the Portland/Gresham/Multnomah CoC is depicted in the following map:

Maywood Park
Fairview

Portland

Wood
Village

Troutdale

Multnomah Co.

Gresham

Source: Data from RLIS, 2017

HUD definition of homelessness
Unsheltered count includes individuals or families “with a primary nighttime residence that is a public
or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human
beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground”
on the night designated for the count.1
Sheltered count includes individuals or families “living in a supervised publicly or privately owned
shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters,
transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state,
or local government programs for low-income individuals)” on the night designated for the count.2

1.   US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Continuum of Care,
24 CFR Part 578, (effective date August 30, 2012), p. 55, https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/CoCProgramInterimRule_
FormattedVersion.pdf
2.   Ibid., p. 56.

Page 18

 1. POINT-IN-TIME COUNT NUMBERS
1.1. BACKGROUND
Recipients of federal CoC program funding are required to plan and conduct, at least biennially,
a PIT count of people experiencing homelessness in their respective communities. The purpose
of this PIT count is to collect reliable data on the total number and characteristics of all people
(sheltered and unsheltered) who are homeless on a single night in late January. HUD, the agency
that administers the CoC program, provides specific guidelines to conduct this count that include
the following:
•• definition of homeless and other related concepts
•• required data elements for describing characteristics of the homeless community
•• considerations and requirements for selecting a date and time to conduct the count
•• appropriate training for the volunteers and staff who will be involved in the data collection
•• standards that cover issues like no double-counting, protection of participant privacy and safety,
adequate geographic coverage, and more
In accordance with HUD requirements, the Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County CoC has conducted
the PIT count on biennial cycles, with the last count conducted in 2015. Since 2017 marks the biennial
cycle, a PIT count was planned for Wednesday, January 25, 2017. However, severe weather in the form of
multiple heavy snowstorms hit the Portland metro area during January 2017. Understandably, area service
providers and concerned citizens were focused on the critical need to keep individuals and families safe,
warm, and sheltered under these harsh weather conditions. With prior authorization from HUD, the count
was postponed to February 22, 2017, the last Wednesday in that month to match HUD guidelines for the
PIT count.

1.2. DEFINITIONS
Unsheltered count includes individuals or families “with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or
private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings,
including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground” on the night
designated for the count.3
Sheltered count includes individuals or families “living in a supervised publicly or privately owned shelter
designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing,
and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, or local government
programs for low-income individuals)” on the night designated for the count.4
Emergency shelter is defined as “any facility, the primary purpose of which is to provide a temporary shelter
for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the homeless, and which does not require
occupants to sign leases or occupancy agreements.” 5

3.   Ibid., p. 55.
4.   Ibid., p. 56.
5.   HUD’s Emergency Shelter Grants Program, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 233, (December 5, 2011), p. 75974, https://www.hudexchange.info/
resources/documents/HEARTH_ESGInterimRule&ConPlanConformingAmendments.pdf

Page 19

 Transitional housing means “housing, where all program participants have signed a lease or
occupancy agreement, the purpose of which is to facilitate the movement of individuals and families
experiencing homelessness to permanent housing within 24 months or such longer period as HUD
determines necessary.” 6
Doubled up is not part of HUD’s definition of homelessness and refers to the living arrangement of
individuals and families who are living in unstable shared-housing situations due to challenging economic
or other circumstances. Since any count of the people who are experiencing homelessness at a given time
will likely be incomplete without at least an estimate of the number of people who may be doubled up,
this report provides that estimation using data that area school districts regularly collect on their students.
Oregon Department of Education (ODE) defines doubled up as a homeless living situation for children
who are sharing housing due to loss of housing or lack of alternative accommodations.7
In addition to doubled up individuals and families, there are other exclusions in the PIT count. For instance,
persons residing in institutions (e.g., jails, juvenile correction facilities, foster care, hospital beds, and detox
centers) are excluded.8
Chronically Homeless Individual is “an individual who: A. Is homeless and lives in a place not meant for
human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter; and B. Has been homeless and living or
residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter continuously
for at least 1 year or on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years; and C. Can be diagnosed with
one or more of the following conditions: substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental
disability—(as defined in section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance Bill of Rights Act of 2000
(42 U.S.C. 15002)—), post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from brain injury, or
chronic physical illness or disability.9
Chronically Homeless Family is “a family with an adult head of household (or if there is no adult in the family,
a minor head of household) who meets all of the criteria for a chronically homeless individual, including a
family whose composition has fluctuated while the head of household has been homeless.”10

1.3. METHODOLOGY
Appendix B provides a detailed overview of the PIT count methodology. The count has two primary
components:
•• the street count component meant for the enumeration of people experiencing unsheltered
homelessness
•• the one-night shelter count (ONSC) component meant for the enumeration of people experiencing
sheltered homelessness

6.   US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Continuum of Care,
24 CFR Part 578, (effective date August 30, 2012), p. 58, https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/CoCProgramInterimRule_
FormattedVersion.pdf
7.   McKinney-Vento Act Homeless Education Program (NCLB: Title X), http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/nclb/title_x/txdefinitions.rtf
8.   US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014 Point-In-Time Methodology Guide, (September 2014), p. 30, https://www.
hudexchange.info/resources/documents/PIT-Count-Methodology-Guide.pdf
9.   US Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Planning and Development. HUD CPD-14-014, (October 2, 2014), p. 26,
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Notice-CPD-14-014-2015-HIC-PIT-Data-Collection-Notice.pdf
10.  Ibid.

Page 20

 While both the street count and ONSC for 2017 used the same basic methodology that was used in 2015,
there were important differences. These included the following:
•• a new partnership between JOHS and PSU’s Population Research Center (PRC) and Survey Research
Lab (SRL) to plan, coordinate and implement the PIT count
•• application of relevant techniques used by SRL to standardize the data collection process
•• modifications to a few questions on the street count form
•• use of a separate form to track refusal to participate in the survey
•• rescheduling of the 2017 PIT count to February due to weather
•• creation of a data-sharing agreement between JOHS and PSU that allowed for analysis of raw data for
the report

1.4. SUMMARY FINDINGS OF PIT COUNT 2017
A total of 4,177 people (unsheltered and sheltered) were counted as homeless on February 22, 2017, the
night of the PIT count. See Table 2 for details.
Table 2. People Who Were Counted as Homeless During PIT Count 2017
Housing Situation

Number

Percent

Unsheltered

1,668

39.9%

Emergency shelter

1,752

41.9%

Transitional housing

757

18.1%

4,177

100.0%

Total

Changes in methodology compared to previous years prevent estimation of the point-in-time prevalence
of people who are doubled up. For a discussion and estimate of a portion of the doubled up population,
see Section 4 of this report.

1.5. CHANGES FROM 2015 TO 2017
The last PIT count was conducted on January 28, 2015. Comparing results between the 2015 and 2017
counts provides an opportunity to assess changes to the number of homeless people and changes to the
share of homeless people who are sheltered and unsheltered. The following tables and figures provide
highlights of the changes.
1.5.1. Change in PIT Count Numbers
For comparison of changes in number and proportions of people who were unsheltered, in emergency
shelter, and in transitional housing, see Table 3.

Page 21

 Table 3. Number of People Experiencing Homelessness–2015 and 2017 Compared
Housing Situation

Percent Change
2015−2017

2015

2017

Change

Unsheltered

1,887
(49.6%)

1,668
(39.9%)

219
(-9.7%)

-11.6%

Emergency shelter

872
(22.9%)

1,752
(41.9%)

880
(19.0%)

100.9%

Transitional housing

1,042
(27.4%)

757
(18.1%)

285
(-9.3%)

-27.4%

3,801

4,177

376

9.9%

Total

For a comparison of changes to the share of
homeless people in unsheltered and sheltered
housing situations, see figure 2.

Figure 2. Share of People Sheltered and
Unsheltered­­—2015 and 2017 Compared

The notable change to population in emergency
shelters between PIT 2015 and PIT 2017 reflects
the local CoC’s commitment to increase the
number of shelter beds. In the past two years,
the number of publicly-funded emergency
shelter beds has approximately doubled, with
an increase of more than 600 beds. For further
discussion of changes between 2015 and 2017,
see subsection 1.7.

100%
90%
80%

27.4%

18.1%

70%
60%

22.9%

41.9%

50%
40%
30%
20%

49.6%
39.9%

1.5.2. Doubled Up
10%
A side-by-side comparison of data on people
0%
living doubled up in 2015 and 2017 is not
2015
2017
possible because the process of producing
Unsheltered
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing
the data was different. In 2015, the author
used point-in-time data from three sourcesSource: PIT count 2015 and 2017.
Oregon Department of Human Services, 211info
(Housing Services Hotline) and ODE to calculate
the share of the population who self-identified as doubled up. The author then used the average of these
shares to calculate a rough estimate of 12,453 people who were identified as likely doubled up on the
night of the 2015 PIT count.
For 2017, based on annual ODE data on students
living doubled up due to loss of housing or lack of
alternative accommodations, an estimated 9,522
people (including children and their household
members) were living in doubled up situations
during the 2015−2016 academic year; 3,653 of
those were children attending public school

The large increase in people counted
in emergency shelters follows a local
commitment to nearly double the number of
publicly-funded shelter beds.

Page 22

 in Multnomah County. This estimate does not include doubled up individuals or families who may be
childless or have no children in public schools and who may be living in doubled up situations. So, the
9,522 provides only an estimate of a portion of the doubled up population.
1.5.3. Change in Per Capita Rate of Homelessness
The per capita rate of homelessness is a City of Portland budget impact measure11 that tracks the number
of "literally homeless" from the PIT count (unsheltered and emergency shelters). It is calculated as the
number of people who are unsheltered or in emergency shelter out of every 10,000 people in the
population. For a comparison of changes to rate of per capita homelessness, see Table 4.
Table 4. Per Capita Rate of Homelessness­—2015 and 2017 Compared

Per capita rate of homelessness

2015

2017

Change

35.89

42.76

6.87

Source: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2016, US Census Bureau, Population Division. 
Note: 2017 per capita homelessness has been calculated by dividing the 2017 PIT count of 3,420 (1,668 unsheltered and 1,752 in
emergency shelters) by 799,766, the most recent population estimate for Multnomah County.

The per capita rate of homelessness has increased 19.1 percent between 2015 and 2017.

Figure 3. Review of PIT Counts by Housing Situation, 2009−2017
5,000
4,655
4,500

4,441
4,177

4,145

4,000

3,801

1,928

757

1,572

3,500

1,042

1,690
3,000
2,500

872

1,718

1,895

1,887

2011

2013

2015

1,009
2,000

1,752

974

864

1,500
1,000

1,591

1,668

500

2009
Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

2017
Transitional Housing

Source: PIT counts: 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017

11.  Details on per capita rate of homelessness can be found in Portland Housing Bureau Impact Measure and Narrative.

Page 23

 1.6. INTERPRETING THE CHANGES
Enhancements to the PIT count methodology and regulatory guidance from HUD between counts
make it difficult to compare counts across time. Although efforts are made to maintain methodological
consistency between counts, each count is a static documentation of people who were experiencing
homelessness on the night of the count. Each count represents a separate snapshot in time and should
not be confused with longitudinal studies. Figure 3 (see page 23) summarizes prior and current PIT
count data.
Changes to the number and characteristics of people experiencing homelessness in 2015 and in 2017
are influenced by the design of the PIT counts and the local context within which people experience
unsheltered and sheltered homelessness.
1.6.1. Design
By design, the PIT count provides a snapshot of the number of people experiencing sheltered and
unsheltered homelessness on a given night in January (for 2017, it was rescheduled to a single night
in February). In addition to providing overall numbers, the effort provides information on selected
characteristics of this group of people. While comparing data from the 2015 and 2017 PIT counts is
necessary and helpful, it is important to keep in perspective the following:
•• PIT counts in 2015 and 2017 are separate snapshots in time and may or may not include the same
set of people. While chronic homelessness captures some people who continue to experience
homelessness in longer cycles, many - if not most - of those counted in one PIT count may not be
counted in another PIT count.
•• The PIT counts are an effort at a full count. However, unlike usual census taking, which starts with
an existing list of contact information for potential respondents, the PIT count process generates an
organic list of respondents during every round. This again means that we may or may not be counting
the same people. So, no longitudinal conclusions can be drawn between the 2015 and 2017 counts.
•• Responding to the PIT survey is voluntary—people may refuse to provide information for any or all
survey questions. The survey was voluntary in 2015 and in 2017; however, the process for tracking
refusals was different. In 2015, enumerators recorded basic counts of people or camps that they were
unable to approach and those who refused to participate. Those estimates were not differentiated.
In 2017, a distinct form was used to track refusals. The intent behind this design change was to gain
insights (if any) on the demographics and other characteristics of those who refuse. (See section 5 for
details). It is important to note that while refusals help us understand the undercount, some of these
people may have responded to the count at another time or place.
•• A variety of factors influence each PIT count, including changes in definitions, weather, timing, and
who is involved in conducting the count. For instance, in January 2016, HUD tweaked the definition
of chronic homelessness to require that the minimum four episodes of homelessness add up to a full
year to constitute chronic homelessness. In terms of timing, unlike in past years, the 2017 count was
conducted in February following unusually snowy and cold weather. February 2017 also turned out
to be a very wet month in the Portland metro area (see the methodology section of the report for
details). Such changes influence comparability between counts even further.
1.6.2. Local Context
The PIT count does not assess causes for falling into homelessness. However, there are other surveys and
studies that attempt to understand causes for homelessness. One such survey is the annual status report

Page 24

 that the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) produces
on hunger and homelessness in American cities. This report has
been produced since 1982 and is based on information gathered
through surveys of cities whose mayors are members of the USCM
Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness. These surveys do not
include all cities and are not extensive. Nonetheless, the surveys
help us understand the state of hunger and homelessness in
several cities annually.

The PIT count does not assess
causes for homelessness;
however, we know that lack
of affordable housing is a
leading factor.

The USCM survey that assesses status of homelessness includes this question on causality: “What are
the three main causes of homelessness among families with children in your city?” To understand the
persistence of causes for homelessness, it is interesting to look at the findings from the 2005 and 2015
USCM status reports.
Status report 2005 states the following:
A number of diverse and complex factors have contributed to the problems of homelessness
in the survey cities. Many of these factors are interrelated. Listed in order of frequency, the
following causes were identified by the cities in response to an open-ended question: lack of
affordable housing, low paying jobs, substance abuse and the lack of needed services, mental
illness and the lack of needed services, domestic violence, poverty, and changes and cuts in
public assistance.12
Status report 2015 states the following:
City officials also identified lack of affordable housing as the leading cause of homelessness
among unaccompanied individuals. This was followed by poverty, mental health and the lack of
needed services, and substance abuse.13
It is interesting to note that the causes of homelessness identified in the status reports have not varied
much in ten years, and that a lack of affordable housing and poverty continue to figure prominently in
the list.
In another study that was more rigorous methodologically, authors Byrne et al. examined the root cause
of homelessness by using then newly available and more reliable estimates from the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development to model variation in the rate of homelessness across a large and diverse
sample of communities throughout the United States. The authors summarized their findings as follows:
Three primary points can be drawn from the results of our study. First, our findings provide additional evidence that homelessness has its roots in housing market dynamics, and particularly
in the difficulty in obtaining affordable housing. Second, both of our metropolitan area models
find the size of the baby-boomer cohort, the size of the Hispanic population, and the number of
recently moved households to be positively associated with homelessness. Third, and finally, our
study points to the great potential in using the newly available HUD PIT estimates of the homeless population to build on prior research and arrive at a better understanding of the structural
determinants of homelessness.14
12.  The United States Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness Survey in America’s Cities, (December 2005), p. 63,
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/USCM_Hunger-homelessness-Survey-in-America's-Cities_12%202005.pdf
13.  The United States Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness Survey in America’s Cities, (December 2015), p. 2, http://
chicagohelpinitiative.org/assets/uploads/files/1221-report-hhreport.pdf
14.  Thomas Byrne, et al., “New Perspectives on Community-Level Determinants of Homelessness.” Journal of Urban Affairs 35, no. 5 (2013): 607-625.

Page 25

 While these findings are not directly tied to the cities of Portland or Gresham, housing affordabilty and
homelessness are likely heavily impacted by the housing market. Portland metro and Multnomah County
continue to experience population growth. The sustained population growth is fueling demand for
housing, and the housing supply cannot keep pace. This imbalance is fueling a housing affordability crisis
for renters and owners in the area. Housing is generally considered affordable if the housing costs do not
exceed 30 percent of the household income.
According to a recent release from the S&P/Case-Shiller US National Home Price Index that measures
changes to home prices through a twenty-city composite index, “Seattle, Portland, and Dallas reported the
highest year-over-year gains among the 20 cities. In March, Seattle led the way with a 12.3 percent yearover-year price increase, followed by Portland with 9.2 percent, and Dallas with an 8.6 percent increase.
Ten cities reported higher price increases in the year ending March 2017 than in the year ending February
2017.”15
Meanwhile, rapidly rising rents are straining tenants. The sobering affordability crisis in the rental market is
evident in a recently published rental market overview by Zillow.16 (see figure 4).
Figure 4. Portland and United States
Rents Compared

Source: Zillow Real Estate Research, June 2017

According to Zillow, Portland metro rents are higher than
the nation as a whole, and the annual change in rent at 3.5
percent far exceeds that of the nation.
In their report Out of Reach, which documents the gap
between renters’ wages and the cost of rental housing,
the National Low Income Housing Coalition establishes
the connection between median rent in an area and the
renter wages that would be required to afford a modest
home. According to the report, in today’s housing market,
a full-time worker in the Portland metro area would need
to earn an annual income of $49,680 in order to afford a
two bedroom apartment in the metro area without being
rent burdened. This would require the worker to work forty
hours a week at $23.88 per hour or work for ninetytwo
hours a week at Oregon’s current minimum wage.17

Area renters continue to contend with one of the tightest
rental markets in the county in a region that keeps
growing. The US Census Bureau’s latest data place Portland’s rental housing vacancy rate at 2.9 percent,
which is among the lowest in the country. The low vacancy rate is further stressing the housing market.
Exacerbating the steep increases in housing prices and rents is the uneven economic recovery in the
Portland metro area. An Oregon state analyst noted that the fastest employment growth in Portland
has come at polar ends of the spectrum—low-wage jobs, such as those in the hospitality industry that
average $21,000 a year, and high-wage jobs, such as those in tech manufacturing, that average more than

15.  S&P Dow Jones Indices, “Seattle, Portland, Dallas and Denver Lead Gains in S&P Corelogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices,” news release,
May 30, 2017, https://www.spice-indices.com/idpfiles/spice-assets/resources/public/documents/531755_cshomeprice-release-0530.
pdf?force_download=true
16.  Zillow Real Estate Research, (June 2017), https://files.zillowstatic.com/research/public/rental/ZRI.Portland.394998.pdf
17.  National Low Income Housing Coalition, "Out of Reach 2017,"(2017), http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2017.pdf

Page 26

 $130,000. There has been scant increase in middle-income jobs. “The cruel irony is that, in the shadow
of this economic growth, there is crushing structural poverty,” wrote Christian Kaylor of the Oregon
Employment Department, which conducted an analysis of job growth. “It’s a classic tale of economic
divide. And that divide is growing.”18
The recently released State of Housing in Portland report also documents this connection between soaring
housing costs and lagging income.
The latest State of Housing in Portland report states the following:
Housing affordability in Portland has continued to decline in the last year, as rents and home
prices continue to climb, outpacing incomes. The average monthly rent in Portland rose 7
percent between 2015 and 2016, with increases between 12 and 18 percent in 1-, 2-, and
3-bedroom units. Studio apartments experienced a comparatively smaller increase of 3 percent.
This is now the fourth consecutive year that Portland has seen an annual rent increase in excess
of 5 percent, with the average rent increasing nearly 30 percent since 2012.19
Other relevant excerpts include:
Significant increases in rents and home prices in many East Portland neighborhoods raise serious
concerns over potential involuntary economic displacement, as well as housing access and stability.
The picture for homeownership is even bleaker. There are no neighborhoods anywhere in the
city currently affordable for the average extremely low-income household, Black household,
Latino household, Native American household, senior household, or single-mother household
to purchase a home.20
Alongside the affordable housing crisis are the efforts of the local CoC to support and serve people
experiencing homelessness. For instance, there has been a significant continued expansion of the
community’s emergency shelter capacity. Since 2015, the CoC has prioritized expansion of beds in
emergency shelters. These quantifiable changes are reflected in the PIT count.
Similarly, between 2015 and 2017, the local CoC significantly increased investments to help people
experiencing homelessness access and maintain permanent housing and to prevent others at risk from
becoming homeless in the first place. In the fiscal year ending in June 2016, the local CoC reported newly
housing more than 4,600 people experiencing homelessness and newly preventing more than 5,200
people from becoming homeless.21 In the following fiscal year, the local CoC expanded these efforts,
housing nearly 4,900 and preventing homelessness for more than 6,100 people.22 Without these efforts, the
PIT count of people experiencing homelessness in February 2017 would likely have been much higher.

18.  “Strong Growth Masks Troubling Trend,” Multnomah County website, last modified January 25, 2017, https://multco.us/multnomah-county/
news/strong-growth-masks-troubling-trend
19.  Portland Housing Bureau, “State of Housing in Portland,” (December 2016), p. 10, https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/619248
20.  Ibid.
21.  A Home for Everyone Coordinating Board, “Scaling Response to Need: Early Wins in Expanding to Scale FY 15/16,” (slideshow), (October 5, 2016),
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/566631e8c21b864679fff4de/t/58a1ede0cd0f68e8d04ebb6b/1487007203393/FY15-16+Outcomes+Rep
ort+to+CB+%282%29.pdf
22. http://ahomeforeveryone.net/news/2017/8/24/record-housing-placements-shelter-access-follow-investments-in-homelessness-work

Page 27

 1.7. COMPREHENDING THE CHANGE IN PIT COUNTS
Since the 2015 count, the overall number of people experiencing homelessness went up by 9.9 percent (n
= 376). Also, the share of people who were unsheltered went down by 11.6 percent (n = 219) and the share
of people in transitional housing went down by 27.4 percent (n=285). The share of people in emergency
shelters went up by 100.9 percent (n= 880). According to the City of Portland/Gresham/Multnomah
County CoC, these changes are a result of the following:
•• The increase in the sheltered count between 2015 and 2017 reflects continued significant expansion
of the community’s emergency shelter capacity. In the past two years, the number of publicly-funded
emergency shelter beds has approximately doubled, largely due to the addition of more than 600
beds based on a recommendation from A Home for Everyone, the community’s CoC advisory board.
Increased need for shelter beds has been driven by multiple years of stagnant or declining renter
wages, double-digit annual increases in average rents, nation-leading increases in housing prices, and
persistently low rental vacancy rates.
•• The increase in emergency shelter beds was offset slightly by conversion of former transitional housing
beds to permanent housing models or emergency shelter (a net decrease of 285 transitional housing
beds in use compared to 2015). Most of these beds, previously identified as transitional housing beds
and included in HUD’s sheltered count, continue to assist formerly homeless individuals, but now
operate as more stable permanent housing beds. People who have been assisted into permanent
housing are appropriately no longer included in HUD’s counts of homelessness.
•• The nearly 12 percent reduction in the unsheltered count is almost fully attributable to the significant
increase in emergency shelter beds. Without that increase, there would likely have been an increase in
unsheltered persons. Other differences in weather conditions and relocation of camp sites from public
properties may have played minor roles in the observed decrease, though the unsheltered count
methodology attempted to account for these factors.
•• During this time period, there was a significant and strategic expansion of homelessness prevention,
rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing activities. The net increase in numbers of
sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons between PIT counts 2015 and 2017 would have been
significantly greater without these expanded interventions. Most of the interventions were funded
through annual dedication of an additional $20 million in new local resources, primarily from City of
Portland and Multnomah County general funds.
Several limitations to the PIT count methodology restrict our
ability to compare counts over time. Specifically, each count
is assumed to be an undercount, especially of those who are
unsheltered, due to the following factors:
•• respondent refusals to participate in the PIT count
•• unknown locations - respondents sleeping in hard to
reach or unknown locations
•• barriers to reaching homeless people of color, including
language barriers and ineffectiveness in reaching people
of color who may not be utilizing mainstream services

Without new local efforts to prevent
homelessness and help thousands
back into housing, this year's
PIT count would likely have been
much higher.

While the unsheltered count methodology attempts to minimize this undercount, the relative undercount
in each year is unknown. Though we have no reason to believe that conditions leading to an undercount
have changed in 2017 compared to prior years, it is possible that any observed change in the count could
be related to changing rates of undercounts. The effect of this factor (if any) is not known.

Page 28

 2. DEMOGRAPHICS
OF HOMELESS
SECTION
HEADING
POPULATION AND SUBPOPULATION
DATA
2.1. BACKGROUND
HUD requires data collection and reporting of specific demographic characteristics for all people reported
as sheltered or unsheltered. Further, CoCs must collect and report counts of specific subpopulations
among sheltered and unsheltered persons. Table 5 from HUD provides details on people considered as
subpopulations:23
Table 5. PIT Subpopulation Data from HUD
PIT Subpopulation Data
Required for Sheltered Persons

Required for Unsheltered
Persons

Chronically Homeless Individuals

x

x

Chronically Homeless Families

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Adults with a Serious Mental Illness

x

x

Adults with a Substance Use Disorder

x

x

Adults with HIV/AIDS

x

x

Optional

Optional

Subpopulation Type

Persons in Chronically Homeless
Families
Chronically Homeless Veteran
Individuals
Chronically Homeless Veteran
Families (Total Number of Families)
Persons in Chronically Homeless
Veteran Families

Victims of Domestic Violence

This section presents data and analysis on the following demographic characteristics of people and
subpopulations that were counted as part of the street count (unsheltered count) and the ONSC:
•• race/ethnicity

•• chronic homelessness

•• household composition

•• disabling conditions

•• children and youth

•• domestic violence

•• gender

•• veterans status

23. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Continuum of Care,
24 CFR Part 578, (effective date August 30, 2012), p. 19, https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/CoCProgramInterimRule_
FormattedVersion.pdf

Page 29

 In this section, analysis of each of the characteristics is set up to sequentially address three questions: (1)
What is the PIT 2017 number? (2) Did it change and if so how since the 2015 count? (3) What are some
other insights about the characteristics? The analysis looks at the following:
1.  Count and distribution of the characteristic in unsheltered locations, emergency shelters, and
transitional housing
2.  Comparison of 2015 and 2017 findings on the characteristic
3.  Variations within the characteristic-for example, if gender is being examined, the analysis looks at
selected variations between male, female, and transgender populations

2.2. RACE/ETHNICITY
It is important to acknowledge the issue of undercounting that negatively affects most counts of people
of color, be it data from the Census/American Community Survey, data from HUD or the data from school
districts. Formed in 2001, the Coalition of Communities of Color (CCC), an alliance of culturally-specific
community-based organizations with representation from communities of color, developed a series of
reports in partnership with Portland State University that documented the experiences of communities
of color in Multnomah County. The series explored at length the extent of undercounting among various
communities of color.24 The authors of the series, Curry-Stevens et al., commented on the limitations of
Census race categories:
The historic forces of marginalization are still with us, and not all people of color will self-identify in this way, out of a historic yet pervasive pattern of “desiring whiteness” which results in
many of our community deciding not to reveal their status as people of color. In addition,
the problems with finding all people of color (given language, poverty, housing instability
and fears of recrimination) will not be solved despite the fullness of outreach efforts by our
communities of color as well as the Census Bureau itself. Adding to this difficulty is the form
itself-which continues to trouble us in very significant ways.25
The Census Bureau acknowledges the prevalent undercount in ethnic communities like Hispanics
through their efforts to measure the extent of undercounting during post census efforts.
In addition to the limitations that exist in general counting efforts, counting people of color who are
experiencing homelessness is fraught with additional challenges. Challenges include the prevalence
of doubled up living arrangements, language barriers, and a lack of culturally-specific enumerators.
For 2017, the PIT coordinating teams from PSU and JOHS worked with several culturally-specific
providers, translated survey forms in four different languages (Chinese, Russian, Spanish and
Vietnamese) and set up instant translation services in multiple languages in an effort to address
undercounting of people of color.
The PIT survey collected information on race/ethnicity of the people experiencing unsheltered
and sheltered homelessness. The following is a discussion of the number and share of various
races and ethnicity.

24. A. Curry-Stevens, A. Cross-Hemmer, and Coalition of Communities of Color, “Communities of Color in Multnomah County: An Unsettling Profile,”
(2010), www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/ANUNSETTLIN0PROFILE.pdf
25. A. Curry-Stevens and A. Cross-Hemmer, “Who counts? Challenging Whiteness in data and decision making,” (2010), https://sswr.confex.com/
sswr/2010/webprogram/Paper11914.html

Page 30

 2.2.1. Count and Distribution of Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity
The PIT survey collects data on race/ethnicity based on categories used by HUD. Since the categorization
tends to be limiting, three additional choices covering national affiliations (African, Middle Eastern, and
Slavic) were provided to the respondents. These additional options are referred to as inclusive identity,
and are reported separately from race/ethnicity below. Respondents were given the opportunity to check
multiple options. White Alone, Non-Hispanic includes people who checked only the white box (2,456).
People of Color are people who chose any other combination of boxes (1,528). We have no data for race or
ethnicity for 193 people. Race alone or in combination counts everyone who selected the racial category,
regardless of what other racial categories they may have checked. Table 6 provides details on count and
racial/ethnic distribution of respondents.
Table 6. Race/Ethnicity of People Unsheltered and Sheltered

Race/Ethnicity

No. and (%) of
PIT Respondents

Share of Multnomah
County Total
Population by Race**

Share of Multnomah County
Population Below 100% of
Poverty**

White Alone, Not Hispanic

2,456
(58.8%)

71.3%

54.7%

People of Color

1,528
(36.6%)

28.7%

45.3%

Unknown*

193
(4.6%)

n/a

n/a

American Indian/Alaska
Native

424
(10.2%)

2.5%

4.1%

Asian

57
(1.4%)

8.8%

8.2%

Black/African American

675
(16.2%)

7.0%

14.0%

Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

108
(2.6%)

1.1%

1.6%

Hispanic/Latino
(of any race)

428
(10.2%)

11.1%

19.9%

White

2,944
(70.5%)

82.6%

71.2%

Race Alone or in Combination

Note: Question—How do you identify your race/ethnicity? Population count (N) = 4,177. The PIT Count and ACS are not
strictly comparable datasets for multiple reasons, including the nature of the count, the nature of the data, timing, and more.
The ACS data have been used as a reference to help illuminate the extent of representation of people of color among the
homeless population.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.
**Source: US Census Bureau, 2011−2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Page 31

 Key Observations
•• Racial disparities in homelessness exist locally and nationally. According to the most recent national
assessment report to Congress,26 African Americans made up 39.1 percent of the overall homeless
population in the nation. Nationally, Native Americans made up 2.8 percent of the homeless
population. The local numbers portray similar overrepresentation. Disparities observed in prior
counts in Multnomah County persist. As can be noted from table 6, the overrepresentation is
particularly evident for the American Indian/Alaska Native (10.2%) and the Black/African American
communities (16.2%).
•• 58.8 percent of the people unsheltered or in shelters
Racial disparities in homelessness
identified as White Alone, Not Hispanic. People of
exist locally and nationally.
color (everyone except White) made up 36.6 percent
of PIT respondents. Within this population, Whites do
make up the majority share. However, this make-up needs to be understood within the larger context
of the race/ethnicity of Multnomah County27 if one is to ascertain the extent of representation (See
table 6).
•• The non-response rate (unknown) constituted only a small fraction (4.6%) of the people experiencing
homelessness. While low non-response rate does not address data limitations like undercounting of
people of color, it does help in providing a more meaningful analysis than what is possible with a very
high rate of missing data.
The extent of overrepresentation of people of color is evident in figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 shows the
representation of different racial and ethnic groups among the 2017 PIT, the general population of
Multnomah County, and the population in poverty. American Indian/Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islanders, and Black/African Americans are most overrepresented in the PIT. Another illustration
of overrepresentation of communities of color in the PIT is in figure 6, which charts the excess rate of
homelessness for communities of color compared to the
White Alone, Not Hispanic population.28 For example,
Native Americans are 402 percent
Native Americans are 402 percent more likely to be
more likely to be homeless than
homeless than are people who are White and not Hispanic
are people who are White and not
or Latino, Black/African Americans are 180 percent more
Hispanic or Latino, Black/African
likely to be homeless, and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific
Americans are 180 percent
Islanders are 198 percent more likely to be homeless.
more likely to be homeless, and
Overall, people of color are 55 percent more likely to be
homeless than are White people. Keep in mind that this
Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific
does not take into account the doubled-up population or
Islanders are 198 percent more likely
those who were not counted.
to be homeless.

26.  US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, “The Annual Homelessness Assessment
Report to Congress,” (November 2016), https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2016-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
27.  The PIT Count and ACS are not strictly comparable datasets for multiple reasons, including the nature of the count, the nature of the data,
timing, and more. The ACS data have been used as a reference to help illuminate the extent of representation of people of color among the
homeless population.
28.  To calculate the excess rate of homelessness, we follow the methodology recommended by the Coalition of Communities of Color. We
calculate the rate of homelessness within each racial and ethnic group by dividing the subtotal within this point in time count by the
subpopulation from US Census Bureau American Community Survey data. We then subtract the rate for White Alone, not Hispanic from the
rate for each community of color and divide by the rate for White Alone, Not Hispanic to arrive at the excess rate.

Page 32

 Figure 5. Percent Homeless by Race/Ethnicity—2017 PIT Count and Multnomah County Compared
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
71.3%
70.0%
58.8%

60.0%

54.7%

50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

16.2%
10.2%
2.5%

8.8%
4.1%

8.2%

19.9%
14.0%

11.1%
10.2%

7.0%
2.6%

1.4%

1.1% 1.6%

0.0%
American
Indian/Alaska Native

Percent 2017 PIT

Asian

Black/African
American

Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander

Percent Multnomah County

Hispanic or Latino (of
any race)

White alone, Not
Hispanic

Percent of Multnomah County in Poverty

Source: 2017 PIT, US Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S1701, B17001 and DP05.
Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424,
Asian = 57, Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone,
Not Hispanic = 2,456.

Page 33

 Figure 6. Excess Rate of Homelessness Among People of Color Compared to White, Not Hispanic Population
5.0

402%

4.0

3.0

2.0

180%

198%

1.0
55%
12%
0.0
People of color

American Indian/Alaska
Native

-1.0

Asian

Black/African American Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Hispanic/Latino
(of any race)

-81%

Source: 2017 PIT, US Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S1701, B17001 and DP05.
Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424,
Asian = 57, Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latico = 428.
White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456

The responses to the additional choices of inclusive identity accounted for less than one percent (0.8%) of
the total PIT count respondents. See table 7 for details on this count.
Table 7. Inclusive Identity Results
Inclusive Identity

Count

Percent

African

11

0.3%

Middle Eastern

13

0.3%

Slavic

11

0.3%

Total

35

0.8%

Note: Question—How do you identify your race/ethnicity? Percent calculated based on population (N) = 4,177

Key Observation
•• Only a tiny fraction of PIT respondents chose the inclusive identity options. However, expansion of
choice helps in understanding that racial categorizations like White or Black/African American are
inadequate and that people’s national origin may result in differences in how people or communities
deal with homelessness.
See table 8 for details on race/ethnicity broken down by housing situation.
Page 34

 Table 8. Race/Ethnicity by Housing Situation
Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency Shelter
No. and (%)

Transitional Housing
No. and (%)

White Alone, Not Hispanic

1,047
(62.8%)

974
(55.6%)

435
(57.5%)

People of Color

535
(32.1%)

684
(39.0%)

309
(40.8%)

Unknown*

86
(5.2%)

94
(5.4%)

13
(1.7%)

American Indian/Alaska
Native

208
(12.5%)

160
(9.1%)

56
(7.4%)

Asian

16
(1.0%)

30
(1.7%)

11
(1.5%)

Black/African American

168
(10.1%)

328
(18.7%)

179
(23.6%)

Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

31
(1.9%)

65
(3.7%)

12
(1.6%)

Hispanic/Latino
(of any race)

160
(9.6%)

180
(10.3%)

88
(11.6%)

White

1,228
(73.6%)

1,184
(67.6%)

532
(70.3%)

Race/Ethnicity

Race alone or in combination

Note: The percentages represent share in unsheltered count (1,668), emergency shelter (1,752), and transitional housing (757). All
race data in this table are presented as an overcount, which means respondents could pick all applicable values and were counted
within each category. Hence, the percentages add up to more than 100.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• Examining race/ethnicities within unsheltered
and sheltered locations reveals differences.
For instance, people who are White Alone,
Not Hispanic made up 62.8 percent of the
unsheltered population, while people of color
constituted 32.1 percent.

Following Whites, the American Indian/
Alaska Natives made up the second
largest share (12.5%) of population that
was unsheltered during the PIT Count.

•• In emergency shelters, people who are White
Alone, Not Hispanic made up 55.6 percent of the population and people of color made up 39 percent.
•• In transitional housing, 57.5 percent were White Alone, Not Hispanic, while 40.8 percent were
people of color.

Page 35

 •• Following Whites, the American Indian/Alaska Natives made up the second largest share (12.5%) of
population that was unsheltered during the PIT Count.
•• Black/African Americans made up just under a quarter (23.6%) of the population in transitional
housing.
2.2.2. Changes in Race/Ethnicity Compared to 2015
See table 9 for a comparison of the number of homeless within each race/ethnic group in 2015 and 2017,
as well as changes in the share of those groups across the two PIT counts.
Table 9. Changes in Race/Ethnicity­—2013, 2015, and 2017 Compared
Change
2013−17

Change
2015−17

2,456
(58.8%)

NA*

214
9.5%

1,352
(35.6%)

1,528
(36.6%)

NA*

176
13.0%

207
(5.4%)

193
(4.6%)

85
78.7%

-14
-6.8%

Race/Ethnicity

2013

2015

2017

White Alone, Not
Hispanic

NA*

2,242
(59.0%)

People of Color

NA*
108
(2.4%)

Unknown**

Race alone or in combination
American Indian/Alaska
Native

386
(8.7%)

82
(2.2%)

424
(10.2%)

38
9.8%

342
417%

Asian

66
(1.5%)

59
(1.6%)

57
(1.4%)

-9
-13.6%

-2
-3.4%

Black/African American

864
(19.5%)

861
(22.7%)

675
(16.2%)

-189
-21.9%

-186
-21.6%

Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

113
(2.5%)

86
(2.3%)

108
(2.6%)

-5
-4.4%

22
25.6%

Hispanic/Latino
(of any race)

572
(12.9%)

389
(10.2%)

428
(10.2%)

-144
-25.2%

39
10.0%

White

2,997
(67.5%)

2,617
(68.9%)

2,944
(70.5%)

-53
-1.8%

327
12.5%

Source: PIT count 2013, 2015, and 2017.
*NA means data not available for 2013.
**Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Page 36

 Key Observations
•• Since 2015, the total number of homeless
people in the PIT count increased by 10
percent; while the White Alone, Not Hispanic
population also rose by 10 percent, people of
color rose by 13 percent.

The 2017 PIT counts a significant increase
in the population of homeless people
identifying as American Indian/Alaska
Native. This likely reflects an unusual and
unexplained drop in people who identified
as American Indian/Alaskan Native in the
2015 count.

•• The 2017 PIT counts a large increase in the
population of homeless people identifying
as American Indian/Alaska Native. This
likely reflects an unusual and unexplained
drop in people who identified as American
Indian/Alaska Native in the 2015 count. As
a percentage of those counted, the 2017 count more closely mirrors the 2013 and 2011 counts, in
which those identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native were 9 percent of the total HUD homeless
population each year. With a 10 percent increase compared to 2013, the increase in the number and
percentage of people experiencing homelessness and identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native
represents a persistent and perhaps growing disparity.
•• For 2017, the share of Black/African American population dropped by 6.5 percentage points, but
people identifying as Black/African American continue to experience persistent racial disparities
in homelessness.
The actual count of racial/ethnic distribution of populations experiencing unsheltered and sheltered
homelessness varies with each PIT count. See table 10 for how these numbers have changed during the
two distinct points of time.

Page 37

 Table 10. Race/Ethnicity Distribution by Housing Situation—2015 and 2017 Compared
Unsheltered
Race/Ethnicity

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

White Alone, Not
Hispanic

1,170
(62.0%)

1,047
(62.8%)

458
(53.0%)

974
(55.6%)

614
(59.0%)

435
(57.5%)

People of Color

650
(34.0%)

535
(32.1%)

371
(43.0%)

684
(39.0%)

331
(32.0%)

309
(40.8%)

Unknown*

67
(4.0%)

86
(5.2%)

43
(5.0%)

94
(5.4%)

97
(9.0%)

13
(1.7%)

Race alone or in combination
American Indian /
Alaska Native

48
(3.0%)

208
(12.5%)

19
(2.0%)

160
(9.1%)

15
(2.0%)

56
(7.4%)

Asian

24
(1.0%)

16
(1.0%)

13
(2.0%)

30
(1.7%)

22
(2.0%)

11
(1.5%)

Black / African
American

396
(22.0%)

168
(10.1%)

239
(29.0%)

328
(18.7%)

226
(24.0%)

179
(23.6%)

Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander

46
(3.0%)

31
(1.9%)

28
(3.0%)

65
(3.7%)

12
(1.0%)

12
(1.6%)

Hispanic/ Latino
(of any race)

194
(11.0%)

160
(9.6%)

107
(13.0%)

180
(10.0%)

88
(9.0%)

88
(11.6%)

White

1,346
(74.0%)

1,228
(73.6%)

548
(66.0%)

1,184
(67.6%)

723
(77.0%)

532
(70.3%)

*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.
Source: PIT count 2015 and 2017.

Key Observations
•• Compared to 2015, the share of unsheltered people who were White Alone, Not Hispanic versus
people of color in 2017 changed slightly, with White Alone, Not Hispanic increasing by about 1
percentage point, and people of color declining by almost 2 percentage points. The "unknown"
category also rose.
•• Among those in emergency shelter, the share of White Alone, Not Hispanic rose over 2 percentage
points from 2015 to 2017, while the share of people of color fell by 4 percentage points.
•• Among people in transitional housing, the share identifying as people of color rose by almost 9
percentage points from 2015 to 2017.
2.2.3. Variations by Race/Ethnicity
Differences exist within and between racial/ethnic groups for multiple characteristics. Following is a
discussion on some of these differences in housing situation, gender identity, chronic homelessness,
disabling conditions, domestic violence, and veteran status.

Page 38

 2.2.3.1. Housing Situation
Figure 7 reveals the differences in housing situation based on race and ethnicity.

Figure
7. Differences
in Race/Ethnicity
Housing Situation by Race/Ethnicity
Figure 7. Differences
in Housing
Situation by
100%
90%
28.1%

24.9%

28.7%
37.4%

80%

42.6%

49.1%
70%
19.3%

60%

11.1%

26.5%

20.6%

50%

17.7%
13.2%

40%
30%

60.2%
52.6%

20%

48.6%

37.7%

42.1%

39.7%

Hispanic/Latino (of
any race)

White alone, Not
Hispanic

10%
0%
American
Indian/Alaska Native

Asian

Emergency Shelter

Black/African
American

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Transitional Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424, Asian = 57,
Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456.

Key Observation
•• Nearly half (49.1%) of respondents who identified themselves as American Indian/Alaskan
Natives were unsheltered. In comparison, a quarter (24.9%) of the Black/African American
population was unsheltered.

Page 39

 2.2.3.2. Gender Identity
The distribution of the homeless population among different gender identities varies by racial/ethnic
group. (See figure 8.)

Figure
8. Differences
in Gender Identity by Race/Ethnicity
Figure 8. Differences
in Gender
Identity by Race/Ethnicity
100.0%

0.9%

3.5%

0.9%

1.9%

0.9%

1.2%

37.9%

36.2%

60.3%

61.8%

90.0%
80.0%

38.1%
42.5%

70.0%

49.1%

50.9%

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%

53.8%

20.0%

60.0%
48.1%

45.6%

10.0%
0.0%
American
Indian/Alaska
Native

Asian

Black/African
American

Male

Female

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Hispanic/Latino (of White alone, Not
Hispanic
any race)

Transgender

Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424, Asian = 57,
Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456.

Key Observation
•• Within the Hispanic/Latino population that was homeless, 60.3 percent were men. In comparison, men
made up 45.6 percent of the Asian population that was homeless, with women making up just over
half (50.9%) of this group.

Page 40

 2.2.3.3. Chronic Homelessness
The extent of chronic homelessness varies by racial and ethnic group. (See figure 9).
Figure 9. Chronic Homelessness Status — Differences within Race/Ethnicity
100%
90%
80%
70%

56.4%
70.4%
78.9%

60%

80.4%

66.3%
76.6%

50%
40%
30%
20%

43.6%
29.6%

10%

21.1%

19.6%

Asian

Black/African
American

33.7%
23.4%

0%
American
Indian/Alaska Native

Chronically Homeless

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Hispanic/Latino (of
any race)

White alone, Not
Hispanic

Not Chronically Homeless

Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424, Asian = 57,
Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456.

Key Observation
•• The prevalence of chronic homelessness was highest for the American Indian/Alaskan Native
population (43.6%), while the prevalence of chronic homelessness was the lowest for the Asian
population (21.1%).

Page 41

 2.2.3.4. Disabling Condition
The prevalence of disabling conditions among homeless people varies among ethnic groups.
(See figure 10.)

Figure 10. Disabling Conditions and Race/Ethnicity

Figure 10. Disabling Conditions and Race/Ethnicity
100%

5.4%

2.8%

8.1%

7.2%

7.7%

17.5%

90%
21.9%
80%

25.6%

70%

51.9%

42.4%

45.6%

33.3%
60%
50%
40%
72.6%

66.7%

30%
49.1%

49.5%

Asian

Black/African
American

45.4%

47.2%

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Hispanic/Latino (of
any race)

20%
10%
0%
American
Indian/Alaska Native

Have Disability

No Disabilities

White alone, Not
Hispanic

Status Unknown

Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424, Asian = 57,
Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456.

Key Observation
•• Nearly three-quarters (72.6%) of the American Indian/Alaskan Native respondents who are homeless
have disabling conditions. In comparison, within the Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
population, the prevalence of disability is lower (45.4%). See subsection 2.8 for more information on
disabling conditions.

Page 42

 2.2.3.5. Domestic Violence
The incidence of domestic violence among the homeless population varies widely across racial and ethnic
groups. However, this variable includes a high percentage of unreported data. (See figure 11).

Figure and
11. Race/Ethnicity
Domestic Violence and Race/Ethnicity
Figure 11. Domestic Violence
100%
90%

16.0%

19.3%

16.7%

16.8%

24.0%
31.3%

80%
70%
37.3%
60%

47.2%

52.0%

49.1%
49.0%

50%

42.5%

40%
30%
20%

46.7%
31.6%

10%

36.1%
27.0%

26.2%

31.2%

0%
American
Indian/Alaska Native

Asian

Experienced Domestic Violence

Black/African
American

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Hispanic/Latino (of
any race)

No Experience of Domestic Violence

White alone, Not
Hispanic

Status Unknown

Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424, Asian = 57,
Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456.

Key Observation
•• Black/African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos reported the lowest prevalence of domestic violence
(27.0% and 26.2%, respectively). In comparison, the American Indian/Alaskan Natives reported the
highest prevalence (46.7%) of domestic violence. See subsection 2.9 for more details regarding
domestic violence.

Page 43

 2.2.3.6. Veteran Status
Among the homeless population, the percent reporting veteran status varied by racial/ethnic group.
(See figure 12.)

Figure
12. Veteran Status and Race/Ethnicity
Figure 12. Veteran Status
and Race/Ethnicity
100%

5.9%

5.3%

5.8%

86.0%

85.0%

8.8%

9.2%

Asian

Black/African
American

7.4%

7.7%

5.9%

84.8%

82.3%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

81.6%

87.0%

40%
30%
20%
10%
12.5%

5.6%

7.5%

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Hispanic/Latino (of
any race)

0%
American
Indian/Alaska Native

Veterans

Not Veterans

11.8%
White alone, Not
Hispanic

Status Unknown

Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/AlaskaNative = 424, Asian = 57,
Black/African American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456

Key Observation
•• Although none of the groups had a large proportion of veterans, the American Indian/Alaskan
Natives and Whites reported the highest proportion of veterans within their groups (12.5% and 11.8%,
respectively). In comparison, only a small fraction (5.6%) of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders
were veterans.

Page 44

 2.2.3.7. Household Types
The type of household that homeless people live in also varies by racial/ethnic group. (See figure 13).
13. Household Types and Race/Ethnicity
Figure 13. Household Types Figure
and Race/Ethnicity
100%

0.0%

0.7%

0.7%

0.0%

0.9%

0.2%

0.3%

90%
80%
70%
71.7%

60%

68.5%

70.1%

86.0%

86.3%

89.9%

83.9%

50%
40%
30%
20%
27.6%
10%
13.0%

14.0%

American
Indian/Alaska Native

Asian

31.5%

29.0%
9.9%

15.7%

0%
Black/African
American

Families with Children

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

Adults-only

Hispanic or Latino (of
any race)

White alone, Not
Hispanic

Total Homeless
Population

Unaccompanied Youth

Note: Percentages within each race/ethnicity are based on "alone or in combination" for American Indian/Alaska Native = 424, Asian = 57, Black/African
American = 675, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander = 108, and Hispanic/Latino = 428. White alone, Not Hispanic = 2,456, and total = 4,177.

Key Observations
•• Families with children make up a
Families with children made up a higher share
higher proportion of household
types for people of color than
of people experiencing homelessness among
Whites. Notably, just under one-third
communities of color than among Whites.
(31.5%) of the Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacific Islander population
and 29.0 percent of Hispanic/Latinos
who were homeless live in families with children. In comparison, the proportion of White Alone, Not
Hispanic families, at 9.9 percent, was less than what is observed for the total homeless population.
•• Although unaccompanied youth make up a tiny fraction of the people who were experiencing
homelessness, their presence can be observed largely among the American Indian/Alaska Native,
Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations.

Page 45

 2.3. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
HUD identifies three distinct household types for people who are experiencing homelessness:
•• adult-only households—including single adults, couples, adults with adult children, or multipleadult households
•• people in families—these are households that have at least one adult and one child
•• unaccompanied youth—people who are not part of a family during their episode of homelessness
and who are under age 18, or in some cases, age 24 and younger
The 2017 PIT count survey tracked information on age and household members, and that information was
used to compile data on HUD household types. Following is a discussion of the household composition
of people experiencing homelessness. All data are reported as total number of people in each household
type, not number of households.
2.3.1. Count and Distribution by Housing Situation
See table 11 for details on the housing situations different household types found themselves in on the
night of the count.
Table 11. Composition of Households Experiencing Homeless by Housing Situation
Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency Shelter
No. and (%)

Transitional
Housing
No. and (%)

Total
No. and (%)

1,583
(94.9%)

1,338
(76.4%)

585
(77.3%)

3,506
(83.9%)

Age 18−24

122

105

59

286

Age > 24

1461

1233

526

3,220

0

1

2

3

77
(4.6%)

410
(23.4%)

167
(22.1%)

654
(15.7%)

Children < 18

43

235

90

368

Adults 18−24

5

26

18

49

Adults > 24

29

149

59

237

8
(< 1.0%)

3
(< 1.0%)

3
(< 1.0%)

14
(< 1.0%)

Household Type
Adult-Only Households

Age unknown
Families with children

Unaccompanied youth
under 18

Note: Percentages are based on unsheltered = 1,668, emergency shelter = 1,752, and transitional housing = 757.

Page 46

 Key Observation
•• A sizable proportion (83.9%) of PIT
Compared to the general county household
respondents were people in adult-only (no
composition, the proportion of households
minor children) households while 15.7 percent
of people experiencing homelessness were
with children in the PIT count is 11.3 percent
in families with children. Less than a percent
less than that of the larger population.
were unaccompanied children. According
to the most current estimates on household
composition, 27.0 percent of households in
Multnomah County are households with one or more members under 18 years of age.29 Compared
to the general county household composition, the proportion of households with children in the PIT
count is 11.3 percent less than that of the larger population.
2.3.2. Sleeping Location of Unsheltered Households
As part of the unsheltered street count survey, households responded to a number of additional related
questions (see section 3 for details). A question on sleeping location documents the nature of the places
where people slept. Table 12 provides details about where adult-only households and families with
children slept.

29. US Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Accessed July 3, 2017. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/
faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtm l?fpt=table

Page 47

 Table 12. Sleeping Location of Households Who Were Unsheltered

Sleeping Location

Adult-Only Households

Families with Children

Street or sidewalk

484
(30.6%)

14
(18.2%)

Doorway or other private property

172
(10.9%)

0
(0.0%)

Abandoned house / building

30
(1.9%)

2
(2.6%)

Bridge / overpass / railroad

162
(10.2%)

0
(0.0%)

Park

42
(2.7%)

2
(2.6%)

Woods / open space

187
(11.8%)

0
(0.0%)

Vehicle (car, truck, van, camper)

216
(13.6%)

41
(53.2%)

Boat

15
(0.9%)

0
(0.0%)

Other unsheltered location*

181
(11.4%)

5
(6.5%)

Unknown**

94
(5.9%)

13
(16.9%)

1,583
(100.0%)

77
(100.0%)

Total

Note: Question-Where did/will you sleep Wednesday night, February 22nd? Percentages are based on adult-only households =
1,583 and families with children = 77.
*Other unsheltered location was an open-ended response that provided an opportunity to record specific locations, including
camps like Dignity Village, Hazelnut Grove, and R2D2
**Unknown refers to missing responses.

Key Observations
•• Notably, over one-half (53.2%) of unsheltered families with children slept in vehicles. This proportion
for unsheltered adult-only households is much smaller at 13.6 percent.
•• For the unsheltered adult-only households, just under one-third (30.6%) slept on the street/sidewalk,
while 18.2 percent of unsheltered families with children slept here.

Page 48

 2.3.3. Changes in Household Composition Compared to 2015
See Table 13 for a comparison of homeless adults-only households and families with children in 2015 and
2017 by housing situation.
Table 13. Housing Situation by Household Composition—2015 and 2017 Compared
Adult-Only Households
Housing
Situation

2015

2017

Unsheltered

1,733
(55.1%)

1,583
(45.2%)

Emergency
shelter

657
(20.9%)

Transitional
Housing
Total

Families with Children
Percent
Change

Percent
Change

2015

2017

-8.7%

152
(23.3%)

77
(11.8%)

-49.3%

1,338
(38.2%)

103.7%

213
(32.6%)

410
(62.7%)

92.5%

753
(24.0%)

585
(16.7%)

-22.3%

288
(44.1%)

167
(25.5%)

-42.0%

3,143
(100.0%)

3,506
(100.0%)

11.5%

653
(100.0%)

654
(100.0%)

0.2%

Note: Percentages are based on adult-only households (2015) = 3,143, adult-only households (2017) = 3,506, families with children
(2015) = 653, and families with children (2017) = 654

Key Observations
•• The number of families with children was nearly identical in 2015 and 2017. Based on information
provided by the CoC, concerted efforts have been made to keep families with children from having to
sleep in unsheltered locations. The efforts have included expansion of Multnomah County’s no-turnaway family shelter and expansion of homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing efforts for
homeless families. Although the total count of people in families remained unchanged, the efforts are
evident in the nearly one-half (49.3%) reduction in the number of families in unsheltered locations.
•• The number of adult-only households increased by 363, an 11.5 percent increase compared to 2015.
However, compared to 2015, the portion of adult-only households sleeping in unsheltered locations
declined by 8.7 percent while the portion sleeping in emergency shelters increased by over a hundred
percent (103.7%). Again, this change reflects the increase in emergency shelter capacity.

Page 49

 2.3.4. Variations between Household Groups
2.3.4.1. Housing Situation
Unsheltered and sheltered locations had differing proportions of homeless households.
See figure 14 for details:

Key Observations
•• The proportion of families with children
who slept in unsheltered locations was
less than 5 percent (4.6%) while individual
adults made up the remaining 95 percent
of the unsheltered population.
•• Just under a quarter of the population
in emergency shelters (23.4%) and
transitional housing (22.1%) were families
with children. Individual adults made up
the remaining share.

Figure 14. Distribution of Homeless Households
by Housing Situation
Unsheltered

94.9%

4.6%

Emergency
Shelter

76.4%

23.4%

Transitional
Housing

77.3%

22.1%

0%

20%

40%

Adults-Only Households

60%

80%

100%

Families with Children

Note: Percentages are based on unsheltered population = 1,668,
emergency shelter population = 1,752, and transitional housing
population = 757.

The proportion of families with children who slept in unsheltered locations was less
than 5 percent (4.6%) while individual adults made up the remaining 95 percent of the
unsheltered population

Page 50

 2.3.4.2. Household Types of People of Color and Total Homeless Population Compared
Differences can be observed between the household types of people of color and the household types in
the total homeless population (see figure 15).
FigureFigure
15. Household
Types of
People
of Colorofand
Total
Homeless
Population
Compared
15. Household
Types
of People
Color
and
Total Homeless
Population
Compared

Homeless People of Color

24.0%

Total Homeless Population

75.4%

15.7%

0%

10%

0.6%

0.3%

83.9%

20%

30%

Families with Children

40%

50%

Adults-only

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unaccompanied Youth

Note : Percentages are based on homeless people of color = 1,528 and total homeless population = 4,177.

Key Observation
•• The composition of household types of homeless people of color was different from that of the
household composition of the total homeless population. Just under a quarter (24.0%) of people of
color were part of families with children. In the overall homeless population, 15.7 percent of people
were part of families without children.

2.4. CHILDREN AND YOUTH
HUD defines “children” as people less than 18 years
of age and defines “youth” as people ages 24 and
younger. This section provides details on children
and youth who were experiencing homelessness
during the 2017 PIT count.

Among people of color, about 24 percent
live in families with children. This is higher
than the 16 percent of the overall homeless
population who live in families with children.

2.4.1. Count and Distribution
2.4.1.1. Children under the Age of Eighteen
The results of the 2017 PIT count indicate the presence of 382 children under the age of 18 who were
homeless. See table 14 for count and distribution of children by housing situation.

Page 51

 Table 14. Count and Distribution of Children under Age Eighteen by Housing Situation

Unsheltered

Emergency
Shelter

Transitional
Housing

Total

Ages 5 and younger

14
(27.5%)

98
(41.2%)

44
(47.3%)

156
(40.8%)

Ages 6−11

21
(41.2%)

88
(37.0%)

25
(26.9%)

134
(35.1%)

Ages 12−17

16
(31.4%)

52
(21.8%)

24
(25.8%)

92
(24.1%)

Total

51
(100.0%)

238
(100.0%)

93
(100.0%)

382

Children under the age of 18

Note: Percentages are based on children in unsheltered locations = 51, children in emergency shelters = 238, and children in
transitional housing = 93.

Key Observation

On the night of the count, 382 children

•• On the night of the count, 382 children (under
(under the age of 18) were experiencing
the age of 18) were experiencing homelessness.
homelessness, with just 13.4 percent
Among these children, 51 (13.4%) were
sleeping without shelter.
unsheltered, 238 (62.3%) were in emergency
shelters, and 93 (24.3%) were in transitional
housing. Children made up 9.1 percent of the total count of 4,177 people who were homeless.
2.4.1.2. Unaccompanied Youth Ages 24 and Younger
HUD identifies unaccompanied youth (under 18) as people who are not part of a family with children or
accompanied by their parent or guardian during their episode of homelessness, and who are under the
age of 18. Additionally, unaccompanied youth (18 to 24) are people who are not part of a family with
children or accompanied by their parent or guardian during their episode of homelessness, and who are
between the ages of 18 and 24. See table 15 for details on unaccompanied youth.
Table 15. Count and Distribution of Unaccompanied Youth by Housing Situation

Unsheltered

Emergency
Shelter

Transitional
Housing

Total

Under age 18

8
(6.2%)

3
(2.8%)

3
(4.8%)

14
(4.7%)

Ages 18−24

122
(93.8%)

105
(97.2%)

59
(95.2%)

286
(95.3%)

130

108

62

300

Unaccompanied Youth

Total

Note: Percentages are based on unaccompanied youth in unsheltered locations = 130, unaccompanied youth in emergency
shelters = 108, and unaccompanied youth in transitional housing = 62.

Page 52

 Key Observation
•• On the night of the count, 300 unaccompanied youth were experiencing homelessness. Among them,
14 (4.7%) were under age 18 and 286 (95.3%) were between ages 18 and 24. Unaccompanied youth
made up 7.2 percent of the total count of 4,177 homeless people.
2.4.2. Children and Youth Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared
See table 16 for a comparison of how numbers have changed for children and youth between PIT count
2015 and PIT count 2017.
Table 16. Children and Youth Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared
Children under the Age of 18

Count 2015

Count 2017

Change

Percent Change

Ages 5 and younger

145

156

11

7.6%

Ages 6−11

149

134

-15

-10.1%

Ages 12−17

80

92

12

15.0%

Total

374

382

8

2.1%

Key Observation
•• Compared to the 2015 count, the 2017 numbers of unaccompanied youth showed an increase of 8
children, an overall 2.1 percent increase. Among children, the only age group that showed a decline
in the current count was in children ages 6 to 11. Their count went down by 15 (a change of – 10.1%)
compared to the last count. The ongoing crisis in affordable housing and other factors that keep many
families on the brink of homelessness may be the reason that we continue to see young children
experiencing homelessness.
See table 17 for a comparison of the number of unaccompanied youth in 2015 and 2017.
Table 17. Count of Unaccompanied Youth—2015 and 2017 Compared
Unaccompanied Youth

Count 2015

Count 2017

Change

Percent Change

5

14

9

180.0%

Ages 18−24

261

286

25

9.6%

Total

266

300

34

12.8%

Under age 18

Key Observation
•• Compared to the 2015 count, the 2017 numbers showed an
increase of 34, an overall increase of 12.8 percent. Notably,
unaccompanied youth under age 18 increased nearly three
times (a change of 180.0%), though their total numbers

Page 53

Youth experiencing
homelessness are hard to count
and are believed to be a highly
mobile population.

 remain low (14). Youth experiencing homelessness are hard to count and are believed to be a highly
mobile population. Given that PIT counts are snapshots, the increase may be due to the timing of the
counts or may be due to other factors that cause youth homelessness.
2.4.3. Variations among Children and Youth
Differences exist within and between children and
unaccompanied youth grouped by ages. This section
discusses differences by housing situation and race/
ethnicity.

Figure 16. Differences in Housing
Situation for Children under Age Eighteen
100%
90%

2.4.3.1. Differences within Children and Unaccompanied
Youth by Housing Situation
Children under the age of 18 were not evenly distributed
between unsheltered locations, emergency shelters and
transitional housing. See figure 16 for details.

80%

Key Observations

30%

•• Nearly two-thirds (62.8%) of the youngest
children (ages 5 and younger) were in emergency
shelters. Of the remaining children in this age
group, 9 percent slept in unsheltered locations
and 28.2 percent were in transitional housing. The
distribution of children ages 6−11 was similar to
the younger age group.
•• The oldest among these children (ages 12−17)
had a smaller proportion (56.5%) sleeping in
emergency shelters. 17.4 percent of this group slept
in unsheltered locations while 26.1 percent were in
transitional housing.There were differences in the
unaccompanied youth categories as well. See figure
17 for details.

9.0%

28.2%

70%

17.4%

18.7%

26.1%

65.7%

56.5%

60%
50%
40%
62.8%

20%
10%
0%

Age 5 and
younger

Ages 6 - 11 Ages 12 - 17

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages are based on ages 5 and younger = 156, ages
6−11 = 134, and ages 12−17 = 92.

Figure 17. Differences in Housing
Situation for Unaccompanied Youth
100%
90%
80%

42.7%

57.1%

70%

Key Observations

15.7%

60%

•• 57.1 percent of the unaccompanied youth under
age 18 slept in unsheltered locations with an even
proportion in transitional housing (21.4%) and in
emergency shelters (21.4%).
•• In comparison, 42.7 percent of unaccompanied
youth ages 18−24 slept in unsheltered locations, with
36.7 percent in emergency shelters and 20.6 percent
in transitional housing.

50%

20.6%

40%
21.4%

30%
20%

36.7%
21.4%

10%
0%

Under age 18

Emergency
Shelter

Ages 18 - 24

Transitional
Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages are based on under age 18 = 14
and ages 18−24 = 236.

Page 54

 2.4.3.2. Differences within Children and Unaccompanied Youth by Race/Ethnicity
About 60 percent of the 382 homeless children were children of color, while 33 percent were White Alone,
Not Hispanic and 7 percent of children were of unknown race. See table 18 for details on race/ethnicity.
Table 18. Differences in Race/Ethnicity of Unaccompanied Youth
5 years old or younger
No. and (%)

Ages 6−11
No. and (%)

Ages 12−17
No. and (%)

White Alone, Not Hispanic

44
(28.0%)

44
(33.0%)

37
(40.0%)

People of Color

102
(65.0%)

76
(57.0%)

51
(55.0%)

Unknown*

10
(6.0%)

14
(10.0%)

4
(4.0%)

American Indian/Alaska
Native

14
(9.0%)

12
(9.0%)

9
(10.0%)

Asian

3
(2.0%)

1
(1.0%)

2
(2.0%)

Black/African American

58
(37.0%)

33
(25.0%)

27
(29.0%)

Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

5
(3.0%)

6
(4.0%)

4
(4.0%)

Hispanic/Latino
(of any race)

36
(23.0%)

32
(24.0%)

19
(21.0%)

White

83
(53.0%)

80
(60.0%)

53
(58.0%)

Race/Ethnicity

Race alone or in combination

*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• Of children ages 5 and younger, 65 percent were children of color. Another 57 percent of children
ages 6−11 and 55 percent of children ages 12−17 were children of color.
•• In comparison, 28 percent of children ages 5 and younger were White Alone, Not Hispanic; 33 percent
of children ages 6−11 and 40 percent of children ages 12−17 were White Alone, Not Hispanic.

Page 55

 There were differences in race/ethnicity in the unaccompanied youth categories as explained in table 19.
Table 19. Differences in Race/Ethnicity of Unaccompanied Youth
Under 18 years old
No. and (%)

Ages 18−24
No. and (%)

White Alone, Not Hispanic

5
(36.0%)

157
(55.0%)

People of Color

9
(64.0%)

116
(41.0%)

Unknown*

0
(0.0%)

13
(5.0%)

American Indian/Alaska
Native

3
(21.0%)

34
(12.0%)

Asian

0
(0.0%)

9
(3.0%)

Black/African American

5
(36.0%)

56
(20.0%)

Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

0
(0.0%)

3
(1.0%)

Hispanic/Latino
(of any race)

4
(29.0%)

30
(10.0%)

White

8
(57.0%)

195
(68.0%)

Race/Ethnicity

Race alone or in combination

*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• A little more than half (54%) of the unaccompanied youth were White Alone, Not Hispanic. For youth
under age 18, 36 percent were White Alone, Not Hispanic, while 55 percent of youth ages 18−24 were
White Alone, Not Hispanic.
•• In comparison, 42 percent were youth of color. Among youth under age 18, 64 percent were persons
of color. Among unaccompanied youth ages 18−24, 41 percent were persons of color.

Page 56

 2.5. AGE
Age is required information on the PIT survey
and is used to avoid duplication of respondents.
Following is a discussion of the age characteristics
of people experiencing homelessness.

The average and the median age of PIT
survey respondents was 40 years. The
most frequently occurring age (mode)
was 36 years.

2.5.1. Count and Distribution
See table 20 for details on age characteristics of people in unsheltered locations, emergency shelters and
transitional housing.
Table 20. Distribution of Age Groups by Housing Situation
Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency Shelter
No. and (%)

Transitional Housing
No. and (%)

Total

< 18

51
(3.1%)

238
(13.6%)

93
(12.3%)

382
(9.1%)

18−24

127
(7.6%)

131
(7.5%)

77
(10.2%)

335
(8.0%)

25−44

756
(45.3%)

605
(34.5%)

276
(36.5%)

1,637
(39.2%)

45−54

425
(25.5%)

378
(21.6%)

155
(20.5%)

958
(22.9%)

55−69

276
(16.5%)

361
(20.6%)

135
(17.8%)

772
(18.5%)

70+

14
(0.8%)

19
(1.1%)

11
(1.5%)

44
(1.1%)

Unknown*

19
(1.1%)

20
(1.1%)

10
(1.3%)

49
(1.2%)

1,668
(100.0%)

1,752
(100.0%)

757
(100.0%)

4,177

Age Categories

Total

Note. Percentages are based on unsheltered = 1,668, emergency shelters = 1,752, and transitional housing = 757.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• The largest proportion of respondents were between the ages of 25 and 44 (39.2%), followed by
respondents age 45−54 (22.9%) and respondents age 55−69 (18.5%).
•• Children under 18 years old made up 9.1 percent of the population experiencing homelessness.
•• Those 55 years and older made up 19.6 percent of the total homeless population.
•• The average and the median age of PIT survey respondents was 40 years. The most frequently
occurring age (mode) was 36 years.

Page 57

 2.5.2. Age characteristics—2015 and 2017 Compared
Table 21 provides a comparison of age distribution for the 2015 and 2017 PIT counts.
Table 21. Age of Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared
Age categories
< 18
18−24
25−44
45−54
55−69
70+
Unknown*
Total

2015
374
(9.8%)
312
(8.2%)
1,427
(37.5%)
931
(24.5%)
674
(17.7%)
30
(0.8%)
53
(1.4%)

2017
382
(9.1%)
335
(8.0%)
1,637
(39.2%)
958
(22.9%)
772
(18.5%)
44
(1.1%)
49
(1.2%)

Change
8
(-0.7%)
23
(-0.2%)
210
(1.7%)
27
(-1.6%)
98
(0.8%)
14
(0.3%)
4
(-0.2%)

Percent Change

3,801

4,177

376

9.9%

2.1%
7.4%
14.7%
2.9%
14.5%
46.7%
-7.5%

Source: PIT count 2015 and 2017.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• The proportion of each age category does not appear to have changed much except for ages 25−44.
The percentage of people in this group increased close to 2 percent.
•• The percent changes indicate that the number of people increased in every age category. The percent
change of 46.7 percent for those ages 70 and above indicates a large change compared to 2015,
though the total number of people in this age group remained comparatively small. The number of
respondents with unknown age declined for PIT count 2017.

Page 58

 2.5.3. Variations within Age Categories
There are differences in housing situation within and between age groups. The following analysis
provides details.
2.5.2.1. Housing Situation
Housing situation varies based on age. See figure 18 for details.
Figure 18. Differences in Housing Situation by Age Group
100%
90%

13.4%
37.9%

80%
24.3%

46.2%

44.4%

35.8%

31.8%

38.8%

70%
60%
17.5%
50%

23.0%
16.9%

25.0%
20.4%

16.2%

40%
30%

62.3%

20%

39.1%

37.0%

18 - 24

25 - 44

39.5%

46.8%

43.2%

40.8%

70+

Age
Unknown

10%
0%

<18

Emergency Shelter

45 - 54

55 - 69

Transitional Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages are based on < 18 = 382, 18−24 = 335, 25−44 = 1,637, 45−54 = 958, 55−69 = 772, 70+ = 44, and
age unknown = 49. Age unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• Among children, only a small percentage (13.4%) slept in unsheltered locations, while nearly twothirds (62.3%) were in emergency shelters.
•• In comparison, a larger proportion of the 25−44 and 45−54 age groups slept in unsheltered locations
with their distribution in emergency shelters being 37 percent and 39.5 percent, respectively.

2.6. GENDER DISTRIBUTION
As part of the PIT count, detailed information on gender identity is gathered for the unsheltered and the
sheltered (emergency shelter or transitional housing) homeless population.

Page 59

 2.6.1. Count and Distribution
For count and distribution of gender identity for all ages, including children, by their housing situation see
table 22.
Table 22. Gender Distribution by Housing Situation—All Ages
Emergency
Shelter

Transitional
Housing

Unsheltered

Total

Male

926
(52.9%)

461
(60.9%)

1,108
(66.4%)

2,495
(59.7%)

Female

772
(44.1%)

278
(36.7%)

501
(30.0%)

1,551
(37.1%)

Transgender

23
(1.3%)

9
(1.2%)

12
(0.7%)

44
(1.1%)

Doesn’t identify as male,
female or transgender

3
(0.2%)

1
(0.1%)

11
(0.7%)

15
(0.4%)

Unknown*

28
(1.6%)

8
(1.1%)

36
(2.2%)

72
(1.7%)

1,752
(100.0%)

757
(100.0%)

1,668
(100.0%)

4,177
(100.0%)

Gender Identity

Total

Note: Question—How do you identify your gender? Population Count (N) = 4,177.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• Males (59.7%) are overrepresented in the population experiencing homelessness, with females making
up 37.1 percent of the PIT respondents.
•• Just over one percent (1.1%) of the homeless population identified as transgender, while less than half
a percent (0.4%) did not identify as male, female or transgender.
•• Males made up two-thirds (66.4%) of the unsheltered homeless population and, largely due to their
overrepresentation, accounted for higher proportions in emergency shelters (52.9%) and in transitional
housing (60.9%).
•• A sizable percentage of homeless females (44.1%) were in emergency shelters.

Page 60

 Table 23 provides a complete breakdown of gender identification for homeless adults (ages 18 years
and over).
Table 23. Gender Distribution by Housing Situation—Adults (Age 18 Years and Over)
Emergency
Shelter
No. and (%)

Transitional
Housing
No. and (%)

Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Total
No. and (%)

Male

809
(54.1%)

408
(62.4%)

1,078
(67.5%)

2,295
(61.3%)

Female

649
(43.4%)

235
(35.9%)

471
(29.5%)

1,355
(36.2%)

Transgender

23
(1.5%)

8
(1.2%)

11
(0.7%)

42
(1.1%)

Doesn’t identify as male,
female or transgender

3
(0.2%)

1
(0.2%)

11
(0.7%)

15
(0.4%)

Unknown*

10
(0.7%)

2
(0.3%)

27
(1.7%)

39
(1.0%)

1,494
(100.0%)

654
(100.0%)

1,598
(100.0%)

3,746
(100.0%)

Adult Gender Identity

Total

Note: Question-How do you identify your gender? Population count (n) = 3,746.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observation
•• The gender distribution for adults (ages 18 years and over) closely resembles the distribution of the
overall homeless population. This is largely driven by the fact that adults 18 years and older constituted
89.6 percent of the overall homeless population. Children under 18 years made up 9.1 percent of the
PIT count population.

Page 61

 2.6.2. Changes in Gender Distribution Compared to 2015
Direct comparison of changes in gender distribution between PIT count 2015 and PIT count 2017 should
be made with recognition of the static nature of the count in mind. However, given that both efforts were
about counting the homeless population on a single night, insights can be drawn from changes in gender
count and composition. Table 24 provides a comparison of changes in count and percent for various
gender identities.
Table 24. Gender Distribution of the Homeless Population (Adults and Children)—2015 and
2017 Compared
2015
No. and (%)

2017
No. and (%)

Change
No. and (%)

Male

2,403
(63.2%)

2,495
(59.7%)

92
(-3.5%)

3.8%

Female

1,338
(35.2%)

1,551
(37.1%)

213
(1.9%)

15.9%

Transgender

20
(0.5%)

44
(1.1%)

24
(0.6%)

120.0%

Doesn’t identify as male,
female or transgender

2
(0.0%)

15
(0.4%)

13
(0.4%)

650.0%

Unknown*

38
(0.9%)

72
(1.7%)

34
(0.8%)

89.5%

Total

3,801

4,177

376

10.4%

Gender Identity

Percent Change

*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• Homeless population counts of all gender identities increased
since 2015.
•• The total count of males in the homeless population went
up by 92 in 2017, but their share of the overall homeless
population went down by 3.5 percent.

The percent change between
2015 and 2017 was four
times greater among women
than men.

•• The total count of homeless females increased by 213 in 2017,
and their share of the homeless population went up by 1.9 percent.
•• The total count of transgender homeless persons more than doubled (increasing by 24) during
the 2017 count.

Page 62

 With the intent of keeping women (with or without children) from having to sleep in unsheltered
locations, the local CoC has been increasing investments in emergency shelter beds. This genderfocused effort is apparent in the changes to gender distribution of adults by housing situation.
See table 25 for comparison details.
Table 25. Gender Distribution of the Homeless Population (Adults) by Housing Situation—2015 and
2017 Compared
Emergency Shelter

Transitional
Housing

Unsheltered

Total

Adult Gender
Identity

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

2015

2017

Male

436

809

571

408

1,201

1,078

2,208

2,295

Percent Change
Male
Female

85.6%
295

Percent Change
Female
Transgender
Percent Change
Transgender

-28.5%
649

300

120.0%
5

235

566

-21.7%
23

360.0%

-10.2%

4

3.9%
471

1,161

-16.8%
8

100.0%

11

16.7%
11

0.0%

1,355

20

42
110.0%

Key Observations
•• Compared to 2015, a declining percentage of males (-10.2%) and females (-16.8%) slept in unsheltered
locations. The proportion remained unchanged for the transgender population.
•• Efforts to get adult females into emergency shelter are evident in the 120.0 percent increase in females
in emergency shelters. The percent change for males, at 85.6 percent, and transgender people at 360.0
percent is also high.
2.6.3. Variations by Gender Identity
Differences exist within and between gender groups experiencing homelessness. This section discusses
differences in housing situation, household types and in the prevalence of domestic violence.

Page 63

 2.6.3.1. Differences within Gender Identities by Housing Situation—All Ages
Genders were not distributed similarly when it comes to shelter status. See figure 19 for details.

Key Observations
•• Among homeless males, 44.4 percent were
unsheltered with 37.1 percent in emergency shelter
and the remaining 18.5 percent in transitional
housing.
•• Nearly half (49.8%) of females and just over half
(52.3%) of the transgender homeless population were
in emergency shelter.
•• For all three gender identities, transitional housing
accounted for the smallest share.
2.6.3.2. Differences in Household type by Gender
(Adults Only)
Gender differences are apparent within the homeless
population when we look at the two household types:
adult-child and adult-only households. Figure 20 provides
the breakdown of household types for male, female, and
transgender households.

Key Observations
•• Nearly all males (96.7%) are in adult-only households
with just a tiny fraction (3.3%) being part of adultchild households.
•• In comparison, 84.9 percent of females are part of
adult-only households with the remaining share
(15.1%) being part of adult-child households.
•• All of the transgender respondents live in adult-only
households.

Figure 19. Differences in Housing Situation for
Male, Female, and Transgender Population
100%
90%
44.4%

70%
60%

20.5%

17.9%

50%

18.5%

40%
30%
20%

52.3%

49.8%

37.1%

10%
0%

Male

Transgender

Female

Emergency
Shelter

Transitional
Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages within each gender identity
are based on total number of male (2,495), female
(1,551), and transgender (44) homeless persons.

Figure 20. Distribution of Household Types
by Gender
100%

3.3%
15.1%

90%
80%
70%
60%

100.0%

50%

2.6.3.3. Differences in Prevalence of Domestic Violence
(Adults Only)
Gender differences are apparent within the homeless
population when we look at the prevalence of domestic
violence. See figure 21 for details.

27.3%

32.3%

80%

40%
30%
20%

96.7%

84.9%

10%
0%

Male

Female
Adult only

Transgender
Adult-Child

Note: Percentages within each gender identity
are based on total number of adult male (2,295),
adult female (1,355), and adult transgender (42)
homeless persons.

Page 64

 Figure 21. Differences in Prevalence of Domestic
Violence within Gender Identity-Adults Only

Key Observations
•• Over half (54.8%) of the female population that was
homeless reported experiencing domestic violence.

100%
90%

•• There was a similar prevalence (50%) of domestic
violence for the transgender population.

80%

•• Slightly less than a quarter (21%) of the male
population reported experiencing domestic violence.

60%

12.5%

70%

50%

17.6%

14.3%

27.5%

35.7%

54.8%

50.0%

Female

Transgender

66.4%

40%

2.6.3.4. Differences in Duration of Homelessness—
Unsheltered Population Only
As part of the unsheltered street count survey
,households responded to a number of additional local
questions (See section 3 for details). One question
assesses duration of homelessness. Table 26 provides
details on where adult-only households and families with
children slept.

Table 26. Duration of Homelessness by Gender Identity

Length of
Homelessness

Male
Female
No. and (%) No. and (%)

30%
20%
10%
0%

21.0%

Male

Experience
of Domestic
Violence

No Experience
of Domestic
Violence

Status
Unknown

Note: Percentages within each gender identity are based on
total number of adult male (2,295), adult female (1,355), and
adult transgender (42) homeless persons.

Transgender
No. and (%)

Doesn’t Identify
as Male, Female
or Transgender
No. and (%)

Unknown
No. and (%)

Less than one
month

62
(5.6%)

26
(5.2%)

0
(0.0%)

0
(0.0%)

4
(11.1%)

1−6 months

148
(13.4%)

89
(17.8%)

3
(25.0%)

4
(36.4%)

8
(22.2%)

7−12 months 

142
(12.8%)

73
(14.6%)

1
(8.3%)

3
(27.3%)

1
(2.8%)

1−2 years 

151
(13.6%)

53
(10.6%)

2
(16.7%)

3
(27.3%)

3
(8.3%)

2−5 years 

226
(20.4%)

108
(21.6%)

2
(16.7%)

0
(0.0%)

6
(16.7%)

5−10 years 

169
(15.3%)

42
(8.4%)

1
(8.3%)

1
(9.1%)

8
(22.2%)

> 10 years 

79
(7.1%)

20
(4.0%)

1
(8.3%)

0
(0.0%)

4
(11.1%)

Missing

131
(11.8%)

90
(18.0%)

2
(16.7%)

0
(0.0%)

2
(5.6%)

Total 

1,108
(100.0%)

501
(100.0%)

12
(100.0%)

11
(100.0%)

36
(100.0%)

Page 65

 Key Observation
•• Some differences are apparent in the duration of homelessness by gender. While 31.8 percent of
males have been homeless for 12 months or less, 37.6 percent of females have been homeless for
this shorter duration. Just over one-third (33.3%) of transgender people have been homeless for this
shorter duration.

A total of 1,290 persons met the
definition of chronically homeless, a
24.9 percent increase since 2015

2.7. CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS

People experiencing chronic homelessness are part
of HUD-identified homeless subpopulations. Effective
January 15, 2016, HUD issued new guidelines regarding
the definition of chronic homelessness30. This definition is more restrictive in nature with the potential
to leave out people who may previously have been identified as chronically homeless. According to the
current definition, chronically homeless persons or families (a) reside in emergency shelters, safe havens,
or places not meant for human habitation, (b) have been homeless continuously for at least one year
or on four separate occasions in the last three years where the combined length of time homeless on
those occasions was at least 12 months, and (c) have a disability. The most significant change was adding
homeless episodes to arrive at the combined length of time homeless. The PIT survey includes questions
to assess chronic homelessness status and the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
computes the final status based on responses to those questions.
2.7.1. Count and Distribution
A total of 1,290 persons met the definition of chronically homeless. Relative rates of chronic homelessness
vary by housing situation. Note that HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness excludes those in
transitional housing. See table 27 for details.
Table 27. Distribution of Chronically Homeless Population Unsheltered and in Emergency Shelters
Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency Shelter
No. and (%)

Total
No. and (%)

Yes

917
(55.0%)

373
(21.3%)

1,290
(30.9%)

No

751
45.0%

1379
(78.7%)

2,887
(69.1%)

Total

1,668

1,752

4,177

Chronically Homeless

Note: Percentages are based on unsheltered count = 1,668 and emergency shelter count = 1,752.

Key Observation
•• Just under one-third (30.9%) of the population who were homeless met HUD’s current definition of
chronic homelessness.
•• More than half (55.0%) of people who were unsheltered were chronically homeless
30.  Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Defining‘‘Chronically
Homeless’’". Federal Register 80, No. 233 (December 4, 2015): 75792. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/DefiningChronically-Homeless-Final-Rule.pdf

Page 66

 2.7.2. Changes in Count and Distribution of Chronically Homeless Compared to 2015
In light of definitional changes to chronic homelessness that made the criteria more restrictive, the 2017
results are interesting. See table 28 for details.
Table 28. Chronically Homeless Unsheltered and in Emergency Shelter—2015 and 2017 Compared
Unsheltered

Chronically
Homeless
2015

2017

Adult-only
Households

901
837
(54.0%)
(44.4%)
(64)

People in
Families

38
(2.0%)

Total

917
875
(54.9%)
(46.4%)
(42)

16
(<1%)
(22)

Emergency Shelter

Percent
Change
7.6%

-57.9%

4.8%

2015

2017

339
132
(19.3%)
(15.1%)
(207)
26
(8.7%)

34
(1.9%)
(↑8)

373
158
(21.3%)
(18.1%)
(215)

Percent
Change

Total Chronically Homeless

2015

2017

Percent
Change

156.8%

1,240
969
(74.3%)
(51.4%)
(271)

28.0%

30.8%

64
(3.4%)

50
(3.0%)
(14)

-21.9%

136.1%

1,290
1,033
(77.3%)
(54.7%)
(257)

24.9%

Note: Percentages for 2017 are based on unsheltered count = 1,668 and emergency shelter = 1,752. Percentage for 2015 are based
on unsheltered count = 1,887 and emergency shelter = 872.

Key Observation
•• The total number of chronically homeless individuals increased by 257, an increase of 24.9 percent. The
number of chronically homeless people in unsheltered locations increased slightly by a count of 42 (a
change of 4.8%) compared to 2015. The increase in emergency shelter by a count of 215 was much
larger (a change of 136.1%) compared to 2015.
2.7.3. Variations between Chronically Homeless and Not-Chronically Homeless Respondents
By definition, chronically homeless individuals have disabling conditions. However, other variations exist
between this subpopulation and the PIT count population that is not chronically homeless.
2.7.3.1. Housing Situation
Differences in housing situation can be observed between populations that are chronically homeless and
not chronically homeless. (See figure 22).

Page 67

 Key Observations
•• Well over two-thirds (71.1%) of chronically
homeless respondents were unsheltered.

Figure 22. Differences in Housing Situation for ChronicallyHomeless and Not-Chronically-Homeless Populations
100%

•• Just over a quarter (26.2%) of respondents
who were not chronically homeless were
unsheltered.

90%

•• By definition, people in transitional housing
cannot be considered chronically homeless
and this is visible in figure 23.

60%

2.7.3.2. Household Types
When comparing subpopulations that are
chronically homeless and not chronically
homeless, we see differences in household
types. See figure 23 for details.

Key Observations
•• Nearly all (96.1%) of the chronically
homeless respondents were part of adultonly households.
•• None of the chronically homeless
respondents were part of children-only
households.
•• In comparison, 78.5 percent of those who
were not chronically homeless were in
adult-only households, and 20.9 percent
were part of households of families with
children.

26.0%

80%
70%
71.1%

26.2%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

47.8%
28.9%

Chronically Homeless Not Chronically
Homeless

Emergency Shelter

Transitional
Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages are based on chronically homeless =
1,290 and not chronically homeless = 2,887.

Figure 23. Differences in Household Types for People Who
Are Chronically Homeless and Not Chronically Homeless
0.5%

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

78.5%

96.1%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

20.9%
3.9%

Chronically Homeless Not Chronically
Homeless
Adult-Child

Adult Only

Only Children

Note: Percentages are based on chronically homeless = 1,290 and not
chronically homeless = 2,887.

Page 68

 2.7.3.3. Gender Identity
When comparing subpopulations that were chronically homeless and not chronically homeless, we see
differences in gender identity. See figure 24 for details.

Key Observations
•• Men make up just over two-thirds (66.6%)
of the chronically homeless, while women
and transgender individuals account for
30.3 percent and less than one percent
(0.7%), respectively.
•• In comparison, men account for 56.7
percent of respondents who are not
chronically homeless, while women and
transgender individuals make up 40.2
percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.

Figure 24. Differences in Gender Identity for ChronicallyHomeless and Not-Chronically-Homeless Populations
100%

0.7%

1.2%

90%
80%

30.3%
40.2%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

66.6%

56.7%

20%

2.8. DISABLING CONDITIONS

10%

0%
The HUD definition of disability includes an
Not Chronically
Chronically
individual with one or more of the following
Homeless
Homeless
conditions: (a) physical, mental, or emotional
Male
Female
Transgender
impairment, including an impairment caused
by alcohol or drug abuse, post-traumatic stress
Note: Percentages are based on chronically homeless = 1,290 and not
chronically homeless = 2,887. The percentages do not add up to 100%
disorder, or brain injury; (b) a developmental
because responses from unknown gender identities have been excluded.
disability; or (c) the disease of acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or any
condition arising from the etiologic agency for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV). Since having a
disability is part of the eligibility criteria for chronic homelessness, PIT collects self-reported information on
HUD-defined disabling conditions.

Page 69

 2.8.1. Count and Distribution
A total of 2,527 people reported having one or more HUD-defined disabling conditions. The rate of
disability varies by housing situation. See table 29 for details.
Table 29. Disabling Condition by Housing Situation

Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency
Shelter
No. and (%)

Transitional
Housing
No. and (%)

Count

Yes

1,195
(71.6%)

824
(47.0%)

508
(67.1%)

2,527
(60.5%)

No

326
(19.5%)

737
(42.1%)

217
(28.7%)

1,280
(30.6%)

Unknown*

147
(8.8%)

191
(10.9%)

32
(4.2%)

370
(8.9%)

Total

1,668

1,752

757

4,177

Disabling Condition

Note: Question – Are you experiencing any of the following: mental illness, drug use problem, alcohol use problem, physical
disability, mobility impairment, chronic health condition, developmental disability, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress,
HIV/AIDS? Disability status was recorded differently in a way that may underestimate the number of disabled people in emergency
shelter and transitional housing, because the HUD definition is so specific. Population count (N) = 4,177. Percentages are based on
unsheltered count = 1,668, emergency shelter = 1,752, and transitional housing = 757.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

The PIT count collects data by types of disabling conditions. The respondents can select all conditions
that apply. However, we were able to obtain the disabiity detail only for the data for the unsheltered
population. See table 30 for details.
Table 30. Types of Disabling Conditions by Housing Situation
Disability Type

Unsheltered

Adults with serious mental illness

747
(44.8%)

Adults with a substance use disorder

626
(37.5%)

Adults with HIV/AIDS

24
(1.4%)

Chronic health condition

439
(26.3%)

Developmental disability

130
(7.8%)

Physical disability

634
(38.0%)
Page 70

Note: Percentages for 2017 are based
on unsheltered count = 1,668. All data
on disabling conditions in this table are
presented as an overcount, which means
respondents could pick all applicable values
and were counted within each category.
Hence, the percentages can add up to more
than 100.

 Key Observations
•• A sizable share (60.5%) of people experiencing homelessness reported having one or more
disabling conditions.
•• A sizable share (71.6%) of the unsheltered population reported that they have one or more
disabling conditions.
•• In addition, 47.0 percent of the population in emergency shelters and 67.1 percent of people in
transitional housing reported one or more disabling conditions.
•• People who were unsheltered reported high rates of mental illness (44.8%), physical disabilities (38.0%),
substance abuse disorders (37.5%) and chronic health conditions (26.3%).
2.8.2. Changes in Count and Distribution of Respondents with Disabling Conditions–2015
and 2017 Compared
The overall count of homeless people with a disability has gone up in the 2017 count. Both the
unsheltered and emergency shelter counts registered an increase. The count of people with a disabling
condition in transitional housing declined. See table 31 for details.
Table 31. Housing Situation of People with a Disability—2015 and 2017 Compared
Respondents with
a Disability 2015
No. and (%)

Respondents
with a Disability
2017
No. and (%)

Change
No. and (%)

Unsheltered

1,107
(50.8%)

1,195
(47.3%)

88
(7.9%)

Emergency shelter

418
(19.2%)

824
(32.6%)

406
(97.1%)

Transitional housing

652
(29.9%)

508
(20.1%)

-144
(-22.1%)

Total

2,177
(100.0%)

2,527
(100.0%)

350
(16.1%)

Housing Situation

Note: Percentages for 2015 are based on yes disabling conditions = 2,177 and for 2017 yes disabling conditions = 2,527.

Key Observation
•• The number of people with disabling conditions increased by 350 (a percent change of 16.1%)
between the 2015 count and the 2017 count.
2.8.3. Variations between Subpopulations with and without Disabling Conditions
Differences exist between homeless subpopulations with and without disabling conditions. This section
discusses differences by housing situation and gender identity.

Page 71

 2.8.3.1. Housing Situation
When comparing people with and without disabling conditions, we see differences in their housing
situation. See figure 25 for details.

Key Observations

Figure 25. Differences in Housing Situation of
Subpopulations with and without Disabling Conditions

•• Just under half (47.3%) of the people with
disabling conditions slept in unsheltered
locations, while 32.6 percent were in
emergency shelters. The remaining share
(20.1%) slept in transitional housing.

100%
90%

25.5%

80%
70%

•• In comparison, just over one-quarter (25.5%) of
people without a disability slept in unsheltered
locations, while over half (57.6%) were in
emergency shelters, and the remaining 17
percent were in transitional housing.

39.7%

47.3%
17.0%

60%

8.6%

50%
20.1%

40%
30%

57.6%

20%

2.8.3.2. Gender Identity
When comparing people with and without
disabling conditions, we see differences in their
gender identity. See figure 26 for details.

32.6%

10%
0%

Have
Disability

No
Status Unknown
Disability

Emergency Shelter

Key Observations
•• Among the population that reported having
one or more disabilities, 62.2 percent were
male. Females made up 35.3 percent, and
transgender individuals accounted for just over
one percent.

51.6%

Transitional Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages are based on disability = 2,527, no disability =
1,280, and unknown = 370.

Figure 26. Gender Identity Differences between
Respondents with and without Disabling Conditions
100%

•• In comparison, a slightly smaller share of
respondents with no disabilities were male
(57.8%). Females made up 40.2 percent of
homeless people with no disabilities and
transgender people came in under one
percent.

1.1%

0.8%

35.3%

40.2%

1.4%

90%
80%

38.9%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

62.2%

57.8%

20%

49.5%

10%
0%

Have
Disability
Male

No
Status Unknown
Disability
Female

Transgender

Note: Percentages are based on disability = 2,527, no
disability = 1,280, and unknown = 370.

Page 72

 2.9. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
It is important to note that the domestic
Based on the HUD definition, the subpopulation
of people who have experienced domestic
violence question is asked only of adult
violence includes adults who have experienced
respondents.
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, or stalking. HUD points out that “persons
experiencing domestic violence, particularly women and children with limited economic resources,
are at increased vulnerability to homelessness.”
In an effort to address documented confusion about the domestic violence question on the 2015 PIT
survey, a rather direct question to assess domestic violence was used on the 2017 survey: [Ask if 18 years or
older:] Have you experienced domestic violence (physical/emotional/verbal domestic violence) in current
or past relationships?
It is important to note that the domestic violence question is
asked only of adult respondents. So, for all tables in this
section, n = 3,746.
2.9.1. Count and Distribution
A total of 1,261 respondents reported having experienced
domestic violence. See table 32 for details.

Just over one-third (33.7%) of
the respondents experiencing
unsheltered and sheltered
homelessness reported that
they have experienced domestic
violence.

Table 32. Distribution of Responses to the Domestic Violence Question-Adults Only

Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency Shelter
No. and (%)

Transitional
Housing
No. and (%)

Total
No. and (%)

Yes

587
(36.7%)

494
(33.1%)

180
(27.5%)

1,261
(33.7%)

No

732
(45.8%)

760
(50.9%)

445
(68.0%)

1,937
(51.7%)

Unknown*

279
(17.5%)

240
(16.1%)

29
(4.4%)

548
(14.6%)

Total

1,598
(100.0%)

1,494
(100.0%)

654
(100.0%)

3,746
(100.0%)

Domestic Violence

Note: Question-[Ask if 18 years or older:] Have you experienced domestic violence (physical/emotional/verbal domestic violence)
in current or past relationships?
Percentages for 2017 are based on unsheltered count = 1,668, emergency shelter = 1,752, transitional housing = 757, and total =
3,746.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Page 73

 Key Observations
•• Just over one-third (33.7%) of the respondents experiencing unsheltered and sheltered homelessness
reported that they have experienced domestic violence.
•• The proportion of respondents who reported having experienced domestic violence was nearly the
same in unsheltered locations (36.7%) and for emergency shelters (33.1%). Just over one quarter
(27.5%) of people in transitional housing reported experiencing domestic violence.
As part of the 2017 street count survey, those who responded as having experienced domestic violence
were asked whether they were currently fleeing from that experience. See table 33 for details.
Table 33. Fleeing Domestic Violence—Adult Unsheltered Only
Count
No. and %

Currently Fleeing Domestic Violence
Yes

123
(21.0%)

No

421
(71.7%)

Unknown*

43
(7.3%)
587
(100.0%)

Total

Note: Question-[Ask if Yes on domestic violence:] Are you currently fleeing from domestic violence? Population Count (n) = 587.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observation
•• Just over one-fifth (21.0%) of the adult unsheltered population that responded as having experienced
domestic violence responded that they were currently fleeing from domestic violence.
2.9.2. Count and Distribution of Domestic Violence in 2015 and 2017
In 2015, the question to assess domestic violence was phrased as, “In the past year, has someone abused or
threatened you or your dependent in a way that made you afraid to remain where you are staying?” Based
on feedback from stakeholder groups, this question was revised to better capture domestic violence data.
That revision makes direct comparison of data between 2015 and 2017 difficult. See table 34 for results
from 2015 and the companion (not comparable) data from 2017. Notably, based on data issues, the 2015
PIT count included data about females only. So, the accompanying table compares data on females only.

Page 74

 Table 34. Count of Female Respondents Experiencing Domestic Violence—Adult Females Only
Count of Females Experiencing
Domestic Violence 2015

Count of Females Experiencing
Domestic Violence 2017

Unsheltered

231

262

Emergency shelter

163

339

Transitional housing

158

142

Total

552

743

Housing Situation

Source: PIT count 2015 and PIT count 2017.

Key Observations
•• Given the differences in the nature of the survey questions, making comparisons between 2015 data
and 2017 data is not possible and one can only note that, in 2017, more women (191 more) reported
having experienced domestic violence than in 2015.
•• In total, 54.8 percent of all adult women in the 2017 PIT count reported having experienced
domestic violence.
2.9.3. Variations between Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience Domestic Violence
Differences exist between people experiencing
domestic violence and those who did not. This
Figure 27. Differences in Housing Situation of
section discusses differences by housing situation,
Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience
gender identity, and household types.
Domestic Violence—Adults Only
100%

2.9.3.1. Housing Situation
When comparing those who experienced domestic
violence and those who did not, we see differences
in their housing situation. See figure 27 for details.

90%
80%
70%

Key Observations

37.8%

60%
50%

•• Close to half (46.6%) of the people
reporting experience with domestic
violence slept in unsheltered locations,
39.2 percent were in emergency
shelters, and 14.3 percent were in
transitional housing.

40%

23.0%

6.5%

14.3%

30%
20%

39.1%

54.4%
39.2%

39.2%

10%

n
Un
kn
ow

m Ex
es pe
tic rie
Vi nc
ol e
en of
ce
Do No
m Ex
es pe
tic rie
Vi nc
ol e
en of
ce

0%

Do

•• In comparison, 37.8 percent of
respondents who had not experienced
domestic violence slept in unsheltered
locations and 39.2 percent were in
emergency shelters.

46.6%

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

Unsheltered

Note: Percentages are based on experience of domestic
violence = 1,261, no experience of domestic violence = 1,937,
and unknown = 548.

Page 75

 2.9.3.2. Gender Identity
When comparing people who have experienced
domestic violence and those who have not
experienced domestic violence, we see differences
in their gender identity. See figure 28 for details.

Figure 28. Differences in Gender Identity of
Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience
Domestic Violence—Adults Only
100%

0.8%

90%

1.1%

19.3%

80%
70%

Key Observations

1.7%

43.6%
58.9%

60%

2.9.3.3. Household Types
Household types differed for respondents who have and
have not experienced domestic violence. See figure 29
for details.

Key Observations
•• A large share (89.6%) of respondents experiencing
domestic violence are in adult-only households,
while 10.4 percent of people reporting experience
with domestic violence are in adult-child
households.
•• In comparison, 95.1 percent of people who have not
experienced domestic violence were in adult-only
households, while 4.9 percent were in adult-child
households.

78.7%

40%
30%
20%

52.6%
38.2%

10%

Un

kn

ow

n

0%

m Ex
es pe
tic rie
Vi nc
ol e
en of
ce
N
Do o
m Ex
es pe
tic rie
Vi nc
ol e
en of
ce

•• In comparison, females make up 19.3 percent of
the homeless population that has not experienced
domestic violence, while 78.7 percent of males have
not experienced domestic violence. Just under
one percent (0.8%) of respondents who have not
experienced domestic violence are transgender.

50%

Do

•• Over half (58.9%) of the respondents reporting
experience with domestic violence are female, while
38.2 percent are male. Transgender respondents
constitute the remaining 1.7 percent of the
population reporting experience with domestic
violence.

Male

Female

Transgender

Note: Percentages are based on experience of domestic
violence = 1,261, no experience of domestic violence =
1,937, and unknown = 548.

Figure 29. Differences in Household Types of
Respondents Who Did and Did Not Experience
Domestic Violence—Adults Only
100%
90%

10.4%

4.9%

10.4%

80%
70%
60%
95.1%

50%
40%

89.6%

89.6%

30%
20%
10%

n
ow
Un
kn

Do

m Ex
es pe
tic rie
Vi nc
ol e
en of
ce
Do No
m Ex
es pe
tic rie
Vi nc
ol e
en of
ce

0%

Adult-Only

Adult-Child

Note: Percentages are based on experience of domestic
violence = 1,261, no experience of domestic violence =
1,937, and unknown = 548.

Page 76

 Among the population experiencing
unsheltered and sheltered homelessness,
11.9 percent identified as being veterans.
In comparison, according to most recent figures
from the Census, 5.2 percent of Multnomah
County’s population have veteran status.

2.10. VETERANS

Based on the HUD definition, this subpopulation
includes veteran adults who have served on active duty
in the Armed Forces of the United States. This definition
does not include inactive military reserves or the
National Guard, unless the person was called up to active
duty. This question was revised on the 2017 PIT survey to
read: “[Ask if 18 years or older:] Have you served in the US Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, Coast Guard) or have you been called into active duty by the National Guard or as a Reservist?”

It is important to note that the question on veteran status is asked only of adult respondents. So for all
tables in this section, n = 3,746.
2.10.1. Count and Distribution
A total of 446 persons identified as being a veteran. See table 35 for details.
Table 35. Distribution of Responses to the Veteran Status Question-Adults Only

Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency Shelter
No. and (%)

Transitional Housing
No. and (%)

Total
No. and (%)

Yes

184
(11.5%)

135
(9.0%)

127
(19.4%)

446
(11.9%)

No

1,315
(82.3%)

1,264
(84.6%)

487
(74.5%)

3,066
(81.8%)

Unknown*

99
(6.2%)

95
(6.4%)

40
(6.1%)

234
(6.2%)

1,598
(100.0%)

1,494
(100.0%)

654
(100.0%)

3,746
(100.0%)

Veteran Status

Total

Note: Question-“[Ask if 18 years or older:] Have you served in the US Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast
Guard) or have you been called into active duty by the National Guard or as a Reservist? Percentages for 2017 are based on
unsheltered count = 1,668, emergency shelter = 1,752, transitional housing = 757, and total = 3,746.
*Unknown includes client doesn’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observation
•• Among the population experiencing unsheltered and sheltered homelessness, 11.9 percent identified
as being veterans. In comparison, according to most recent figures from the Census, 5.2 percent of
Multnomah County’s population have veteran status.31 So, there is an over-representation of veterans in
the county’s population experiencing homelessness.
31.  Based on the 2011−2015 American Community Survey 5-year profile for Multnomah County, there are 41,730 veterans in the county, and
in a population of 799,766, they make up 5.2 percent. US Census Bureau website, “Multnomah County Oregon,” https://www.census.gov/
search-results.html?page=1&stateGeo=none&searchtype=web&cssp=Typeahead&q=multnomah+county%2C+or&search.x=0&search.
y=0&search=submit

Page 77

 2.10.2. Changes in Count and Distribution of Veterans—2015 and 2017 Compared
In 2015, the question to assess veteran status was phrased as, “Are you a US military veteran? If yes: Did
you serve after 2001?” Based on feedback from stakeholder groups, this question was revised to expand
outreach to veterans of any status. The revision makes direct comparison of data from 2015 and 2017
difficult. See table 36 for results from 2015 and the companion (not comparable) data from 2017.
Table 36. Count of Veterans in 2015 and 2017
Housing Situation

Veteran Count 2015

Veteran Count 2017

Unsheltered

199
(47.2%)

184
(41.3%)

Emergency shelter

58
(13.7%)

135
(30.3%)

Transitional housing

165
(39.1%)

127
(28.5%)

422

446

Total
Source: PIT count 2015 and 2017.

Key Observations
•• Given the differences in the nature of the survey questions, comparing total counts of veterans from
2015 to 2017 is not possible, but one can note that a smaller portion of those reporting veteran status
were unsheltered in 2017 (41.3%) than in 2015 (47.2%).
•• Analysis of PIT data (not further displayed here), shows that slightly under two-fifths (33.9%) of all
veterans in the PIT count were chronically homeless. In 2015, 44.0 percent of Multnomah County's
homeless veterans met the definition of chronic homelessness. This drop of 10.1% reflects the local
CoC's commitment to moving veterans out of homelessness into permanent housing.

Page 78

 2.10.3 Variations between Subpopulations with and without Veteran Status
Differences exist within and between homeless
Figure 30. Differences in Housing Situation
veterans and nonveterans. This section discusses
for Veterans and Nonveterans—Adults Only
differences by housing situation, chronic
100%
homelessness, disabling condition, and gender.
90%

2.10.3.1. Housing Situation
When comparing veterans and nonveterans, we see
differences in their housing situation.
See figure 30 for details.

80%

41.3%

40%

•• Of the population of veterans, 41.3 percent slept
in unsheltered locations, 30.3 percent were in
emergency shelters, and 28.5 percent were in
transitional housing.
•• For the population of nonveterans, the share in
unsheltered locations was comparable at 42.9 percent,
with 41.2 percent in emergency shelters, and 15.9
percent in transitional housing.
2.10.3.2. Chronic Homelessness
When comparing veterans and nonveterans, we see
differences in their chronic homelessness status.
See figure 31 for details.

Key Observations
•• Among the population of veterans, 33.9 percent
were chronically homeless and 66.1 percent were not
chronically homeless.
•• A near equal proportion of nonveterans (33.5%) were
chronically homeless and 66.5 percent were not
chronically homeless.

42.3%

15.9%

17.1%

41.2%

40.6%

60%
50%

Key Observations

42.9%

70%

28.5%

30%
20%
10%
0%

30.3%

Veterans

Emergency
Shelter

Not
Veterans
Transitional
Housing

Status Unknown
Unsheltered

Note: Percentages are based on veterans = 446,
not veterans = 3,066, and unknown = 234.

Figure 31. Differences in Chronic Homelessness
for Veterans and Nonveterans—Adults Only
100%
90%
80%
70%

66.1%

66.5%

67.9%

33.9%

33.5%

32.1%

Veterans

Not
Veterans

Status
Unknown

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Chronically
Homeless

Not Chronically
Homeless

Note: Percentages are based on veterans = 446,
not veterans = 3,066, and unknown = 234.

Page 79

 2.10.3.3. Disabling Conditions
Figure 32. Differences in the Presence of Disabling
When comparing veterans and nonveterans, we see
Conditions for Veterans and Nonveterans—Adults Only
differences in those with and without disabling conditions. 100%
4.3%
6.9%
See figure 32 for details.
90%

Key Observations

80%

•• Just less than three-quarters (72.0%) of veterans have
disabling conditions, while 23.8 percent reported
having no disability.

70%

•• In comparison, 66.9 percent of those who were not
veterans had a disability, while 26.2 percent of this
population did not report having a disability.

40%

23.8%

23.9%
26.2%

29.1%

60%
50%

30%

72.0%

66.9%

20%

47.0%

10%
0%

Veterans

Have Disability

Not
Veterans
No Disability

Status
Unknown
Status
Unknown

Note: Percentages are based on veterans = 446,
not veterans = 3,066, and unknown = 234.

2.10.3.4. Gender Identity
When comparing veterans and nonveterans, we see
differences in gender identity. See figure 33 for details.

Key Observations

Figure 33. Differences in Gender Identity for
Veterans and Nonveterans-Adults Only
100%

0.4%

90%

12.8%

•• A large share (85.7%) of veterans are male. Females
made up only 12.8 percent of veterans and less
than one percent (0.4%) of veterans identified as
transgender.

80%

•• In comparison, a much smaller share of nonveterans
were male (58.2%), with females making up 39.3
percent of nonveterans, and people identifying as
transgender making up 1.2 percent.

40%

1.2%

1.7%

39.3%

39.7%

58.2%

55.6%

Not
Veterans

Status
Unknown

70%
60%
50%

85.7%

30%
20%
10%
0%

Veterans
Male

Female

Transgender

Note: Percentages are based on veterans = 446, not
veterans = 3,066, and unknown = 234.

Page 80

 3. ADDITIONAL UNSHELTERED (STREET COUNT) FINDINGS
3.1. BACKGROUND

The unsheltered population count is the lowest
it has been since 2009 (when it was 1,591).

The PIT survey administered to the unsheltered
homeless population contained a series of questions
in addition to the HUD-mandated questions. These additional questions were included as part of a local
effort to understand characteristics that are specific to this most vulnerable subsection of the homeless
population. It is important to note that these questions were not asked of those in shelter or transitional
housing, so responses are representative only of those who were unsheltered on the night of the count.
The additional questions cover the following topics:
•• Sleeping location documents the nature of the location of sleep. New in the 2017 count was a
follow-up question on whether the respondent slept in a tent.
•• Geographic location documents the geographic area of sleep.

•• First-time homelessness documents whether this was the first time the respondent was experiencing
homelessness. This question was new in the 2017 count.
•• Length of homelessness documents the length of the current episode of homelessness.
•• Attending school documents whether the respondent is currently attending school.
•• Employment documents whether the respondent is currently employed.
•• Migration documents whether or not the respondent migrated to Multnomah County from elsewhere,
the reasons for migration, and the origin of the migration.
As described in section 1 of this report, there were 1,668 people who slept outside in various unsheltered
locations on the night of the count. The vast majority of these respondents completed the survey, but
in some cases an in-person survey was not completed because a homeless service provider was able to
confirm that the individual was unsheltered on the night of the count and has previously entered all the
HUD-required data about the person into the shared data homeless services database, HMIS.
While this aspect of the methodology provides the opportunity to get a better headcount of the
population that was unsheltered, it also creates a pool of street count respondents who were not asked
the full series of local questions listed above. Consequently, this is reflected in the “unknown/missing”
responses on various questions.
Figure 34. Number of People Who Were
For the 2017 PIT count, there were a total of 191
Unsheltered, 2007−2017 PIT Counts
respondents who were in this pool. In comparison,
2,000
this number was 457 during the 2015 PIT count.
Figure 34 illustrates how the unsheltered count has
trended over the past decade.

Key Observations
•• The unsheltered population count is the lowest it
has been since 2009 (when it was 1,591).
•• Comparison of the 2017 count to the last round of
counting shows a drop of 219, a much larger decline
than occurred between the preceding two counts.
Page 81

1,900
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000

1,895

1,438

2007

1,591

2009

1,718

2011

1,887

1,668

2013

2015

Source: 2007−2017 PIT counts.

2017

 3.2. SLEEPING LOCATION
The PIT survey asked unsheltered respondents about the nature of their sleeping location. The response
options included streets, abandoned buildings, overpasses, woods, and other locations that HUD
specifically deems uninhabitable for sleeping. Notably, HUD’s definition includes structured and semistructured camps like Right 2 Dream Too, Dignity Village, and Hazelnut Grove, as “places not meant
for habitation.” So, people sleeping in these locations are included in the unsheltered count. These are
locations that many in the community believe provide a degree of safety and stability that is similar to that
offered in emergency shelter. Information on people counted at these locations was collected through an
open-ended option to the sleeping location question. Table 37 details the responses and Table 38 provides
data on people who identified specific unsheltered locations.
Table 37. Sleeping Location of People Who Were Unsheltered
Sleeping Location

No. and (%) of Respondents

Street or sidewalk

499
(29.9%)

Doorway or other private property

173
(10.4%)

Abandoned house / building

32
(1.9%)

Bridge / overpass / railroad

163
(9.8%)

Park

44
(2.6%)

Woods / open space

187
(11.2%)

Vehicle (Car, truck, van, camper)

257
(15.4%)

Boat

15
(0.9%)

Other unsheltered location*

186
(11.2%)

Unknown**

112
(6.7%)
1,668
(100.0%)

Total
Note: Question-Where did/will you sleep Wednesday night, February 22nd? N = 1,668.

*Other unsheltered location was an open-ended response that provided an opportunity to record specific locations including
camps like Dignity Village, Hazelnut Grove, and R2D2.
**Unknown refers to missing responses.

Page 82

 Table 38. Other Unsheltered Locations
Other Unsheltered Locations
Dignity Village

No. and (%) of Respondents
58
(31.2%)
19
(10.2%)
27
(14.5%)
82
(44.0%)
186
(100.0%)

Hazelnut Grove
R2D2 (Right 2 Dream too)
Various Locations
Total
Note: Other unsheltered location was an open-ended option and n = 186.

Key Observations
•• Street/sidewalks served as a sleeping
location for a little under one-third (29.9%)
of the unsheltered homeless population.

The share of people who reported sleeping on
sidewalks or streets declined since 2015, with
more people saying they slept in vehicles, in
open spaces, and beneath bridges.

•• The second largest sleeping location was
vehicles (car, truck, van, camper), which
served as the sleeping location for 257 unsheltered people (15.4%).

•• A total of 186 (11.2%) of the street count respondents chose “other unsheltered location.”
•• Among the 186 who slept at other unsheltered locations, 104 (55.9%) people slept at Dignity
Village, Hazelnut Grove and Right 2 Dream Too. The remaining 82 respondents, who wrote-in this
option, mentioned sleeping at locations like parking garages and Max stations. Figure 35 provides a
comparison of how the distribution of sleeping location has changed since the last count in 2015.

Page 83

 Figure 35. Sleeping Location of People Who Were Unsheltered - 2015
and 2017 Compared

Figure 35. Sleeping Location of People Who Were Unsheltered—2015 and 2017 Compared
50%
45%
40%

36.9%

35%
30%

29.9%

25%
20%
15.4%
15%
9.8%

10%
5%

10.4%
7.9%

11.2%

9.8%

8.5%

7.6%
3.9%

2.5% 1.9%

11.2%

10.3%

2.6%

11.8%
6.7%

0.6% 0.9%

0%
Street or
Sidewalk

Doorway or Abandoned
other private
house /
property
buidling

Bridge /
overpass /
railroad

Park

Woods /open Vehicle (car,
Space
truck, van,
camper)

2015

Boat

Other
unsheltered
location

Unknown

2017

Note: Quesion - Where did/will you sleep Wednesday night, February 22nd. Percentages for 2015 and
2017 are based on N = 1,887 and 1,668, respectively.

Key Observations
•• The largest increase can be observed in the use of vehicles as a sleeping location. In 2017, 15.4 percent
of people slept in vehicles, up from 10.3 percent in 2015.
•• Similarly, an increasing proportion of people reported a sleeping location of bridges/overpass/railroads
and woods/open space.
•• Street/sidewalk was the sleeping location for a smaller proportion of people (29.9%) in 2015 than in
2017 (36.9%).

Page 84

 New in 2017, the PIT survey included a question aimed at documenting the use of a tent as a sleeping
location. The suggestion to include this question came from the Outreach and Engagement (O&E) Work
Group after a pilot test of the survey. The reasoning was that sheltering in tents makes the population
experiencing unsheltered homeless highly visible. Table 39 details the responses.
Table 39. Use of Tent at the Sleeping Location
Tent

No. and (%) of Respondents

Yes

458
(32.8%)

No

469
(33.6%)

Don’t Know

17
(1.2%)

Unknown*

452
(32.4%)

Total

1,396
(100.0%)

Note: Question-[If not boat or vehicle] Did/will you sleep in a tent at that location on February 22nd? The tent question excludes
unsheltered people living in a boat or vehicle. Population count n = 1,396.
*Unknown includes client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observation
•• Given the high unknown response rate, little can be concluded about what portion of the people who
were sleeping in unsheltered locations were sleeping in tents, but it does document that at least 458
people (nearly one-third of all unsheltered people) slept in tents on the night of the count.

3.3. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
The PIT survey asked unsheltered respondents to identify specific areas of town where they slept on the
night of the count. Table 40 details the responses.

Page 85

 Table 40. Geographic Location of the Unsheltered Homeless Population
Geographic Location

No. and (%) of Respondents

Downtown / Old Town / Pearl

345
(20.7%)

SW Portland (outside downtown)

59
(3.5%)

NW Portland (outside downtown)

105
(6.3%)

North Portland

109
(6.5%)

Inner NE Portland (river to 33rd)

197
(11.8%)

Central NE Portland (33rd to 82nd)

42
(2.5%)

SE Portland (river to 82nd)

368
(22.1%)

Outer East Portland (82nd to 162nd)

151
(9.1%)

Gresham

75
(4.5%)

East County (outside of Gresham)

52
(3.1%)

Unknown*

165
(9.9%)
1,668
(100.0%)

Total

Note: Question-Where did/will you sleep Wednesday night, February 22nd? Population Count (N) = 1,668.
*Unknown includes don’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• SE Portland (river to 82nd) at 22.1 percent and Downtown/Old Town/Pearl at 20.7 percent were
geographic areas where a higher share of
the unsheltered homeless population slept
SE Portland (river to 82nd) at 22.1 percent and
than all other listed locations.
Downtown/Old Town/Pearl at 20.7 percent
•• Inner NE Portland (river to 33rd) at 11.8
percent followed the top locations as
the geographic area where unsheltered
homeless people slept.

were geographic areas where a higher share
of the unsheltered homeless population slept
than all other listed locations.

Page 86

 •• Gresham at 4.5 percent and East County at 3.1 percent together accounted for 7.6 percent of the
unsheltered homeless population sleeping outside Portland’s city limits.
Figure 36 provides a comparison of how the distribution of geographic location has changed since 2015.

Figure 36. Geographic Location of the Unsheltered Homeless
Population - 2015 and 2017 Compared

Figure 36. Geographic Location of the Unsheltered Homeless Population—2015 and 2017 Compared
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%

23.7%

22.1%

20.7%
20%

16.4%
15%
10%
5%

14.5%

11.8%
7.0%

6.6% 6.3%
3.5%

4.9%

6.5%

9.9%

9.1%

8.2%

6.7%
2.6% 2.5%

7.3%
4.5%
2.0%

3.1%

0%
Downtown /SW Portland
NW
Old Town / (outside
Portland
Pearl
downtown) (outside
downtown)

North
Portland

Inner NE
Portland
(river to
33rd)

Central NE SE Portland Outer East
Portland
(river to
Portland
(33rd to
82nd)
(82nd to
82nd)
162nd)

2015

Gresham East County Unknown
(outside of
Gresham)

2017

Note: Quesion - Where did/will you sleep Wednesday night, February 22nd? Percentages for 2015 and 2017 are based
on N = 1,887 and 1,668, respectively

Key Observations
•• The proportion of people sleeping unsheltered in SE Portland (river to 82nd) has increased. In 2017, a
little over one-fifth (22.1%) of the respondents, reported having slept in various unsheltered locations
in SE Portland (river to 82nd), up from 16.4 percent in 2015.
•• Increases in proportions of people sleeping unsheltered can be observed in Inner NE Portland (river to
33rd) and in Outer East Portland (82nd to 162nd).
•• Downtown/Old Town/Pearl as a geographic location registered a 3.0 percent decline as a sleeping
location for those who slept in unsheltered locations.

Page 87

 3.4. FIRST-TIME HOMELESSNESS
New in 2017, the PIT survey included a question to gauge whether it was the first time in their lives that
respondents were experiencing homelessness. The suggestion to include the question came from JOHS
because the current sources for comparable data are limited. Table 41 details the responses.
Table 41. Respondents Experiencing First-Time Homelessness
First-Time Homeless

No. and (%) of Respondents

Yes

485
(29.1%)

No

911
(54.6%)

Unknown*

272
(16.3%)

Total

1,668
(100.0%)

Note: Question-Is this the first time in your life you have experienced homelessness?
Population count (N) = 1,668.
*Unknown includes don’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• Well over one-half (54.6%) of the people
experiencing unsheltered homelessness
reported that this was not the first time
they were experiencing homelessness.

Just under one-third (29.1%) of the unsheltered
population reported that this was the first time
they were experiencing homelessness.

•• Just under one-third (29.1%) of the
unsheltered population reported that this was the first time they were experiencing homelessness.
•• Notably, the proportion of unknown responses at 16.3 percent is rather high.

Page 88

 3.5. LENGTH OF HOMELESSNESS
To assess the duration of homelessness at the time of the PIT count, the survey asks a question about
length of homelessness. Table 42 details the responses.
Table 42. Duration of Current Episode of Unsheltered Homelessness
Length of Time Homeless

No. and (%) of Respondents

Less than one month

92
(5.5%)

1−6 months

252
(15.1%)

7−12 months

220
(13.2%)

1−2 years

212
(12.7%)

2–5 years

342
(20.5%)

5–10 years

221
(13.2%)

> 10 years

104
(6.2%)

Unknown*

225
(13.5%)

Total

1,668
(100.0%)

Note: Question-How long have you been homeless this time? Population Count (N) = 1,668.
*Unknown includes don’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Key Observations
•• Just over one-third (33.8%) of those counted as unsheltered reported being homeless a year or less
during their current episode of homelessness. This includes 5.5 percent who had been homeless for
less than one month, 15.1 percent who had been homeless one to six months and 13.2 percent who
had been homeless for seven to twelve months.
•• Slightly over one-fifth (20.5%) of unsheltered homeless individuals indicated they have experienced
homelessness for two to five years and 13.2
percent responded that they have been
Just over one-third (33.8%) of those
homeless for five to ten years.
•• The proportion of unknown responses at
13.5 percent is relatively high. So, responses
should be assessed cautiously.

counted as unsheltered reported being
homeless a year or less during their current
episode of homelessness.

Page 89

 Figure 37 provides a comparison of how the distribution of length of current episode of homelessness has
changed since the last count in 2015.

Figure 37. Duration of Current Episode of Unsheltered Homelessness
- 2015 and 2017 Compared

Figure 37. Duration of Current Episode of Unsheltered Homelessness—2015 and 2017 Compared
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
18.0%

17.6%
15.1%

15%
10%

20.5%

20.0%

20%

7.2%

14.0%

13.2%

14.1%

12.7%

13.5%

13.2%

6.2%

6.0%

5.5%

5%

2.9%

0%
Less than on
month

1 - 6 months

7 - 12 months

1 - 2 years

2015

2 - 5 years

5 - 10 years

>10 years

unknown

2017

Note: Percentages for 2015 and 2017 are based on N = 1,887 and 1,668, respectively

Key Observations
•• The proportion of people who were unsheltered and had been homeless for five to ten years increased
to 13.2 percent in 2017 from 6.0 percent in 2015.
•• The “1−6 months” category decreased to 15.1 percent in 2017 from 20.0 percent in 2015.

3.6. ATTENDING SCHOOL
The PIT survey asked the unsheltered population whether they were attending school. Table 43 details
the responses for all respondents in the unsheltered count and table 44 provides a breakdown of this
information by age categories.

Page 90

 Table 43. Unsheltered Homeless Population Attending School—All Ages
Attending School

No. and (%) of Respondents

Yes

64
(3.8%)

No

1,441
(86.4%)

Unknown*

163
(9.8%)
1,668
(100.0%)

Total
Note: Question-Are you attending school? Population Count (N) = 1,668
*Unknown includes don’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Table 44. Unsheltered Homeless Population Attending School – by Age Category
Attending School?
Age Categories

Yes

No

Unknown

Children (< 18 years)

15
(23.4%)

22
(1.5%)

14
(8.6%)

Young Adults (Ages 18−24)

8
(12.5%)

113
(7.8%)

6
(3.7%)

Adults (> 24 years)

41
(64.1%)

1,297
(90.0%)

133
(81.6%)

Missing

0
(0.0%)

9
(0.6%)

10
(6.1%)

64
(100.0%)

1,441
(100.0%)

163
(100.0%)

Total

Note: The table provides age categories (children/young adults/adults) based on a breakdown for the question on attending
school. The percentages are based on yes attending school = 64, no (not) attending school = 1,441, and unknown = 163.

Key Observations
•• The majority (86.4%) of unsheltered respondents reported that they do not attend school.
•• A small proportion (3.8%) of unsheltered respondents attend school.
•• A breakdown of the data on attending schools by age categories reveals that nearly two-thirds (64.1%)
of those who reported attending school were adults over 24 years old.
•• Slightly less than a quarter (23.4%) of those who reported attending school are children under the age
of 18 years.
•• The majority (90.0%) of those who reported not attending school are adults over 24 years old.
Page 91

 Figure 38 compares responses to the school question for 2015 and 2017.

Figure 38. Unsheltered Homeless Population Attending School - 2015
and 2017 Compared

Figure 38. Unsheltered Homeless Population Attending School—2015 and 2017 Compared
100%
90%

86.4%

80%
70.0%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

27.0%

20%
9.8%

10%
3.8%

3.0%
0%
Yes

No

2015

Unknown

2017

Note: Percentages for 2015 and 2017 are based on N = 1,887 and 1,668, respectively

Key Observations
•• The percentage of both "yes" and "no" respondents rose from 2015 to 2017 because the percent of
non-respondents fell.
•• The proportion of respondents who were not attending school increased to 86.4 percent in 2017, up
from 70.0 percent in 2015.
•• The proportion of those who reported attending school also registered a slight increase of just under
one percent.

Page 92

 3.7. EMPLOYMENT
Those who were counted as unsheltered during the street count survey were asked whether they were
employed (full or part-time). Table 45 details the responses for all respondents in the unsheltered count
and table 46 provides a breakdown of this information by age categories.
Table 45. Employment Status of Unsheltered Homeless Population—All Ages
Employment

No. and (%) of Respondents

Yes

196
(11.8%)

No

1,268
(76.0%)

Unknown*

204
(12.2%)

Total

1,668
(100.0%)

Note: Question-Are you employed? Population Count (N) = 1,668.
*Unknown includes don’t know, client refused, data not collected, and missing.

Table 46. Employment Status of Unsheltered Homeless Population by Age Category
Employed?
Age categories

Yes

No

Unknown

Children (< 18 years)

0
(0.0%)

11
(0.9%)

40
(19.6%)

Young Adults (Ages 18−24)

23
(11.7%)

98
(7.7%)

6
(2.9%)

Adults (> 24 years)

173
(88.3%)

1,150
(90.7%)

148
(72.5%)

Missing

0
(0.0%)

9
(0.7%)

10
(4.9%)

196
(100.0%)

1,268
(100.0%)

204
(100.0%)

Total

Note: The table provides age categories (children/young adults/adults) based on a breakdown for the question on attending
school. The percentages are based on yes employed = 196, no (not) employed = 1,268, and unknown = 204.

Page 93

 Key Observations
•• Just over three-quarters (76.0%) of those counted as unsheltered reported not being employed.
•• Slightly over one-tenth (11.8%) reported being employed. It is important to note that the street count
survey does not ask whether a respondent is employed full-time or part-time. It also does not collect
information on the nature of employment.
•• The proportion of unknown responses at 12.2 percent is rather high.
•• A breakdown of the data on employment status by age categories reveals that the majority (88.3%) of
those who reported being employed are adults over the age of 24 years.
Figure 39 compares responses to the employment question for 2015 and 2017.

Figure 39. Employment Status - 2015 and 2017 Compared

Figure 39. Employment Status—2015 and 2017 Compared
100%
90%
80%

76.0%
68.0%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

23.0%
20%
10%

12.2%

11.8%

9.0%

0%
Yes

No

2015

Unknown

2017

Note: Percentages for 2015 and 2017 are based on N = 1,887 and 1,668, respectively

Key Observations
•• The proportion of respondents who reported not being employed increased to 76.0 percent in 2017,
up from 68.0 percent in 2015.
•• The proportion of those who reported having employment also registered an increase of 2.8 percent.
•• Both "yes" and "no" responses rose because the percent of non respondents fell.

Page 94

 3.8. MIGRATION
The PIT survey asks unsheltered respondents a series of questions tied to migration. If respondents
were not originally from Multnomah County, they were asked questions about whether they were
homeless when they moved here, their reasons for moving, and where they moved from.
Tables 47– 52 detail the responses.
Table 47. Length of Stay in Multnomah County
Length of Stay in Multnomah County

No. and (%) of Respondents

< 3 months

69
(4.1%)

3−12 months

118
(7.1%)

1−2 years

98
(5.9%)

> 2 years

770
(46.2%)

Originally from Multnomah County

341
(20.4%)

Unknown*

272
(16.3%)

Total

1,668
(100.0%)

Note: Question-How long have you been in Multnomah County? Population Count (N) = 1,668.
*Unknown refers to missing responses.

Key Observations

Two-thirds of respondents said they
were Multnomah County natives or had
been living here for at least two years.

•• Just over one-fifth (20.4%) of those counted
as unsheltered reported being originally from
Multnomah County.

•• A little under half (46.2%) of street count respondents reported being in Multnomah County for over
two years. Combining these respondents—whose stay suggests some longevity—with respondents
who were originally from here indicates that just over two-thirds (66.6%) of people experiencing
unsheltered homelessness are not newcomers to the county.
•• Relatively new arrivals—those who have been in the county for less than three months or for three
to twelve months—represent 11.2 percent of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The
proportion of unknown responses to the migration question at 16.3 percent is relatively high.

Page 95

 Respondents who were not originally from Multnomah County were asked whether they were homeless
when they moved here. Table 48 details the responses.
Table 48. Homelessness Status When Moving to Multnomah County
Homelessness Status

No. and (%) of Respondents

Yes

447
(33.7%)

No

490
(36.9%)

Unsure*

14
(1.0%)

Unknown**

376
(28.3%)

Total

1,327
(100.0%)

Note: Question-Were you homeless when you came to Multnomah County? Population Count (n) = 1,327 (excludes respondents
originally from Multnomah County).
*These responses came from write-ins and coded accordingly
**Unknown refers to missing responses.

Key Observations
•• 447 people (26.8%) of the total unsheltered population or just over one-third (33.7%) of the
respondents who did not report being originally from Multnomah County reported being homeless
when they came to Multnomah County.
•• A slightly greater proportion (36.9%) of respondents reported not being homeless when they moved
to Multnomah County.
•• Just over a quarter (28.3%) of people in the unsheltered count did not respond to this question. Given
the close proportions for responses of yes and no, correlation between homelessness status and
migration is hard to establish.

Page 96

 The unsheltered homeless who did not report being originally from Multnomah County were asked two
additional questions: (a) what brought them to Multnomah County and (b) where they moved from. Tables
49 and 50 detail the responses.
Table 49. Reasons for Migrating to Multnomah County
Reasons for Moving

No. and (%) of Respondents

Family / Friends

461
(34.7%)

Job opportunities

183
(13.8%)

Like it here / good weather

98
(7.4%)

Access to services / resources

120
(9.0%)

Other

200
(15.1%)

Refused

91
(6.9%)

Missing

296
(22.3%)

Total

1,327

Note: Question-What brought you here? Totals add to more than 100 percent because this survey item provided multiple choices.
Population count (n) = 1,327 (excludes respondents originally from Multnomah County).

Key Observations
•• Over one-third (34.7%) of people in the unsheltered count who did not report being originally from
Multnomah County cited family/friends as the reason for their move, and an additional 13.8% cited
job opportunities.
•• Relatively few cited the weather (7.4%), or access to services (9.0%) as a reason for coming here.
•• For the open-ended choice on reasons for moving to Multnomah County, 15.1 percent of respondents
provided a variety of answers, including school, starting over, leaving family, and running from an
abusive parent.

Page 97

 All of the unsheltered homeless individuals who had moved to Multnomah County were asked about their
reasons for moving to the county. Table 50 provides details on reasons for moving to Multnomah County
based on homelessness status at the time of the move.
Table 50. Reasons for Migrating to Multnomah County Based on Homelessness Status
Homelessness Status When Moving to Multnomah County
Reasons for Moving

Yes

No

Unsure

Unknown

Family / Friends

162
(36.2%)

267
(54.5%)

3
(21.4%)

29
(7.7%)

Job opportunities

70
(15.7%)

103
(21.0%)

3
(21.4%)

7
(1.9%)

Like it here / good weather

59
(13.2%)

33
(6.7%)

1
(7.1%)

5
(1.3%)

Access to services / resources

83
(18.6%)

30
(6.1%)

1
(7.1%)

6
(1.6%)

Other

117
(26.2%)

71
(14.5%)

1
(7.1%)

11
(2.9%)

Refused

14
(3.1%)

39
(8.0%)

5
(35.7%)

33
(8.8%)

Missing

-

-

-

296
(78.7%)

447

490

14

376

Total

Note: Question - What brought you here? Total adds to more than 100 percent because this survey item provided multiple choices.
Population count = 1,327 (excludes respondents originally from Multnomah County)

Key Observations
•• Family/friends were a common reason for moving regardless of homelessness status at the time of
the move.
•• Of the 447 people who were homeless when moving to Multnomah County, 83 individuals (18.6%)
reported that access to services/resources was a reason. In comparison, 30 individuals (6.1%) of the 490
respondents who were not homeless during their move to Multnomah County chose this as a reason.
•• Given the fact that the proportion of unknown (missing) responses for the homelessness status
question was over a quarter (28.3%) and was also high for the question on reasons for moving to
Multnomah County (22.3%), correlation between homelessness status and specific reasons for moving
is hard to establish.

Page 98

 Respondents who did not report being originally from Multnomah County were also asked where they
had moved from. Table 51 provides the count and share of various migration origins.
Table 51. Origin of Migration
Origin of Migration

No. and (%) of Respondents

Metro Area (Clackamas, Washington, Clark counties)

131
(9.9%)

Oregon (outside of metro area)

145
(10.9%)

Washington or California

221
(16.7%)

Other part of United States

307
(23.1%)

Outside the United States

14
(1.1%)

Missing

509
(38.4%)

Total

1,327
(100.0%)

Note: Question-Where did you move from? Population Count (N) = 1,327(excludes respondents originally from
Multnomah County).

Key Observations
•• Just over one-fifth (20.8%) of respondents who did not report being originally from Multnomah
County, moved either from the neighboring metro counties or from other counties outside of the
Portland metro area.
•• Slightly less than a quarter (23.1%) reported moving to Multnomah County from other parts of
United States.
•• Notably, well over one-third (38.4%) of people eligible to respond to this question did not provide a
response regarding origins of their move.

Page 99

 All of the unsheltered homeless individuals who had moved to Multnomah County were asked where
they had moved from. Table 52 provides details on origin before moving to Multnomah County based on
homelessness status.
Table 52. Origins of Migration to Multnomah County Based on Homelessness Status
Homelessness Status When Moving to Multnomah
Origins of Migration

Yes

No

Unsure

Unknown

Metro area (Clackamas, Washington
or Clark Counties)

64
(14.3%)

54
(11.0%)

1
(7.1%)

12
(3.2%)

Oregon outside Metro area

64
(14.3%)

65
(13.3%)

3
(21.4%)

13
(3.5%)

Washington or California

106
(23.7%)

100
(20.4%)

2
(14.3%)

13
(3.5%)

Other part of United States

135
(30.2%)

151
(30.8%)

2
(14.3%)

19
(5.1%)

Outside of the United States

4
(0.9%)

8
(1.6%)

0
(0.0%)

2
(0.5%)

Missing

74
(16.6%)

112
(22.9%)

6
(42.9%)

317
(84.3%)

Total

447
(100.0%)

490
(100.0%)

14
(100.0%)

376
(100.0%)

Note: Percentages are based on yes homeless = 447, no (not) homeless = 490, unsure = 14, and unknown = 376. The 341
respondents who reported being originally from Multnomah County were excluded from the analysis and so n = 1,327.

Key Observations
•• There are striking similarities between the places people moved from whether they were homeless
or not.
•• At about 30 percent, the proportion of people in the unsheltered count who moved from other parts
of the United States beyond Oregon, Washington and California, is almost the same whether the
person was homeless before the move or not.
•• Distributions are similar for people who moved from Oregon outside the metro area, Washington/
California, and outside of the United States.
•• Given the high rate of unknown (missing) responses to the question on homelessness status (28.3%)
and the higher rate of unknowns for the origins question (38.4%), correlation between homelessness
status and specific origins of migration to Multnomah County is hard to establish.

Page 100

 4. DOUBLED UP ESTIMATES
4.1. BACKGROUND
HUD provides a list of people for exclusion from the PIT count, including people temporarily staying with
family or friends (i.e., doubled up or couch surfing).32 Consequently, local PIT count efforts don't include
individuals or families who may be in a shared living arrangement with friends or family. This arrangement
could be either short term or long term. Some may also find themselves with new hosts periodically, only
being able to stay with each host for a short time. For many, such housing instability increases the risk of
falling into HUD homelessness. Unfortunately, there are no good data sources that track the number of
people who are doubled up, nor is there a standard definition of doubled up. For the 2015 count, the author
used data from three different sources-the Oregon Department of Human Services, 211info (Housing Services
Hotline) and Oregon Department of Education (ODE)-to calculate the share of the population who selfidentified as doubled up. The author then used the average of these shares to calculate a rough estimate of
12,453 people who were likely doubled up on the night of the 2015 PIT count.
During the 2017 PIT count, tracking of people likely to be doubled up on the night of the count did
not occur, so comparable estimates cannot be produced. However, data that ODE collects on students
across the state have been used to estimate the number of individuals doubled up in Multnomah County
during the 2015−2016 academic year. Because these data are collected from children attending public
schools, they do not cover households with children who are not in public school and households without
children. Also, the data are collected for the duration of the academic year. As such, this estimate both
represents a potential undercount of the doubled up population (by looking only at those households
with children enrolled in school) and a potential over-count (by using annual, rather than point-in-time
data). Given the differing estimation methodologies, the estimate reported here cannot be compared to
that used in prior counts.

4.2. MULTNOMAH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA ON DOUBLED UP STUDENTS
The US Department of Education uses a definition of homelessness that includes households that are
doubled up for economic reasons. As a result, school district data provide one of the only comprehensive
and consistent sources of information about the doubled up population. Table 53 provides the count of
doubled up homeless students in Multnomah County school districts during the 2015−2016 academic
year. The total number of doubled-up K−12 students fell from 3,310 in 2014−2015 to 3,098 in 2015−2016,
a fall of about 6 percent (doubled up data for pre-K were not available for 2014−2015). Although the
number of doubled up rose for Centennial (about 12 percent) and Portland (about 5 percent), decreases at
Reynolds (23 percent) and Parkrose (10 percent) more than countered these increases.

32.  US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014 Point-In-Time Methodology Guide, (September 2014), p. 30, https://www.
hudexchange.info/resources/documents/PIT-Count-Methodology-Guide.pdf

Page 101

 Table 53. Number of Doubled up, Pre-K, and K−12 Students, 2015–2016
Pre-K
Doubled Up

K−12
Doubled Up

Total
Doubled Up

Centennial

11

345

356

David Douglas

26

341

367

Gresham-Barlow

18

275

293

Parkrose

9

226

235

Portland

464

995

1,459

Reynolds

27

916

943

All School Districts

555

3,098

3,653

School Districts

Source: K−12 Homeless Student Counts by Living Situation, Released November 2016 by Oregon Department of Education.
Note: Doubled Up = sharing housing due to loss of housing, lack of alternative accommodations.

4.3. ESTIMATING DOUBLED UP POPULATION FROM DOUBLED UP STUDENT COUNT
We assume that all of the 3,653 doubled up students were part of a household that mirrors the average
household size for that school district. Multiplying the average household size by the number of doubled
up students can provide an estimate of the total number of people living doubled up. Table 54 provides
details on this estimation.
Table 54. Estimating Doubled up Population Based on Student Count

Total of Doubled
up Students

Average
Household
Size

Average Household Members
(No. of Doubled up Students Multiplied
by Average Household Size)

Centennial

356

2.87

1,022

David Douglas

367

2.91

1,068

Gresham-Barlow

293

2.66

779

Parkrose

235

2.61

613

Portland

1,459

2.33

3,399

Reynolds

943

2.80

2,640

School District

 All School Districts

3,653

9,522

Source: Pre-K and K−12 Homeless Student Counts by Living Situation, Released November 2016 by Oregon Department of
Education. Average Household Size by School District: ACS 2015, 1-Year Estimates.
Note: Based on the above estimation, there were a total of 9,522 doubled up individuals distributed across the six school districts
that serve Multnomah County during 2015−2016.

Page 102

 This process of estimation has several weaknesses:
•• The ODE data period does not match the timing of the PIT count.
•• The ODE data cover only students served by the public school system.
•• Doubled up students may have been living in larger households than the average.
•• The estimation leaves out households without children or children who are in private school, home
schooled, not school age, or otherwise not attending school.
In light of these weaknesses, the estimate of doubled up population has to be interpreted with care. So, it
is prudent to say that based on our calculations, an estimated 9,522 people with school-age children were
living in doubled up situations during the 2015−2016 academic year and sending 3,653 children to public
schools in Multnomah County. This estimate does not include doubled up individuals or families who may
be childless or may not have children in public schools. So, the 9,522 provides only a partial estimate of
doubled up individuals.

This estimate does not include doubled up individuals or families who may be childless or
may not have children in public schools. So, the 9,522 provides only a partial estimate of
doubled up individuals.

According to an ODE news release that accompanied the information about student homelessness:
For the third year in a row, Oregon’s population of homeless students is up over the previous
year, reaching a level now exceeding that seen during the recession. The data collected by
Oregon Department of Education (ODE) staff show 21,340 students, or 3.7 percent of the public
school K−12 population, “lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence” as defined
by the federal government. Another 1,929 children in Pre-K programs also fall under this
definition.”33
If this assessment is any guide, the annualized number of individuals living in doubled up situations is likely
to be much higher than the partial estimate of 9,522 calculated here. Using this methodology it is not
possible to estimate total numbers of people who may have been doubled up at the single point in time
examined throughout the rest of this report.

33. Oregon Department of Education, “Homeless Student Data Released,” news release, November 22, 2016, http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/
announcements/announcement.aspx?ID=14220&TypeID=5

Page 103

 5. NONPARTICIPANT ANALYSIS
5.1. BACKGROUND
A total of 456 people declined
Data collectors completed refusal forms for anyone they
interacted with who declined to complete the survey (i.e.,
to complete the unsheltered
nonparticipants). During the survey training, data collectors
count survey.
were instructed to not complete the refusal form for people
they did not interact with (e.g., people who were sleeping
or engaged in an activity that could not be interrupted). Therefore, the information presented here is only
for documented people who declined. A total of 456 people declined to complete the unsheltered count
survey. The unsheltered count methodology allows individuals who declined to complete the survey on
one day or at one location to complete the survey at another time and location. Consequently, those who
were recorded as declining the survey by one surveyor may have participated later in the week. Similarly,
a single individual could have been approached by and declined multiple surveyors in different locations.
The point in time count is always assumed to be an undercount of the total actual number of people
experiencing homelessness, but the total recorded number of people who declined to participate cannot
be simply added to the unsheltered count.
The refusal forms offered an opportunity to collect basic observed demographic characteristics to help
determine whether there might be specific bias regarding those who declined to participate. The refusal
form asked the data collector to provide their estimation of the following information:
•• date they documented the information
•• homelessness status on February 22, 2017
•• reason(s) for declining to complete the survey
•• type of location, including whether or not the person had slept in a tent
•• geographic area
•• gender
•• age
•• race or ethnicity

Page 104

 5.2. TIMING OF DATA COLLECTION
As noted in the methodology section of this report, data were collected from February 22 through
February 28, 2017. Figure 40 shows that although refusal forms were collected throughout the week of the
count, the majority (77.3%) were gathered during the first three days of the count, February 22 through 24.
Figure 40. Day the Refusal Form Was Completed
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%

42.8%

40%
40%
30%
30%
21.3%

0.9%

n

th
27

th

Un

26

th
25

th
24

rd
23

22

nd

0%
0%

6.6%

ow

4.8%

0.7%

kn

9.9%

th

13.2%

10%
10%

28

20%
20%

Note: N=456.

5.3. HOMELESSNESS STATUS
The majority of nonparticipants were thought to be either homeless (68.4%) or most likely homeless
(24.8%) on the night of the count. See figure 41 for details.
Figure 41. Homeless on February 22, 2017

5.4. REASON FOR DECLINING TO PARTICIPATE

On the form, data collectors identified the reasons that the
nonparticipants declined to participate in the street count
survey. They could select one or more of the following
options:
•• doesn’t want to give their information (i.e., privacy or
trust issues)
•• did it before and nothing changed for the homeless
community
•• individual cannot/will not provide the [required]
identifying information in the shaded box (on the
street count survey)
•• language issue

100%
90%
80%

68.4%

70%
60%
50%
40%

24.8%

30%
20%

6.8%

10%
0%

Homeless Most Likely Unknown
Homeless

Note: Question—Was this person homeless on

•• other, please describe

February 22nd? N=456.

Page 105

 Responses written in the “other” option were reviewed and coded into the existing options or served as the
basis for additional reasons. These additional reasons were:
•• did not want to be disturbed
•• general refusal, no specific reason given (i.e., they just didn’t want to do the survey)
•• busy or in a hurry
The most common reason for individuals declining to participate in the street count survey was privacy
(65.4%). See figure 42.
Figure 42. Reasons for Declining to Participate in the Street Count Survey
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%

65.4%

60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%

13.4%

10%
10%

7.2%

6.4%

6.1%

4.4%

4.4%

1.8%

g

ng

ua

ge

r
he
Ot

sy

No

th

in

La

Ch

lR
ra
ne

Bu

s

ef

an

us

ge

al

rb
stu
Di
n'
t
Do

Ge

M

iss

in

g

Ke

Pr
iv

yI

ac

nf
o

y

0%
0%

Reason for Refusal
Note: Question—Reason for refusing to complete the street count survey [select all that apply]. N=456.

Page 106

 5.5. LOCATION OF NONPARTICIPANTS
Data collectors indicated both the type of location and the geographic area within Multnomah County
where the form was completed. They estimated that 41.7 percent of the indicated locations were likely to
be the location and area in which the person slept on the night of February 22, 2017. Figure 43 shows that
the majority of nonparticipants were likely living on the street or sidewalk (47.4%).
Figure 43. Type of Location
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%

47.4%

40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%

16.7%
7.9%

3.3%

ow
kn
Un

Ot

n

r
he

at

Ve
h

Bo

icl

ds
,O
Sp pe
ac n
e

e

0.9%

W
oo

D
Pr oo
iva rw
te ay
Pr , O
op th
er er
ty
Br
id
ge
,O
v
Ra erp
ilro ass
ad ,

St

re
e

t, S

id

ew

alk

0%
0%

8.3%
1.8%

k

5.3%

Pa
r

10%
10%

8.6%

Type of Location
Note: Question—Type of location [select only ONE]. N=456.

Data collectors were asked to indicate whether they
thought a nonparticipant slept in a tent only if the
type of location was not a vehicle or boat. Figure 44
shows the results. Many of the data collectors had
difficulty answering this item, as evidenced by the
proportion of “unknown” responses (52.6%). However,
the data collectors reported that 21.3% of the survey
nonparticipants slept in a tent on February 22, 2017.

Figure 44. Nonparticipants Who Slept in a Tent
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
52.6%

50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%

21.3%
17.3%

10%
10%
0%

8.8%

Yes

No

N / A Unknown

Note: Question—[If Q3 is NOT vehicle or boat:] Sleeping in
a tent? N=456.

Page 107

 Table 55 shows that declining to participate in the street count survey occurred more often downtown
(37.3%) or in SE Portland (13.8%).
Table 55. Geographic Location of Nonparticipants
Area of Portland/Multnomah County

Count

Percent

170

37.3%

SW Portland (outside downtown)

4

0.9%

NW Portland (outside downtown)

28

6.1%

North Portland

17

3.7%

Inner NE Portland (river to 33rd)

43

9.4%

Central NE Portland (33rd to 82nd)

7

1.5%

SE Portland (river to 82nd)

63

13.8%

Outer East Portland (82nd to 162nd)

26

5.7%

Gresham

12

2.6%

East County (outside Gresham)

17

3.7%

Unknown

69

15.2%

Total

456

100%

Downtown, Old Town, Pearl

Note: Question—Area of Portland/Multnomah County [select only ONE]. N=456.

5.6. CHARACTERISTICS OF NONPARTICIPANTS
Data collectors were asked to estimate the characteristics
of the people who declined to participate in the street
count survey in order to see if nonparticipants were
different in some ways from those who agreed to
complete the survey. Figure 45 shows the distribution for
gender, which is comparable to the distribution of adult
unsheltered respondents who completed the street
count survey (male = 67.5%, female = 29.5%, other and
unknown = 2.4%).

Figure 45. Gender of Nonparticipants
100%
90%
80%
70%

68.4%

60%
50%
40%
30%

24.8%

20%
10%
0%

6.8%

Male

Female

Unable to
Determine

Note: Question—Gender [select only ONE]. N=456.

Page 108

 5.7. AGE OF NONPARTICIPANTS
The data collectors were provided with a set of age
groups to potentially identify each nonparticipant’s
age. As seen in figure 46, the most common age
group was thought to be 25 to 55 years. Due to the
large proportion of unknown responses (i.e., the
data collector was unable to estimate age), this
cannot be reliably compared to the age of the
people who participated in the street count form.

Figure 46. Age Group of Nonparticipants
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%

42.3%

40%
40%

5.8. RACE/ETHNICITY OF
NONPARTICIPANTS

40.6%

30%
30%
20%
20%

Table 56 shows the distribution for nonparticipants’
10.1%
10%
10%
6.6%
race or ethnicity as estimated by the data collectors.
0.4%
0%
10%
More than one response could be selected for this
0-17
18-24 25-55 56 Years Unable to
item; therefore, the counts can add up to more
Years
Years
Years or Older Determine
than 456 nonparticipants and the percentages can
add up to more than 100 percent. As with age, the
Note: Question—Age [select only ONE]. N=456.
large proportion of unknown responses makes a
comparison to race or ethnicity of the people who completed the street count form unreliable.
Table 56. Race or Ethnicity of Nonparticipants
Race or Ethnicity

Count

Percent

Hispanic or Latino/a

30

6.6%

White/Caucasian

236

51.8%

Black/African American

38

8.3%

American Indian/Alaska Native

9

2.0%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

4

0.9%

Asian

3

0.7%

Slavic

1

0.2%

African

1

0.2%

Middle Eastern

1

0.2%

141

30.9%

Unable to Determine or Unknown
Note: Question—Race/Ethnicity [select all that apply]. N=456.

Page 109

 CONCLUSION
According to the most recent national estimates presented to Congress in November 201634, well over half
a million (549,928) people were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January across the United
States. Most (68% or 373,571 people) were staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, or
safe havens, while 32 percent (176,357 people) were staying in unsheltered locations.
Here in Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County, on the night of February 22, 2017, there were 4,177 people
who experienced unsheltered and sheltered homelessness. Nearly two-fifths (39.9% or 1,668 people) slept
in various unsheltered locations while the
remaining three-fifths (60%) slept in area
There is wisdom in acknowledging that
emergency shelters or in transitional housing.
Because of the inherent challenges of counting
people who are experiencing homelessness, and
the limitations on who HUD defines as homeless,
the PIT count is necessarily an undercount. Among
others, it leaves out those who are doubled up or
are living on the brink of homelessness. In Kozol’s
words as cited by Timmer et al.:

the 2017 PIT numbers have limitations.
At the same time, this survey of people
experiencing homelessness does offer
insights into the demographic characteristics
and life challenges of some of society's most
vulnerable members.

We would be wise….to avoid the numbers game. Any search for the “right number” carries the
assumption that we may at last arrive at an acceptable number. There is no acceptable number.
Whether the number is 1 million or 4 million or the administration‘s estimate of less than a million, there are too many homeless people in America.35
There is wisdom in acknowledging that the 2017 PIT numbers have limitations. At the same time, this
survey of people experiencing homelessness does offer insights into the demographic characteristics and
life challenges of some of society’s most vulnerable members. Many have experienced domestic violence.
Many have disabilities. Some are chronically homeless. The policy makers within A Home for Everyone, our
community’s shared response to homelessness, use this information to better understand those who are
most vulnerable because of their housing situation, and to respond through expanded investments that can
appropriately address their emerging needs.
The PIT count also gives us insight into the potential impacts of local efforts to those responses. Apparent
shifts since 2015, showing a smaller proportion of people on the street and a greater proportion in
emergency shelter, coincide with a major push to increase shelter beds. And while racial disparities in
homelessness remain, the focus, through A Home for Everyone, to reduce disparities among African
Americans is showing promising results. More broadly, though, the work of A Home for Everyone is reflected
in the numbers we don’t see in this count: in the prior fiscal year, across all of A Home for Everyone’s
partners, more than 25,600 people received some level of services, the most ever. That includes a record
4,600 people returned to housing and more than 5,200 who received prevention services. The numbers we
observe in the point in time count are far lower than they would have been without these interventions.
These improvements point the way for us, as a community, to work harder to better the lives of our
homeless neighbors.
34.  US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, “The Annual Homelessness Assessment
Report to Congress,” (November 2016), https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2016-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
35.  Doug A. Timmer, D. Stanley Eitzen, and Kathryn D. Talley, Paths to Homelessness Extreme Poverty and the Urban Housing Crisis (New York:
Westview Press, 1994), 12.

Page 110

 APPENDIX A: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Street Count and One Night Shelter Count would not have been possible without the contributions of
the many agencies and volunteers who helped to plan, organize, and implement the counts.
Outreach and Engagement Workgroup
Brittney Barnhart, Tamara Bartlett, Carolyn Bateson, Chelsea Bender, Jake Bennett, Justin Bernal, Samantha
Black, Debbie Borgelt, Stacey Borke, Dana Brandon, Vahid Brown, Anna Cale, Quinn Colling, Holly Daly,
Tim Desper, Carmen Dimitras, Mike Doogan, Mark Duhrkoop, John Easom, Omer Elad, Molly Finnegan,
Alisa Fowler, Deanne Gillock, Tiffany Grigg, Cindy Hackett, Gary Heu, Alfredo Higueras, Sonja Hultsman,
Lisa Hungary, Gisela Iranzo, Judy Jones, Issak Kamara, Jeremy Koehler, Christina Lacy, Ken Loyd, Tricia
Lund, Dennis Lundberg, Cinthia Manuel, Katie Mays, Crystal McIntyre, Michael Mellick, Denetta Monk, Lisa
Murdock, Amanda Pena, Anna Sage, Christopher Sage, Neal Sand, Abby Schwalb ,Shannon Singleton,
Justin Spahn, Bettina Souders, Kari Stevens, Kat Stevens, Amy Thompson, Amy Vance, Stephanie
VanVolkinburg, Haven Wheelock, Darrell White, Carissa Williams, Michael Withey, Janice Yarbrough.
Street Count Partners
211info, Advocacy5, All Saints Episcopal Church, Blanchet House, Bridgetown Ministries, CareOregon,
Cascade AIDS Project, Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare, Catholic Charities Housing Transitions, Centennial
School District, Central City Concern, Clackamas Service Center, Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians,
Corbett School District, David Douglas School District, Dignity Village, East Hill Church, East Side Church
of Christ, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon HIV Center & Northeast Emergency Food, Emanuel Hospital
Emergency Department, FamilyCare Health Outreach, First Baptist Church of Gresham, First Baptist
Church of Portland, Free Hot Soup, Gateway Center for Domestic Violence Services, Gresham Library,
Gresham-Barlow School District, Head Start & Early Head Start, Holladay Park Church of God, Human
Solutions, Inc., Impact NW, Janus Youth, JOIN, Joint Office of Homeless Services, La Clinica de Buena Salud,
Legacy Good Samaritan Emergency Room, Legal Aid Services of Oregon, Mainspring, Maybelle Center
for Community, Mercy Corps Reentry Transition Center, Micro Community Concepts, Mid County Health
Center, Multnomah County Crisis & Treatment Center, Multnomah County HIV/HEP Community Program
and Needle Exchange, Multnomah County Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, Multnomah County
Library (Belmont, Central, Gresham, Holgate, Midland and Rockwood libraries), Multnomah County Sheriff’s
Office, Multnomah County Tri-County 911 Service Coordination Program, Native American Rehabilitation
Association of the Northwest, Native American Youth and Family Center, New Avenues for Youth, New
City Initiative, North Portland Health Center, Northeast Health Center, Operation Nightwatch, Oregon
Department of Human Services, Oregon Health & Sciences University New Directions, Outside In, P:ear,
Parkrose School District, Portland Adventist Community Services, Portland Homeless Family Solutions,
Portland Houseless Support Coalition, Portland Public Schools, Portland Rescue Mission, Potluck in the
Park, Rahab’s Sisters, Reynolds School District, Right to Dream Too, River Patrol, Rockwood Community
Health Center, Rose Haven, Rosewood Initiative, Saint André Bessette Catholic Church, Saint Francis Dining
Hall, Saint Henry Catholic Church, Saint Mark’s Lutheran Church, Salvation Army Female Emergency Shelter
& Day Services, Salvation Army Portland Tabernacle, Salvation Army West Women’s & Children’s, Sanctuary
Presbyterian Church, Self Enhancement, Inc., Sisters of the Road, SnowCap Community Charities, Southeast
Health Center, Street Roots, Transformation Network: Can We Help?, Transition Projects, Inc., Transitional
Youth, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, University of Western States, Urban League of Portland, Veterans
Administration (VA) Homeless Outreach, Voz Worker Center, Zarephath Kitchen.

Page 111

 Street Count Volunteers
Sachi Arakawa, Barbara Baugh, Jaya Blackburn, Bert Boehm, Kristie Brown, Caitlin Campbell, Migdalia
Castaneya, Sam Chase, Melissa Cordova, Lizzy Culbertson, Ryan Curren, Ryan Deibert, Debi Elliott, Steven
Fiala, Casey Filice, Lisa Gierach, Jillian Girard, Kim Hack, Liz Hearn, Lindsay Jenkins, Cory Huff, Anna Keene,
Jeffrey Kiilsgaard, Zoe Klingmann, Missy Kloos, Erika Kreling-Taylor, Uma Krishnan, Katie LaRue, Emily Leach,
Jennifer Lembach, Rachel Lockard, Susan Madar, Sheila Martin, Kim McCarty, Keri McNicholas, Yurani
Medina, Mary Mehan, Amber Meier, Janelle Mellor, Marjorie Molmen, Amicia Nametka, Heather Nelson,
Emma Newton, Ana Ortega Bustamante, Mary Oschwald, Andres Oswill, Anna Plumb, Justine Pope, Bimal
RajBhandary, Diana Rempe, Alison Sachet, Aaron Sando, Leigh Schrock, Katie Selin, Joel Shapiro, Charlie
Sheese, Lori Stegmann, Suzy Stockton, Becky Straus, James Sweeney, Elspeth Tanguay-Koo, Evan Kent,
Victor Tran, Jennifer Trezza, Jason Triplett, Jesse Weisensee, Kate Wells, Veronica Wilson, Jordan Yeager,
Larissa Yoshino.
Participating One Night Shelter Count Organizations36
Blanchet House, Bradley Angle, Cascade AIDS Project, Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare, Catholic Charities,
Central City Concern, Cityteam Portland, Community of Hope, Do Good Multnomah, El Programa
Hispano Católico, Human Solutions, Inc., Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization, Impact NW,
Insights Teen Parents, Janus Youth Programs, JOIN, Luke-Dorf, Inc., Multnomah County, My Father’s House,
Native American Rehabilitation Association of the Northwest, Native American Youth and Family Center,
Neighborhood House, New Avenues for Youth, Northwest Pilot Project, Outside In, Portland Rescue
Mission, Raphael House, Russian Oregon Social Services, Salvation Army, Self-Enhancement, Inc., Transition
Projects, Inc., Volunteers of America, YWCA of Greater Portland.
Portland State University, Population Research Center
Sheila Martin, Randy Morris, Deborah Loftus.
Multnomah County
Ryan Deibert, Sally Erickson, Rhea Graves, Marc Jolin, Joanne Miesen, Anna Plumb, Denis Theriault,
Carrie Young.
Portland Housing Bureau
Hunter Belgard, Antoinette Pietka, Bimal RajBhandary, Wendy Smith, Michelle Helm, David Sheern,
Dyvisha Gordon, Matthew Tschabold, Jennifer Chang.
City Budget Office
Jane Marie Ford, Jessica Kinard.

36. This list includes organizations that submitted data on emergency shelters, transitional housing, and rapid re-housing.

Page 112

 APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
Recipients of federal Continuum of Care (CoC) program funding are required to plan and conduct, at least
biennially, a point-in-time (PIT) count of people experiencing homelessness. The purpose of this PIT count
is to collect reliable data on the total number and characteristics of all people (sheltered and unsheltered)
on a single night in late January. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency
that administers the CoC program, provides specific guidelines37 to conduct this count that include the
following:
•• definition of homeless and other related concepts
•• required data elements for describing characteristics of the homeless community
•• considerations and requirements for selecting a date and time to conduct the count
•• appropriate training for the volunteers and staff who will be involved in the data collection
•• standards that cover issues like no double-counting, protection of participant privacy and safety and
adequate geographic coverage
In accordance with HUD requirements, the Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County CoC has conducted the
PIT count on biennial cycles, with the last count conducted in 2015. Since 2017 marks the biennial cycle, a
PIT count was planned for Wednesday, January 25, 2017. However, severe weather in the form of multiple
heavy snowstorms hit the Portland metro area during January 2017. Understandably, area service providers
and concerned citizens were focused on the critical need to keep individuals and families safe, warm, and
sheltered under these harsh weather conditions. So, the count was postponed to February 22, 2017, the
last Wednesday in that month to match HUD guidelines for the PIT count.
The PIT Count for 2017 consisted of the following major components:
1.  The street count (unsheltered) enumerated the population experiencing unsheltered homelessness on
the night of February 22, 2017.
2.  The One Night Shelter Count (ONSC) enumerated the population staying in emergency shelters,
transitional housing, or vouchered into motels on February 22, 2017.
At the national level, HUD uses the PIT count data as measures of local and national progress toward
preventing and ending homelessness. The data also play a critical role in the annual CoC Program
Competition. At the local level, the PIT count data help in multiple ways. The count provides not just an
assessment of homelessness, but also helps in system planning and being responsive to the needs of
persons experiencing homelessness in the community. Further, the data educate stakeholder groups and
the community about the population experiencing unsheltered and sheltered homelessness on a given
night. Such education can help improve awareness and guide local decision making.

37.  US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014 Point-In-Time Methodology Guide, (September 2014), p. 30, https://www.
hudexchange.info/resources/documents/PIT-Count-Methodology-Guide.pdf

Page 113

 DEFINITION OF HOMELESS
Unsheltered count includes individuals or families “with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or
private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings,
including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground” on the night
designated for the count.38
Sheltered count includes individuals or families “living in a supervised publicly or privately owned shelter
designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing,
and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, or local government
programs for low-income individuals)” on the night designated for the count.39
HUD’s definition of homelessness does not include individuals and families who are living in unstable
shared-housing arrangements due to challenging economic or other circumstances. This housing
arrangement is commonly referred to as doubled up. Since any count of the people who are experiencing
homelessness at a given time will likely be incomplete without at least an estimate of the number of
people who may be doubled up, this report provides that estimation using the data that area school
districts regularly collect on their students. Oregon Department of Education (ODE) defines doubled
up as a homeless living situation for children who are sharing housing due to loss of housing or lack of
alternative accommodations. This methodology uses an annualized data set that collects information for
only children attending public schools, which makes it challenging to use as a reliable proxy for estimates
of the broader population who may be doubled up at a point in time.
The full list of people who are not included in the PIT count is as follows:
•• persons counted in any location not listed on CoCs’ Housing Inventory Count (HIC) (e.g., staying in
projects with beds/units not dedicated for persons who are homeless)
•• persons residing in permanent housing (PH) programs, including persons housed using HUD Veterans
Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers
•• persons temporarily staying with family or friends (i.e., doubled up or couch surfing)
•• persons residing in housing they rent or own (i.e., permanent housing), including persons residing in
rental housing with assistance from a rapid-rehousing (RRH) project on the night of the count
•• persons residing in institutions (e.g., jails, juvenile correction facilities, foster care, hospital beds,
detox centers)40

38. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Continuum of Care,
24 CFR Part 578, (effective date August 30, 2012), p. 55, https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/CoCProgramInterimRule_
FormattedVersion.pdf
39. Ibid., p. 56.
40. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014 Point-In-Time Methodology Guide, (September 2014), p. 30, https://www.
hudexchange.info/resources/documents/PIT-Count-Methodology-Guide.pdf

Page 114

 TIMING OF THE COUNT
HUD requires that, “the sheltered and unsheltered PIT counts must be conducted during the last 10 days in
January and represent all homeless persons who were sheltered and unsheltered on a single night during
that period.” HUD explains the choice of this timing as follows:

Source: PIT Count Methodology Guide, September 2014.

Multnomah County’s point-in-time count has always taken place during the last ten days of January,
typically targeting the last Wednesday of the month. However, due to inclement weather conditions, PIT
2017 began on February 22, 2017. There was light rain and fog during the evening hours and temperatures
from 6:00 pm ranged between a high of 39 degrees and a low of 36 degrees. So, the target day of the PIT
count was wet and cold.

DATA COLLECTION METHOD (STREET COUNT AND SHELTER COUNT)
The street count and the ONSC are two distinct components designed for counting the unsheltered
and sheltered homeless population, respectively. Both components collect all of the HUD required
elements but the street count includes a set of additional questions that have been identified to be locally
important. In addition to the nature of information, the two components differ in the medium of data
collection. Following are relevant details regarding those differences.
Street Count
For the street count, data are collected largely through paper survey forms (See appendix F) administered
by volunteers and service providers. However, a few service providers with access to the Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS), the database system used for managing homelessness in the
CoC, enter street count information (for respondents who were unsheltered on the night of the count)
directly into that system.

Page 115

 The street count is conducted during a one-week period, but surveys are only filled out for respondents
who were unsheltered on the night of the count. For 2017, the street count data collection occurred from
Wednesday, February 22, 2017, through Tuesday, February 28, 2017.
The Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) and the Survey Research Lab (SRL) from Portland State
University (PSU) jointly coordinated the 2017 PIT count data collection. Area nonprofit organizations and
government agencies that serve or come into contact with people who are homeless and unsheltered
across Multnomah County contributed to the count in one or more of the following ways:
1.  Outreach and Engagement Workgroup (O&E): This community advisory forum composed of outreach
workers, first responders, emergency services, and information and referral providers played a central
role in data collection that occurred at specific unsheltered locations (e.g., streets/sidewalks, campsites,
woods, and abandoned vehicles). Since trust is a critical factor that influences voluntary participation,
the O&E Workgroup played an important role in planning, survey design, and data collection during
the PIT count.
2.  Coordinating Sites: Street count data collection also occurred through administration of survey forms
in sites or programs that serve people who are unsheltered. A total of 120 sites or organizations across
the CoC and beyond (e.g., Clackamas Service Center) hosted trained volunteers to collect survey forms
during the week of the PIT count.
3.  Coordination with One-Night Shelter Count: Organizations participating in the ONSC also collected
street count data from those turned away from a shelter, motel, or transitional housing who planned to
sleep outside on the night of the count.
Identifying Unsheltered Locations:
While the intent of the street count is to do a full count of every person who is experiencing unsheltered
homelessness across the entire CoC, comprehensive information on such locations does not exist. Also,
since the locations themselves can constantly change for multiple reasons, there is added complexity
when it comes to determining and planning coverage.
For the 2017 count, a combination of data from the campsite report published on the City of Portland’s
One Point of Contact website and the on-the-ground knowledge of O&E Workgroup members was used
to plan the canvassing of unsheltered locations/sites.
One Night Shelter Count
The ONSC gathers information on people sleeping in emergency shelters, motels (vouchered), and
transitional housing. For 2017, it was conducted on February 22, the same night as the homeless street
count. The ONSC was coordinated by the JOHS.
The ONSC also has a paper survey form (See appendix F). However, participating agencies that have access
to Service Point, the metro region’s HMIS, gather the data directly in the system. Some agencies that
provide sensitive services, like support for people experiencing domestic violence, do not use paper forms
or use HMIS and provide de-identified data on respondents through a comparable Excel file referred to as
the Comp file.

Page 116

 PLANNING & EXECUTION
Both the street count and the ONSC require advance planning and training. Due to the nature of the
approach, the street count involves additional aspects, like coordinating the data collection with sites that
provide homeless services, volunteer recruitment, and training. This planning and execution phase roughly
extended from October 2016 to March 2017.
For 2017, JOHS and PSU collaborated on planning and executing the count. Important aspects of the
planning included the following:
•• monthly meetings with the O&E Workgroup to discuss and seek input on survey design, process issues,
incentives, development of potential locations, assignments across the coverage area
•• development of content for the PIT count webpage, which was used for sharing information about the
efforts and as a recruitment tool
•• recruitment of agencies that either serve the population that is unsheltered, serve people in
emergency shelters or transitional housing, or do both
•• recruitment of volunteers for the PIT count
•• development of a training manual to increase standardization among enumerators
•• a pilot of a near-final draft of the street count survey with three members of the O&E Workgroup to
inform the final version of the survey
•• training sessions for street count volunteers
•• allocation of volunteers to various data collection sites
•• mid-week progress check-in
•• availability of JOHS and PSU throughout the week of data collection to support and participate in
the effort

DATA ENTRY
All the paper survey forms that were collected needed to be entered into the HMIS system. For PIT 2017,
Portland Housing Bureau (PHB) took the lead on this data entry. This was a month-long process completed
in early April. The data entry phase included the following:
•• validation of survey forms
•• deduplication of forms to ensure that each individual is counted only once
•• training volunteers for data entry
•• organizing and facilitating data entry
A note about the survey forms: HUD requires that each person be counted only once and that CoCs
use HMIS to help with what is called the deduplication process. In this process, any data that can be
ascertained as coming from the same respondent are excluded. Also, surveys that do not have information
on the required questions (first letter of first name, first three letters of last name, age and gender
identity) have to be rejected. Table 57 discusses differences and between the 2015 and 2017 PIT count
methodologies.

Page 117

 Table 57. PIT Count Methodology—2015 and 2017 Compared
Factor

PIT Count 2015
January 28, 2015, to February
3, 2015

PIT Count 2017

Weather

Warmer and dry

Cold and wet

Coordinating teams

Portland Housing Bureau and Joint Office of Homeless Services and PSU Survey
consultant
Research Lab

Timing of the count

February 22, 2017, to February 28, 2017

1. Expansion of the gender option to include
“don’t identify as male, female, or transgender.”

Changes made by
HUD

2. Clarification that, whether or not there are
children, if one member of the household
qualifies as chronically homeless, then all
persons in the household should be counted as
chronically homeless.

N/A

3. Change in definition and clarification to chronic
homelessness; reporting chronic homelessness
by household types: persons in households
with at least one adult and one child, persons
in households without children, and persons in
households with only children.
Survey Differences

Differences in
options

Added questions

Rewording of
questions

Gender identity had a “Z”
option

Gender identity had “does not identify as M, F, or
Trans” option
Q1a. [If Q1 not boat or vehicle:] Did/will you sleep in
a tent at that location on February 22nd?

N/A

Q4. Is this the first time in your life you have
experienced homelessness?

Q9. Are you a US Military
Veteran? [If yes:] Did you
serve after 2001?

Q10. [Ask if 18 years or older:] Have you served
in the US Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps, Coast Guard) or have been called
into active duty by the National Guard as a
Reservist?

In the past year, has someone
abused or threatened you or
your dependent in way that
made you afraid to remain
where you are staying?

Q. 13 [Ask if 18 years or older:] have you
experienced domestic violence (physical/
emotional/verbal DV) in current or past
relationships?
Table 57 continued on next page

Page 118

 Factor

PIT Count 2015

PIT Count 2017

Expansion of subset
of respondents

Only those who were
homeless when they came to
Multnomah County answered
questions on reasons for
moving and where they
moved from.

All migrants (i.e., not originally from Multnomah
County) regardless of homelessness status, were
asked questions on reasons for moving and where
they moved from.

Design of the
survey form

Side B was used to collect
information on respondents
whose identifying
information could not be
collected, if an enumerator
could not enter a site, or
if enumerators did not
wish to disturb a sleeping
respondent.

Side B was redesigned to collect data on
additional household members.

Separate refusal form to track people who refused
to complete a street count form.
Volunteers were trained through scheduled
training sessions:

No separate refusal form

Training Dates:
Session 1: Mon., Feb 6, 5:30−7:00 pm, Central
Library, US Bank Room
Volunteer Trainings

Volunteers were trained
through multiple on-site and
on-call trainings.

Session 2: Thurs., Feb 9, 1:00−2:30 pm, North
Precinct, Community Room
Session 3: Mon., Feb 13, 3:30−5:00 pm, Rockwood
Library, Large Conference Room
Session 4: Thurs., Feb 16, 10:00−11:30 am, Lincoln
Building, Pine Room
Session 5: Mon., Feb 20, 5:00−6:30 pm, PSU Market
Center Building, Mt Rainier Room 316

Doubled up

Translation

Incentives

Use of three point-in-time
data sources to calculate
average share of doubled up
in the homeless population
and applying that share to
the PIT count.
Survey form was translated
into Spanish.
Limited incentives
(e.g., granola bars, socks,
etc). provided by the
coordinating team.

Use of annual ODE doubled up data to arrive at an
estimate of doubled up households with children.

Survey form was translated into Spanish, Russian,
Vietnamese and Chinese.
No incentives provided by the coordinating team;
however, O&E teams did approach respondents
with agency-provided incentives.

Page 119

 NOTES ON ANALYSIS AND REPORT
The HMIS is bound by federal confidentiality requirements. During the past PIT counts, a raw PIT dataset
could not be made available to the author. However, for PIT 2017, a data-sharing agreement was put in
place between JOHS and PSU. Hence, all analysis for PIT 2017 is based on raw data and not on aggregated
data tables generated from HMIS.
The exact survey question is included below each table or figure. For most of the survey items, the data
are summarized for the entire population (N = 4,177). Exceptions are questions that were asked of only
a subset of the population, and this number is denoted by “n.” For many of the survey items, “unknown”
includes “missing”, “don’t know”, “data not collected” and “refused”, unless noted otherwise to include only
missing responses.
For the survey questions that were designed as “check ALL that apply” (e.g., race/ethnicity, disabling
conditions), individual response options were analyzed as individual items, allowing individuals to select
multiple options. For example, if an individual picked “Hispanic/Latino” and “Black/African American,” the
person was counted in the Hispanic/Latino total and in the Black/African American total.

METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
Any effort at census taking has inherent limitations. The fact that the PIT count is an effort to count all
unsheltered and sheltered individuals and families in Multnomah County, a geographically vast land area
of 466 square miles, poses added difficulties. Several limitations in the methodology all but ensure that any
point-in-time count of homelessness is an undercount. The following list highlights a few of those difficulties.
•• Point-in-time count: By design, the count is tied to people experiencing homelessness on a given
night. This makes the data static and does not account for fluctuations in this number that can be
brought on by many factors like seasons, economic conditions, or migration.
•• Timing of the count: The 2017 PIT count occurred in February for the first time since the CoC has been
conducting the count. It is hard to ascertain the influence of this and the different weather conditions
on the count. Cold and wet weather during this period, may have affected the count, but the specific
effects are unknown.
•• Locating and contacting respondents: The list of potential locations for enumeration of the street
count is organic. There is no way of knowing whether all locations were identified. Further, even
for known locations, the respondents may or may not be available. This adds to the potential for
undercount of unsheltered individuals.
•• Right to refuse: The survey is voluntary and the respondents have the right to refuse participation.
Given the extent of vulnerabilities that this population faces, a certain amount of refusals can be
expected. For 2017, 456 people refused participation in the street count. However, given the nature
of the count, it is not possible to ascertain whether this is a high, low, or average refusal rate. Also, a
refusal does not totally rule out inclusion in the count. Some of the respondents may get counted as
part of the ONSC or at some other point during the week of the count.
•• Participation sites: The voluntary nature of participation for agencies/programs that provide services
can influence the count. For 2017, 120 agencies participated as sites for the count. However, more
sites (especially private) do provide services, but chose not to participate. Such choice does affect
the total count.

Page 120

 •• Number of volunteers: The count depends on volunteers. For 2017, 70 volunteers helped in street
count enumeration. While this provided adequate coverage, there is no way of knowing whether
having more volunteers and expanded coverage could have influenced the count.
•• Limiting definitions: The HUD definition of “homeless” is rather limiting. Notable exclusions are the
doubled up population, people in jail, and people at a detox facility. Therefore, the PIT count is at best a
partial snapshot of homelessness.
•• Under-counting: Some subpopulations are likely to be undercounted. These include the following:
–– People of color: Limitations with racial/ethnic identity options, language barriers, lack of trust, and
lack of knowledge all result in the PIT count being an undercount of people of color.
–– Youth: The count may not reach the homeless youth population effectively, particularly since this
group may be prone to avoiding enumerators and to migration during the count time.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
•• Chronically Homeless Individual
An individual who:
A.  Is homeless and lives in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an
emergency shelter; and
B.  Has been homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe
haven, or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least 1 year or on at least four separate
occasions in the last 3 years; and
C.  Can be diagnosed with one or more of the following conditions: substance use disorder, serious
mental illness, developmental disability— (as defined in section 102 of the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002), post-traumatic stress disorder,
cognitive impairments resulting from brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability.41
•• Chronically Homeless Family
“A family with an adult head of household (or if there is no adult in the family, a minor head of
household) who meets all of the criteria for a chronically homeless individual, including a family whose
composition has fluctuated while the head of household has been homeless.”42
•• Disability
An individual with one or more of the following conditions:
A.  Physical, mental, or emotional impairment, including an impairment caused by alcohol or drug
abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, or brain injury that:
1. Is expected to be long-continuing or of indefinite duration;
2. Substantially impedes the individual’s ability to live independently; and
3. Could be improved by the provision of more suitable housing conditions.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.

Page 121

 B.  A developmental disability, as defined in section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance
and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002); or
C.  The disease of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or any condition arising from the
etiologic agency for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV).43
•• Homeless Management Information System/Service Point
HUD requires that the point-in-time count align with a housing inventory count of all beds and units
dedicated to providing shelter and transitional housing to people meeting HUD’s homeless definition.
Data for the sheltered point-in-time count and the housing inventory are collected through the
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), a data collection and reporting system meeting
uniform standards set by HUD for all communities receiving federal homeless assistance funding. The
Portland Housing Bureau implements a regional HMIS using Service Point, a web-based data system
that allows agencies, coalitions, and communities to manage real-time client and resource data.
•• Veteran-This subpopulation of the PIT count includes adults who have served on active duty in the
Armed Forces of the United States. This does not include inactive military reserves or the National
Guard unless the person was called up to active duty.44
•• People Experiencing Domestic Violence-This subpopulation of the PIT count includes adults who have
experienced domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.45
•• Youth-Persons under age 25, including children under age 18 and young adults ages 18 to 24.46
•• Parenting Youth-A youth who identifies as the parent or legal guardian of one or more children who are
present with or sleeping in the same place as that youth parent, where there is no person over age 24
in the household.47
•• Unaccompanied Youth-Persons under age 25 who are not accompanied by a parent or guardian and
are not a parent presenting with or sleeping in the same place as his/her child(ren). Unaccompanied
youth are single youth, youth couples, and groups of youth presenting together as a household.48

43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., pg. 27.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.

Page 122

 APPENDIX C: GRESHAM AND EAST COUNTY
The 2017 Point-in-Time Count of Homelessness report captures information on people who were
homeless throughout Multnomah County—including in Gresham and other parts of East County—on the
night of February 22, 2017. This appendix provides additional insights into the unsheltered and emergency
shelter populations in Gresham and East County.49

Gresham/ East County Count

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

Individual persons

127

393

520

Household units

108

177

285

Household Type

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

Individual adults

122
(96.1%)

91
(23.2%)

213
(41.0%)

8

6

14

113

85

198

1

0

1

5
(3.9%)

302
(76.8%)

307
(59.0%)

Children < 18

3

167

170

Adults 18-24

0

20

20

Adults > 24

2

114

116

Age unknown

0

1

1

0
(0%)

0
(0%)

0
(0%)

Age 18−24
Age > 24
Age unknown
Persons in families with children

Unaccompanied youth < 18

Note: Percentages are based on unsheltered = 127, emergency shelter = 393 and total = 520.

49.  Because a significant portion of transitional housing beds are not facility-based, address information is not available to enable us to isolate and
analyze the transitional housing populations in Gresham and East County.

Page 123

 Unsheltered
No. and (%)

Emergency Shelter No.
and (%)

Total
No. and (%)

White Alone, Not Hispanic

93
(73.2%)

194
(49.4%)

287
(55.2%)

People of Color

30
(23.6%)

176
(44.8%)

206
(39.6%)

Unknown*

4
(3.1%)

23
(5.9%)

27
(5.2%)

American Indian/Alaska
Native

17
(13.4%)

31
(7.9%)

48
(9.2%)

Asian

3
(2.4%)

2
(0.5%)

5
(1.0%)

Black/African American

5
(3.9%)

90
(22.9)

95
(18.3%)

Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

0
(0.0%)

29
(7.4%)

29
(5.6%)

Hispanic/Latino
(of any race)

13
(10.2%)

47
(12.0%)

60
(11.5%)

White

105
(82.7%)

254
(64.6%)

359
(69.0%)

Race/Ethnicity

Race alone or in combination

Page 124

 Age

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

< 18

3
(2.4%)

167
(42.5%)

170
(32.7%)

<5

2

72

74

6−11

0

33

33

12−17

1

62

63

18−24

8
(6.3%)

26
(6.6%)

34
(6.5%)

25−44

63
(49.6%)

123
(31.3%)

186
(35.8%)

45−54

36
(28.3%)

42
(10.7%)

78
(15.0%)

55−69

14
(11.0%)

33
(8.4%)

47
(9.0%)

70+

2
(1.6%)

1
(<1.0%)

3
(1.0%)

Unknown

1
(<1.0%)

1
(<1.0%)

2
(<1.0%)

Gender

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

Male

80
(62.9%)

131
(33.3%)

211
(40.6%)

Female

43
(33.8%)

258
(65.6%)

301
(57.8%)

Transgender

0
(1.0%)

1
(<1.0%)

1
(<1%)

Unknown

3
(2.4%)

4
(1.0%)

7
(1.3%)

Page 125

 Veterans

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

Veterans50

16
(12.9%)

12
(5.3%)

28
(8.0%)

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

46
(37.0%)

84
(37.3%)

130
(37.4%)

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

82
(64.5%)

132
(33.6%)

214
(41.2%)

Domestic violence
Experienced Domestic Violence51

Disabling Conditions
Persons with one or more disabling
conditions

Length of Current Episode of Homelessness

Unsheltered

Less than one month

10
(7.9%)

1−6 months

24
(18.9%)

7−12 months

16
(12.6%)

1−2 years

25
(19.7%)

2−5 years

20
(15.7%)

5−10 years

15
(11.8%)

>10 years

9
(7.1%)

Unknown

8
(6.3%)

50. Percentage is out of adults: unsheltered = 124, emergency shelter = 225, total = 348.
51. Ibid.

Page 126

 Chronically Homeless

Unsheltered

Emergency Shelter

Total

Individual adults

65
(53.3%)

11
(12.1%)

76
(35.6%)

Persons in families with children

5
(100.0%)

30
(9.9%)

35
(11.4%)

Total

70
(55.1%)

41
(10.4%)

111
(21.3%)

Note: Percentages are based on individual adults unsheltered = 122, individual adults emergency shelter = 91 and individual adults
total = 213, persons in families with children unsheltered = 5, persons in families with children in emergency shelter = 302, persons
in families with children total = 307, total unsheltered = 127, total emergency shelter = 393 and overall total = 520

Page 127

 APPENDIX D: STREET COUNT PARTICIPANTS
The Street Count is conducted by agencies and organizations across Multnomah County that come into
regular contact with people experiencing homelessness. These include agencies that provide services
to homeless people, outreach organizations, schools, and agencies providing a wide range of services to
low-income households (e.g., meal programs, food pantries, medical clinics, information and referral, and
workforce development agencies).
The table below lists the agencies for the 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 PIT street counts. In order to
make comparisons more logical, the table lists sites by agency rather than by individual site locations.
(Some agencies with multiple departments or programs represent more than one site).
The table reflects the number of survey forms returned by the sites before duplicates or ineligible forms
were removed. Each form represents a household or a camp, so these figures do not provide an indication
of the number of individuals counted by each organization. Additional agencies participated in the count
but did not return any surveys because they did not encounter anyone who was unsheltered and had not
yet been surveyed during the week of the count.

Number of Forms Returned
Agency

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

211info

1

10

10

7

17

Adventist Medical Center

0

0

0

1

0

Agape Church of Christ

0

0

21

51

0

All Saints Episcopal Church

0

0

0

0

6

Anawin

0

79

30

82

0

Better People

4

0

0

0

0

116

82

82

96

56

Bridgetown Ministries

0

13

0

13

0

Can We Help/ Transformation Network

62

35

48

43

0

Cascade AIDS Project

0

4

2

0

0

Cascadia

21

90

135

34

53

Catholic Charities

1

32

70

79

20

Central City Concern

30

55

97

106

12

City Team Ministries

0

0

0

16

0

Blanchet House

Table continued on next page
Page 128

 Number of Forms Returned
Agency

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Clackamas Service Center

0

0

0

15

143

CODA Alpha Treatment

5

7

0

0

0

Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians

0

5

0

0

0

Crossroads Cupboard

0

0

0

3

0

David Douglas SD 40

0

2

0

0

0

Department of Human Services

0

0

1

31

27

Dignity Village

60

60

60

53

51

Dinner & A Movie

0

5

0

0

0

East Hill Church

0

0

0

9

9

Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon

8

0

2

2

0

First Baptist Church (Gresham)

0

0

0

14

0

First Baptist Church (Portland)

20

12

3

7

16

Free Hot Soup

0

0

0

8

21

Gateway Center

0

0

0

0

2

Good News Health Clinic

0

12

8

0

0

Human Solutions

0

2

5

1

1

Imago Dei

0

0

9

9

0

Impact NW

0

9

3

8

0

Janus Youth

104

84

115

77

46

0

0

0

3

0

JOIN

998

626

706

585

139

Julia West House

38

20

19

0

0

Living Hope International

0

0

0

15

0

Loaves and Fishes

3

0

10

3

0

Johnson Creek Watershed Council

Table continued on next page

Page 129

 Number of Forms Returned
Agency

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Mainspring (formerly Fish Emergency Services)

3

0

0

9

8

Manna Ministries

0

15

6

1

0

Maybelle Center for Community (formerly
Macdonald Center)

15

2

4

4

0

Mercy Corps

0

3

0

0

0

Multnomah County Intellectual & Developmental
Disabilities

0

0

0

0

3

Multnomah County Corrections/ Sheriff’s Discharge

9

15

18

5

0

Multnomah County Health Clinics

51

2

1

17

17

Multnomah County Health Department

6

3

8

22

48

Multnomah County Library-Belmont

0

2

4

7

5

Multnomah County Library-Central

0

22

68

40

11

Multnomah County Library-Gresham

0

0

4

27

3

Multnomah County Library-Holgate

0

0

0

0

8

Multnomah County Library-Midland

0

0

0

0

7

Multnomah County River Patrol

0

0

0

0

7

NARA NW

2

0

0

11

32

NAYA

37

31

7

6

9

New Avenues for Youth

20

8

7

0

8

No One Left Behind

0

0

0

9

0

Northwest Pilot Project

0

0

2

0

0

OHSU Family Medicine at Richmond

0

0

0

4

0

Operation Nightwatch

0

7

5

31

45

Oregon Health Sciences University Social Workers

0

0

0

5

6

Our Peaceful Place

8

0

0

0

0

Table continued on next page

Page 130

 Number of Forms Returned
Agency

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Outreach Volunteers

0

0

16

0

10052

Outside In

67

45

50

41

137

P:ear

2

13

10

25

5

Parkrose SD 3

1

0

0

2

3

Portland Adventist Community Services

0

7

0

0

5

Portland Fire & Rescue

0

5

3

0

0

Portland Parks

0

14

54

75

0

Portland Police Bureau

99

0

0

0

0

Portland Public School District

5

7

0

0

2

Portland Rescue Mission

25

52

18

0

0

Portland’s Women Crisis Line

3

0

0

1

0

Potluck in the Park

3

30

47

5

26

Rahab’s Sisters

0

0

0

3

0

Reynolds SD 7

2

5

11

0

2

Right 2 Dream Too

0

0

6

24

24

Rose Haven

0

1

4

8

13

Rosewood Family Health Center

1

0

0

0

0

Saint André Bessette Catholic Church

27

15

38

35

10

Saint Francis Dining Hall

17

35

8

0

31

Saint Mark’s Lutheran

0

3

1

2

0

Saint Stephen’s Episcopal Parish

0

0

4

40

0

Salvation Army

0

27

6

6

1

Sanctuary Presbyterian Church

14

14

13

6

3

Sexual Minority Youth Resource Center (SMYRC)

1

0

0

0

0

Sisters of the Road

17

33

50

40

20

52.  Surveys submitted as part of a coordinated outreach strategy, including and not limited to FamilyCare, Micro Community Concepts and
Joint Office of Homeless Services

Page 131

 Number of Forms Returned
Agency

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

SnowCap Community Charities

3

8

4

2

11

Street Roots

9

40

52

32

17

Sunnyside Methodist Church

22

6

6

25

0

The Chapel

0

0

0

2

0

Transition Projects

15

23

149

233

87

Transitional Youth/ Street Church

0

19

0

0

0

Trinity Episcopal Cathedral

13

26

10

26

24

Union Gospel Mission

0

32

21

20

0

University of Western States (formerly WBCC)

2

0

3

0

0

Veterans Administration (includes CCRC)

0

5

8

88

46

Voz Day Labor Center

15

10

8

5

7

William Temple House

7

2

1

4

0

Zarephath Kitchen

0

053

0

34

35

53.  Surveys were conducted at Zarephath in 2013 by Janus outreach workers, and the forms were submitted with the Janus forms; so a count of
forms collected at just that location is not available.

Page 132

 APPENDIX E: ONSC PARTICIPANTS
The One Night Shelter Count (ONSC) is conducted by organizations across Multnomah County that
provide emergency shelter and transitional housing. The following organizations participated in the
2017 ONSC:
Blanchet House
Bradley Angle
Cascade Aids Project
Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare
Central City Concern
Cityteam Portland
Community of Hope
Do Good Multnomah
Human Solutions, Inc.
Impact Northwest
Janus Youth Programs
Luke-Dorf, Inc.
My Father’s House
Neighborhood House
New Avenues for Youth
Outside In
Portland Rescue Mission
Portland Women’s Crisis Line
Raphael House
Salvation Army
Self Enhancement, Inc.
Transition Projects, Inc.
Volunteers of America
YWCA of Greater Portland

Page 133

 APPENDIX F: SURVEY FORMS
Included are:
»» Multnomah County Homeless Street Count Form (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Vietnamese)
»» One Night Shelter Count Form
»» Multnomah County Homeless Street Count Refusal Form

Page 134

 Person Completing Form: ___________________ Organization/Site: ____________________ Date: __________

Multnomah County Homeless Street Count February 22-28, 2017  SIDE A: HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
Use this form to survey people who are homeless and unsheltered on the night of February 22, 2017.

Did you or will you sleep outside* on Wednesday night February 22nd?  Yes  No [if No, Stop Survey]

*Public or private place not ordinarily used for people to regularly sleep in (e.g., vehicle, park, street, abandoned building, campground.)
Have you already taken the Street Count survey this week?
 Yes  No [if Yes, Stop Survey]

THE QUESTIONS IN THIS BOX ARE REQUIRED. IF THEY CAN’T BE ANSWERED, COMPLETE A REFUSAL FORM.
First letter FIRST name
First 3 letters LAST name
Age
How do you identify your gender?
M
Trans (FM)
F
Trans (MF)
Does Not Identify as M, F or Trans

1. Where did/will you sleep Wednesday night February 22nd? 7. How do you identify your race/ethnicity?
Check ALL That Apply (and at least one):
[Select Only ONE]
 Hispanic/Latino
 Asian
 Street/sidewalk
 Woods/open space
 White/Caucasian
 Slavic
 Doorway/other private
 Vehicle (car, truck, van,
property

camper) [Skip to Q2]

 Abandoned house/building  Boat [Skip to Q2]
 Bridge/overpass/railroad
 Other unsheltered location:
________________________
 Park
1a. [If Q1 Not Boat or Vehicle:] Did/will you sleep in a
tent at that location on February 22nd?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
2. What part of town did/will you sleep in on February 22nd?
[Select Only ONE]
 Downtown/Old Town/Pearl  SE Portland (river  82nd)
 SW Ptld (outside downtown)  Outer E Ptld (82nd  162nd)
 NW Ptld (outside downtown)  Gresham
 North Portland
 East County (outside
Gresham)
 Inner NE Ptld (river  33rd)
 Central NE Ptld (33rd  82nd)  Don’t Know
3. Did/will you sleep alone on February 22nd?
 Yes  No
3a. [If Q3=No] Who slept/will sleep with you on Feb 22nd?
[Check ALL That Apply:]
 Spouse/Partner
 Child/Children/Grandchild(ren) under 18 years
 Other Relative (e.g., parent, sibling, adult child(ren),
aunt/uncle, grandparent)
 Non-Relative (e.g., friend, street family)

4. Is this the first time in your life you have experienced
homelessness?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
5. How long have you been homeless this time?
________ (months)
________ (years)
[If duration is 12 months or more, Skip to Q7]
6. [If Q5 less than 12 months:] Have you lived on the
streets or in a shelter at least 4 separate times
(including this time) in the past 3 years?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
6a. [If Q6=Yes:] In the past 3 years, was the total time
you have been living on the streets or in a shelter
at least 12 months?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know

 Black/African American
 African
 American Indian/Alaska Native
 Middle Eastern
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander  Don’t Know/Refused
Additional Detail: ___________________________________

8. Are you attending school?  Yes
 No
9. Are you employed?
 Yes
 No
10. [Ask if 18 years or older:] Have you served in the US
Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
Coast Guard) or been called into active duty by the
National Guard or as a Reservist?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
11. How long have you been in Multnomah County?
 < 3 mos  3-12 mos
 1-2 yrs
 >2 yrs
 N/A, I’m from here originally [skip to Q13]
12. Were you homeless when you came to Multnomah Co?
 Yes
 No
12a. What brought you here?

12b. Where did you move
from? [Select Only ONE]
 Family/friends
 Clack, Wash, or Clark
 Job opportunities
Counties (i.e., Metro area)
 Like it here/good weather
 Oregon outside Metro area
 Access to services/resources  Washington or California
 Other: _________________  Other part of United States

[Check ALL That Apply]

13. [Ask if 18 years or older:] Have you experienced
domestic violence (physical/emotional/verbal DV) in
current or past relationships?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
 Declined
13a. [If Q13=Yes:] Are you currently fleeing from DV?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
 Declined
14. Are you experiencing any of the following? [Ask Each]
[Check ALL That Apply, Yes Some Dis Cond, OR Declined]
 Mental illness
 Drug use problem
 Alcohol use problem
 Physical disability
 Mobility impairment

 Chronic health condition
 Developmental disability
 Traumatic brain injury
 Post-traumatic stress
 HIV / AIDS

 Yes, Some Disab  None, N/A  Declined to Answer

Use Side B (back) of this form to gather information for THIS respondent’s ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.

 Multnomah County Homeless Street Count  February 22-28, 2017  SIDE B: ADDT’L HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
IF A-D CAN’T BE ANSWERED,
ADDITIONAL HH MEMBER #1
ADDITIONAL HH MEMBER #2
COMPLETE A REFUSAL FORM


A. First letter of First Name [required]

B. First 3 letters of Last Name [required]
C. What is your age? [required]
D. How do you identify your gender?
[required]
1. What is your relationship to the person
who completed Side A of this form?
[Select Only ONE]

2. Is this the first time in your life you have
experienced homelessness?
3. How long have you been homeless this
time?
4. [If Q3<12 mos:] Have you lived on the
streets or in a shelter at least 4 separate
times (incl. this time) in the past 3 years?
4a. [If Q4=Yes:] In the past 3 years, was
the total time you have been living on the
streets or in a shelter at least 12 mos?
5. How do you identify your race/ethnicity?
[Check ALL That Apply and at least one]

6. Are you attending school?
7. Are you employed?
8. Have you served in the US Armed Forces
(A,N,AF,MC,CG) or been called into active
duty by the Nat’l Guard or as a Reservist?
9. How long have you been in Multnomah
County?
10. Were you homeless when you came to
Multnomah County?
10a. What brought you here?
[Check ALL That Apply]
10b. Where did you come from?
[Select Only ONE]
11. Have you experienced domestic
violence (phys/emot/verb DV) in
current or past relationships?
11a. [If Q11=Yes:] Are you currently
fleeing from DV?
12. Are you experiencing any of the
following?
[Ask each individually]
[Check ALL That Apply OR
Select Some Disabling Condition OR
None, N/A OR Declined]

M
Trans (FM)
Does Not Identify
F
Trans (MF)
as M/F/Trans
 Spouse/Partner
 Child/Children/Grandchild under 18 yrs
 Other Relative (e.g., parent, sibling, adult
child(ren), aunt/uncle, grandparent)
 Non-Relative (e.g., friend, street family)
 Yes  No  Don’t Know

M
Trans (FM)
Does Not Identify
F
Trans (MF)
as M/F/Trans
 Spouse/Partner
 Child/Children/Grandchild under 18 yrs
 Other Relative (e.g., parent, sibling, adult
child(ren), aunt/uncle, grandparent)
 Non-Relative (e.g., friend, street family)
 Yes  No  Don’t Know

________ (mos) _______ (yrs)
________ (mos) _______ (yrs)
[If 12 months or more, skip to Q5]
[If 12 months or more, skip to Q5]
 Yes
 Yes
 No [Skip to Q5]
 No [Skip to Q5]
 Don’t Know [Skip to Q5]
 Don’t Know [Skip to Q5]
 Yes
 Yes
 No
 No
 Don’t Know
 Don’t Know
 Hispanic/Latino
 Asian
 Hispanic/Latino
 Asian
 White/Caucasian
 Slavic
 White/Caucasian
 Slavic
 Black/African American  African
 Black/African American  African
 Amer Indian/Alaska Nat  Middle Eastern  Amer Indian/Alaska Nat  Middle Eastern
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island  DK/Ref
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island  DK/Ref
Additional Detail: _______________________ Additional Detail: ________________________
 Yes  No
 Yes  No
STOP HERE FOR CHILDREN 0-17 YEARS
 Yes  No
 Yes  No
 Yes
 Yes
 No
 No
 Don’t Know
 Don’t Know
 <3 months
 >2 years
 <3 months
 >2 years
 3-12 mos
 N/A, I’m from here
 3-12 mos
 N/A, I’m from here
 1-2 years
originally [Skip to Q11]
 1-2 years
originally [Skip to Q11]
 Yes
 Yes
 No
 No
 Family/friends
 Access to services/  Family/friends
 Access to services/
 Job opportunities
resources
 Job opportunities
resources
 Like it here/good
 Other: _________  Like it here/good
 Other: __________
weather
_________________
weather
_________________
 Clack, Wash, or Clark Cnty (i.e., Metro area)  Clack, Wash, or Clark Cnty (i.e., Metro area)
 Oregon, outside
 Wash or Calif
 Oregon, outside
 Wash or Calif
Metro area
 Other part of US
Metro area
 Other part of US
 Yes
 No [Skip to Q12]
 Yes
 No [Skip to Q12]
 Don’t Know [Skip to Q12]
 Don’t Know [Skip to Q12]
 Declined [Skip to Q12]
 Declined [Skip to Q12]
 Yes
 Don’t Know
 Yes
 Don’t Know
 No
 Declined
 No
 Declined
 Mental illness
 Chronic health cond
 Mental illness
 Chronic health cond
 Drug use prob
 Develop disability
 Drug use prob
 Develop disability
 Alcohol use prob  Traumatic brain injury  Alcohol use prob  Traumatic brain injury
 Physical disability  Post-traumatic stress  Physical disability  Post-traumatic stress
 Mobility impair  HIV/AIDS
 Mobility impair  HIV/AIDS
 Some Disab Cond  None,N/A  Declined  Some Disab Cond  None,N/A  Declined

 Persona que llena el formulario: __________________ Organización/sitio: _________________ Fecha: _______
Conteo de personas sin hogar del Condado de Multnomah w 22-28 de febrero, 2017 w LADO A: CABEZA DE FAMILIA
Utilice este formulario para encuestar a personas sin hogar y sin albergue la noche del 22 de febrero de 2017.
¿Durmió o dormirá en la afuera* la noche del miércoles 22 de febrero? ¡ Sí ¡ No [Si la respuesta es No, detenga la encuesta]
*Lugar público o privado que no se utiliza normalmente para que la gente duerma (es decir, vehículo, parque, calle, edificio abandonado, terreno para campamento).

¿Ya ha contestado la encuesta del conteo esta semana?

¡ Sí ¡ No [Si la respuesta es Sí, detenga la encuesta]

LAS PREGUNTAS EN ESTE RECUADRO SON OBLIGATORIAS. SI NO SE PUEDEN RESPONDER, LLENE UN FORMULARIO DE RECHAZO.
Primera letra del PRIMER nombre

Primeras 3 letras del APELLIDO

¿Cómo identifica su género?

Edad
H
M

Trans (MgH)
Trans (HgM)

No se identifica como H, M o Trans
1. ¿Dónde durmió/dormirá la noche del miércoles 22 de febrero? 7. ¿Cómo identifica su raza/origen étnico?
Marque TODAS las opciones que aplican (y por lo menos una):
[Seleccione sólo UNA opción]
¨ Asiático
¨ Hispano/Latino
¡ Bosque/espacio abierto
¡ Calle/acera
¨ Eslavo
¨ Blanco/Caucásico
¡ Puerta/otra propiedad
¡ Vehículo (carro, camión,
privada

camioneta, cámper) [Saltar a P2]

¡ Casa/edificio abandonado ¡ Bote [Saltar a P2]
¡ Puente/paso elevado/ferrocarril ¡ Otro lugar a la intemperie:
________________________
¡ Parque
1a. [Si P1 no es bote ni vehículo:] ¿Durmió/dormirá en
una casa de campaña en este sitio el 22 de febrero?
¡ No sabe
¡ Sí
¡ No
2. ¿En qué parte de la ciudad durmió/dormirá el 22 de febrero?
[Seleccione sólo UNA opción]
¡ Downtown/Old Town/Pearl
¡ SE Portland (río  82nd)
¡ SW Ptld (afuera de downtown) ¡ Outer E Ptld (82nd  162nd)
¡ NW Ptld (afuera de downtown) ¡ Gresham
¡ Norte de Portland
¡ East County (afuera de
¡ Interior NE Ptld (río g 33rd)
Gresham)
¡ Central NE Ptld (33rd g 82nd) ¡ No sabe

¨ Africano
¨ Negro/Afroamericano
¨ Indígena americano/nativo de Alaska ¨ Medioriental
¨ Nativo de Hawái/isleño del Pacífico ¨ No sabe/se niega a contestar
Detalles adicionales: ______________________________________

8. ¿Asiste a la escuela? ¡ Sí
¡ No
9. ¿Tiene empleo?
¡ Sí
¡ No
10. [Pregunte si la persona tiene 18 años o más:] ¿Ha servido
en las Fuerzas Armadas de los EE.UU. (Ejército, Marina,
Fuerza Aérea, Cuerpo de Marines, Guardacostas) o ha sido
llamado a servicio activo por la Guardia Nacional o como
un reservista?
¡ Sí
¡ No ¡ No sabe
11. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha estado en el Condado de Multnomah?
¡ < 3 meses ¡ 3-12 meses ¡ 1-2 años ¡ > 2 años
¡ N/A, soy de aquí originalmente [salte a P13]

3. ¿Durmió/dormirá solo(a) el 22 de febrero?
12. ¿Era usted una persona sin hogar cuando vino al Co. de Multnomah?
¡ Sí ¡ No
¡ Sí
¡ No
3a. [Si P3=No] ¿Quién durmió/dormirá con usted el 22 de febrero?
12b. ¿De dónde se mudó?
12a.
Qué
lo trajo aquí?
[Marque TODAS las que aplican]
[Marque TODAS las que aplican] [Seleccione sólo UNA opción]
¨ Esposo(a)/pareja
¨ Familia/amigos
¡ Condados de Clack, Wash,
¨ Niño(a)/niños(as)/ nieto(s) menor(es) de 18 años
¨ Otros familiares (es decir, padres, hermanos, hijos
adultos, tíos, abuelos)
¨ No parientes (es decir, amigos, familia de la calle)

4. ¿Es la primera vez que ha vivido sin hogar?
¡ No sabe
¡ Sí
 No
5. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha sido una persona sin hogar esta vez?
________ (meses)
________ (años)
[Si la duración es de 12 meses o más, pase a la P7]
6. [Si P5 es menor a 12 meses:] ¿Ha vivido en las calles o en
un albergue por lo menos 4 veces distintas (incluyendo
esta vez) en los últimos 3 años?
¡ Sí
¡ No
¡ No sabe
6a. [Si P6=Sí:] ¿En los últimos 3 años, el tiempo total que
ha vivido en las calles o en un albergue fue de al
menos 12 meses?
¡ Sí

 No

¡ No sabe

¨ Oportunidades de empleo
o Clark (área metropolitana)
¨ Me gusta aquí/hay buen clima ¡ Oregon, fuera del área metro.
¨ Acceso a servicios/recursos ¡ Washington o California
¨ Otra: _________________
¡ Otra parte de E.E.U.U

13. [Pregunte si la persona tiene 18 años o más:]
¿Ha experimentado violencia doméstica (física/
emocional/verbal) en relaciones actuales o pasadas?
¡ Sí
¡ No
¡ No sabe
¡ No contestó
13a. [Si P13=Sí:] ¿Está huyendo actualmente
de violencia doméstica?
¡ Sí
 No
¡ No sabe ¡ No contestó
14. ¿Está experimentando alguna de las siguientes? [Pregunte cada
una][Marque todas las que aplican, Sí algunas discapacidades, O No contestó]

¨ Enfermedad mental
¨ Problema de uso de drogas
¨ Problema de uso de alcohol
¨ Discapacidad física
¨ Impedimento de movilidad

¨ Condición de salud crónica
¨ Discapacidad del desarrollo
¨ Lesión cerebral traumática
¨ Estrés postraumático
¨ VIH/SIDA

¡ Sí, alguna discapacidad ¡ Ninguna, N/A ¡ No contestó

Utilice el Lado B (reverso) de este formulario para reunir información sobre MIEMBROS DEL HOGAR ADICIONALES de ESTE encuestado.

 Conteo de personas sin hogar del Condado de Multnomah w 22-28 de febrero, 2017 w LADO B: MIEMBROS DEL HOGAR ADICIONALES
SI NO SE PUEDEN CONTESTAR A-D,
MIEMBRO ADICIONAL #2
MIEMBRO ADICIONAL #1
LLENE UN FORMULARIO DE RECHAZO
ê
ê
A. Primera letra del primer nombre [obligatorio]
B. Primeras 3 letras del apellido [obligatorio]
C. ¿Qué edad tiene? [obligatorio]
D. ¿Cómo identifica su género?
[obligatorio]
1. ¿Cuál es su parentesco con la persona
que llenó el Lado A de este formulario?
[Seleccione sólo UNA opción]
2. ¿Es la primera vez que ha vivido sin
hogar?
3. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha sido una persona sin
hogar esta vez?
4. [Si P3<12 meses:] ¿Ha vivido en las calles

No se identifica
H
Trans (MgH)
como H, M o Trans
M
Trans (HgM)
¡ Esposo(a)/Pareja
¡ Hijo(s)/nieto(s) menores de 18 años
¡ Otros familiares (es decir, padres,
hermanos, hijos adultos, tíos, abuelos)
¡ No parientes (es decir, amigos, familia
de la calle)
¡ Sí ¡ No ¡ No sabe

No se identifica
H
Trans (MH)
M
como H, M o Trans
Trans (HM)
¡ Esposo(a)/Pareja
¡ Hijo(s)/nieto(s) menores de 18 años
¡ Otros familiares (es decir, padres,
hermanos, hijos adultos, tíos, abuelos)
¡ No parientes (es decir, amigos, familia
de la calle)
¡ Sí ¡ No ¡ No sabe

________ (meses) _______ (años)
________ (meses) _______ (años)
[Si 12 meses o más, salte a P5]
[Si 12 meses o más, salte a P5]
¡ Sí
¡ Sí
o en un albergue al menos 4 veces distintas
¡ No [Salte a la P5]
¡ No [Salte a la P5]
(incluyendo esta vez) en los últimos 3 años?
¡ No sabe [Salte a la P5]
¡ No sabe [Salte a la P5]
¡ Sí
¡ Sí
4a. [Si P4=Sí:] ¿En los últimos 3 años, el
tiempo total que ha vivido en las calles o en
¡ No
¡ No
un albergue fue de al menos 12 meses?
¡ No sabe
¡ No sabe
¨ Hispano/latino
¨ Asiático
¨ Asiático
5. ¿Cómo identifica su raza/origen étnico? ¨ Hispano/latino
¨ Blanco/caucásico
¨ Eslavo
¨ Blanco/caucásico
¨ Eslavo
[Marque TODAS las opciones que
¨
Negro/afroamericano
¨ Africano
¨
Negro/afroamericano
¨
Africano
apliquen y por lo menos una]
Indíg. Amer./nat. de Alaska ¨ Medioriental
¨ Indíg. Amer./nat. de Alaska ¨ Medioriental
¨ Nat. de Hawái/isleño
¨ No sabe/No
¨ Nat. de Hawái/isleño
¨ No sabe/No
del Pacífico
contestó
del Pacífico
contestó
Detalles adicionales: _______________________ Detalles adicionales: _______________________
6. ¿Asiste a la escuela?
¡ Sí ¡ No
¡ Sí ¡ No
DETÉNGASE AQUÍ PARA MENORES DE 0-17 AÑOS
7. ¿Tiene empleo?
¡ Sí ¡ No
¡ Sí ¡ No
8. ¿Ha servido en las Fuerzas Armadas de los EE.UU.
¡ Sí
¡ Sí
(Ejército, Marina, Fuerza Aérea, Cuerpo de Marines,
¡ No
Guardacostas) o ha sido llamado a servicio activo por ¡ No
¡ No sabe
¡ No sabe
la Guardia Nacional o como un reservista?
¡ > 2 años
¡ < 3 meses
¡ > 2 años
9. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha estado en el Condado ¡ < 3 meses
de Multnomah?
¡ 3-12 meses ¡ N/A, soy de aquí
¡ 3-12 meses ¡ N/A, soy de aquí
¡ 1-2 años
originalmente [Salte a P11] ¡ 1-2 años
originalmente [Salte a P11]
10. ¿Era usted una persona sin hogar
¡ Sí
¡ Sí
cuando vino al Condado de Multnomah? ¡ No
¡ No
10a. ¿Qué lo trajo aquí?
¨ Familia/amigos
¨ Acceso a servicios/ ¨ Familia/amigos
¨ Acceso a servicios/
[Marque todas las que apliquen]
¨ Oportunidades de empleo recursos
¨ Oportunidades de empleo recursos
¨ Me gusta aquí/
¨ Otro: _________ ¨ Me gusta aquí/
¨ Otro: _________
buen clima
______________
______________
buen clima
¡ Condados Clack, Wash o Clark (es decir, área metropolitana) ¡ Condados Clack, Wash o Clark (es decir, área metropolitana)
10b. ¿De dónde se mudó?
[Seleccione sólo UNA opción]
¡ Oregon, fuera área ¡ Wash. o Calif.
¡ Oregon, fuera área ¡ Wash. o Calif.
¡ Otra parte de EE.UU.
¡ Otra parte de EE.UU.
metropolitana
metropolitana
11. ¿Ha experimentado violencia doméstica ¡ Sí
¡
Sí
¡ No [Salte a P12]
¡ No [Salte a P12]
(física/emocional/verbal) en relaciones
¡ No sabe [Salte a P12]
¡ No sabe [Salte a P12]
actuales o pasadas?
¡ No contestó [Salte a P12]
¡ No contestó [Salte a P12]
¡ Sí
¡ Sí
¡ No sabe
¡ No sabe
11a. [Si P11=Sí:] ¿Está huyendo
actualmente de violencia doméstica? ¡ No
¡ No contestó
¡ No
¡ No contestó
12. ¿Está experimentando alguna de las
¨ Enfermedad mental ¨ Cond. de salud crónica ¨ Enfermedad mental ¨ Cond. de salud crónica
siguientes?
¨ Probl. de uso de drogas ¨ Discapacidad del desarrollo ¨ Probl. de uso de drogas ¨ Discapacidad del desarrollo
¨ Probl. de uso de alcohol ¨ Lesión cerebral traumática ¨ Probl. de uso de alcohol ¨ Lesión cerebral traumática
[Pregunte cada una individualmente]
¨ Discapacidad física
¨ Estrés postraumático
¨ Discapacidad física
¨ Estrés postraumático
[Marque todas las que aplican O
¨ Impedimento de movilidad ¨ VIH/SIDA
seleccione alguna condición de discapacidad ¨ Impedimento de movilidad ¨ VIH/SIDA
¨ Alguna cond. de disc. ¡ Ninguna, N/A ¡ No contestó ¨ Alguna cond. de disc. ¡ Ninguna, N/A ¡ No contestó
O Ninguna, N/A O No contestó]

 Лицо, заполняющее анкету: ___________________ Организация/местонахождение:

_____________
_
Дата: __________

Перепись жителей округа Малтнома со статусом БОМЖ  22-28 февраля 2017 г.  СТОРОНА A: ГЛАВА СЕМЬИ
Используйте эту анкету для переписи лиц со статусом БОМЖ и не проживающих в приютах для бездомных в ночь 22 февраля 2017 г.
Спали ли Вы или будете ли Вы спать на улице* в ночь на среду 22 февраля?  Да  Нет [если нет, не заполняйте анкету дальше]
*Место общественного или частного пользования, обычно не используемое людьми для регулярных ночёвок (например, автомобиль, парк, улица,
заброшенное здание, площадка для кемпинга.)
Вы уже участвовали в переписи бездомных лиц на этой неделе?  Да  Нет [если да, не заполняйте анкету дальше]

ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНО ОТВЕТЬТЕ НА ЭТИ ВОПРОСЫ. ЕСЛИ ВЫ НЕ МОЖЕТЕ ОТВЕТИТЬ НА ЭТИ ВОПРОСЫ, ЗАПОЛНИТЕ ФОРМУ ОТКАЗА.

Первая буква имени

Первые три буквы фамилии

Возраст

Ваш пол?

Транс (ЖM)
M
Ж
Транс (MЖ)
Не считает себя М, Ж или транссексуалом

7. Ваша раса/национальность?
1. Где Вы спали/будете спать в ночь на среду 22 февраля?
Выберите ВСЕ подходящие ответы (как минимум один):
[Выберите только 1 ответ]
 В лесу/в поле

Латиноамериканская
 Азиаты
 На улице/на тротуаре
 В автотранспортном
 Славяне

Белая/европеоидная
 На пороге дома/другой
средстве (машине,
 Африканцы
 Черная/афроамериканская
частной собствености
грузовике, вэне, кемпере)
 Aмериканские индейцы/уроженцы Аляски  Ближневосточная раса
 В заброшенном доме/здании [Перейти к В2]
 Уроженцы Гавайских островов/уроженцы тихоокеанских островов
 У моста/в надземном
 На лодке [Перейти к В2]
 Не знаю/не хочу отвечать
переходе/у ж/д
 Другое место на улице:
Дополнительная информация_____________________________
 Парк
____________________
8. Вы учитесь?
 Да  Нет
1a. [Если ответ на В1 не лодка или автомобиль:]
 Да  Нет
9. Вы работаете?
Спали ли ли Вы/будете ли Вы спать в палатке
в указанном месте 22 февраля?
10. [Для лиц в возрасте от 18 лет:] Служили ли Вы в ВС США
(армии, флоте, ВВС, морская пехота, береговая охрана) или
 Не знаю
 Да
 Нет
призывались ли Вы на действительную военную службу
2. В какой части города Вы спали/будете спать 22 февраля?
национальной гвардией или в качестве резервиста?
[Выберите только ОДИН ответ]
 Да
 Нет
 Не знаю
 В центре города/в старой части 
в ЮВ Портленде (река  82я ул.) 11. Как долго Вы находитесь в округе Малтнома?
города/р-не Перл
За пределами восточного
 < 3 месяцев  3-12 месяцев  1-2 года  < 2 лет
 В ЮЗ Портленде (за пределами 
Портленда (82я  162я ул.)
 Неприменимо, я - коренной житель [перейти к B13]
центра города)
Грешем
12.
Было
ли у Вас место жительства, когда Вы приехали в

 В СЗ Портленде (за пределами
Восточный
округ
(за

округ
Малтнома?
центра города)
пределами Грешема)
 Северный Портленд
 Да
 Нет
 Не знаю
 Внутренний СВ Портленд
12a. Почему Вы приехали сюда? 12b. Откуда Вы переехали?
(река g 33я ул.)
[Отметьте ВСЕ подходящие]
[Выберите ОДИН ответ]
Округи Клакамас, Вашингтон
 Центральный СВ Портленд (33я  82я ул.)
 Семья/друзья
или Кларк (т.е. столичный
 Возможность найти работу
3. Вы ночевали/будете ночевать один/одна 22 февраля?
регион)
 Мне здесь нравится/
 Да
 Нет
Орегон за пределами
хорошая погода
3a. [Если ответ на В3=нет] С кем Вы ночевали/будете
столичного региона
 Доступ к услугам/ресурсам
Вашингтон или Калифорния
ночевать 22 февраля? [Отметьте ВСЕ подходящие ответы:]
 Другое: _________________ Другая часть США
 Супруг (-а)/партнёр
 Ребенок/дети/внук (-и) в возрасте до 18 лет
13. [Для лиц в возрасте от 18 лет:] Подвергались ли Вы
 Другой родственник (например, родитель, брат/сестра,
домашнему насилию (физическому/эмоциональному/
взрослый ребенок (дети), тетя/дядя, бабушка/дедушка)
вербальному) в текущих или прошлых отношениях?
 Неродственное лицо (например, друг, уличная община)

Да
 Нет  Не знаю  Не хочу отвечать
4. Это первый раз в жизни, когда у Вас нет места жительства?
13a. [Если ответ на В13=Да:] Вы в настоящее время
 Нет
 Не знаю
 Да
скрываетесь от домашнего насилия?

5. Как долго у Вас нет места жительства в этот раз?

6.

(месяцев)
(лет)
[Если место жительства отсутствует 12 месяцев или больше,
перейти к В7]
[Если ответ на В5 "меньше 12 месяцев":] Жили ли Вы на
улицах или в приюте для бездомных людей как минимум 4
раза (включая этот раз) за последние 3 года?

Да

Нет

Не знаю

6a. [Если ответ на В6=Да:] За последние 3 года общий срок
Вашего проживания на улицах или в приюте для бездомных
был не менее 12 месяцев?
 Да
 Нет
 Не знаю

 Да

 Нет

 Не знаю

 Не хочу отвечать

14. Страдаете ли Вы от следующих недугов? [Спросите каждого.
Выберите ВСЕ подходящие ответы, Да, один из недугов, ИЛИ не хочу
отвечать]

 Психич. заболевание
 Наркомания
 Алкоголизм
 Инвалидность
 Нарушение подвижности

 Хроническое заболевание
 Нарушение развития
 Черепно-мозговая травма
 Посттравматический стресс
 ВИЧ/СПИД

Да, один из недугов  Нет, неприменимо

 Не хочу отвечать

На стороне B (обороте) этой анкеты укажите информацию о ДРУГИХ ЧЛЕНАХ СЕМЬИ ЭТОГО респондента.

 Перепись жителей округа Малтнома со статусом БОМЖ  22-28 февраля 2017 г.  СТОРОНА B: ДРУГИЕ ЧЛЕНЫ СЕМЬИ
ЕСЛИ ОТВЕТЫ НА ВОПРОСЫ A-D НЕ МОГУТ
БЫТЬ ПОЛУЧЕНЫ, ЗАПОЛНИТЕ ФОРМУ
ОТКАЗА
A. Первая буква имени [указать обязательно]

ЧЛЕН СЕМЬИ #1


ЧЛЕН СЕМЬИ #2


B. Первые три буквы фамилии [указать обязательно]

C. Возраст? [указать обязательно]
D. Пол? [указать обязательно]
1. Ваша степень родства по отношению
к лицу, заполнившему сторону A этой
анкеты?
[Выберите только ОДИН ответ]

M
Ж

Не считает себя

Транс(ЖM)

M, Ж или транссексуалом

Tранс (MЖ)

 Супруг (-а)/партнёр
 Ребёнок/Дети/Внук (-чка) в возрасте до 18 лет
 Другой родственник (например, родитель, брат/
сестра, взрослый ребёнок (дети), тетя/дядя,
бабушка/дедушка
 Неродственное лицо (например, друг, уличная
община)

M
Ж

Не считает себя

Транс (ЖM)

M, Ж или транссексуалом

Транс (MЖ)

 Супруг (-а)/партнёр
 Ребёнок/Дети/Внук (-чка) в возрасте до 18 лет
 Другой родственник (например, родитель, брат/
сестра, взрослый ребёнок (дети), тетя/дядя,
бабушка/дедушка
 Неродственное лицо (например, друг, уличная
община)

2. Это первый раз в жизни, когда у Вас
 Да  Нет  Не знаю
 Да  Нет  Не знаю
нет места жительства?
_______ ( месяцев) ______
_
(лет)
_
(лет)
3. Как долго у Вас нет места жительства в _______ ( месяцев) ______
этот раз?
[Если 12 месяцев или более, перейти к В5] [Если 12 месяцев или более, перейти к В5]
4. [Если ответ на В3 <12 месяцев:]
 Да
 Да
Жили ли Вы на улицах или в приюте для
 Нет [Перейти к В5]
 Нет [Перейти к В5]
бездомных людей как минимум 4 раза
 Не знаю [Перейти к B5]

Не
знаю
[Перейти
к
B5]
(включая этот раз) за последние 3 года?
4a. [Если ответ на В4=Да:] За последние 3
 Да
года общий срок Вашего проживания на улицах или  Нет
в приюте для бездомных был не менее 12 месяцев?  Не знаю

5. Ваша раса/национальность?
[Выберите ВСЕ подходящие ответы
(как минимум, один)]:

 Да
 Нет
 Не знаю

Латиноамериканская
Белая/европеоидная
Черная/афроамериканская
Американские индейцы/
уроженцы Аляски

Уроженцы Гавайских

островов/уроженцы
Тихоокеанских островов

Азиаты
Славяне
Африканская
Ближневосточная
Не знаю/не хочу отвечать
Дополнительная
информация
______________________

Латиноамериканская
Белая/европеоидная
Черная/афроамериканская
Американские индейцы/
уроженцы Аляски

Уроженцы Гавайских

островов/уроженцы
Тихоокеанских островов

Азиаты
Славяне
Африканская
Ближневосточная
Не знаю/не хочу отвечать
Дополнительная
информация
______________________

 Да  Нет
 Да  Нет
НЕ ЗАПОЛНЯТЬ ДАЛЬШЕ ДЛЯ ДЕТЕЙ В ВОЗРАСТЕ 0-17 ЛЕТ
 Да  Нет
 Да  Нет
7. Вы работаете?
8. Служили ли Вы в ВС США (армии, флоте, ВВС,
 Да
 Да
морская пехота, береговая охрана) или призывались

Нет
 Нет
ли Вы на действительную военную службу
 Не знаю
национальной гвардией или в качестве резервиста?  Не знаю
 > 2 лет
 < 3 месяцев  > 2 лет
9. Как долго Вы находитесь в округе
 < 3 месяцев
 3-12 месяцев Неприменимо, я - коренной 3-12 месяцев Неприменимо, я - коренной
Малтнома?
6. Вы учитесь?

житель [Перейти к В11]

 1-2 года

10. Было ли у Вас место жительства, когда вы  Да
приехали в округ Малтнома?
 Нет
 Семья/друзья
10a. Почему Вы приехали сюда?
 Доступ к услугам/
 Возможность найти
[Отметьте ВСЕ подходящие
ресурсам
работу

Другое:
ответы]
 Мне здесь нравится/
10b. Откуда Вы приехали?
[Выбрать только ОДИН ответ]
11. Подвергались ли Вы домашнему насилию

(физическому/эмоционаьному/вербальному)
в текущих или прошлых отношениях?

1-2 года

житель [Перейти к В11]

 Да
 Нет

 Семья/друзья
 Возможность найти

 Доступ к услугам/

ресурсам
работу

Другое:
 Мне здесь нравится/
_________________
_________________
хорошая погода
хорошая погода
Орегон за пределами
Округи Клакамас,
Округи Клакамас, Орегон за пределами
Вашингтон или
Кларк (т.е.
столичный регион)

 Да

столичного региона

Вашингтон или

столичного региона

Кларк (т.е.
Вашингтон или Калифорния
Вашингтон или Калифорния
столичный регион) Другая часть США
СШ
Другая часть США
 Нет [Перейти к Q12]
 Нет [Перейти к Q12]
 Да
 Не знаю [Перейти к Q12]
 Не знаю [Перейти к Q12]
 Не хочу отвечать [Перейти к Q12]
 Не хочу отвечать [Перейти к Q12]

Не знаю
Не знаю
 Да
11a. [Если Ответ на В11=Да:] Вы в настоящее  Да
время скрываетесь от домашнего насилия?
Не хочу отвечать
Не хочу отвечать
 Нет
 Нет
12. Испытываете ли Вы один из следующих
Психич. заболевание  Хроническое заболевание Психич. заболевание  Хроническое заболевание
недугов?
Наркомания
 Нарушение развития
 Нарушение развития
Наркомания
[Спросите каждого]
Алкоголизм
 Черепно-мозговая травма Алкоголизм
 Черепно-мозговая травма
Инвалидность
 Посттравматический
[Отметить ВСЕ подходящие ответы
 Посттравматический
Инвалидность
Нарушение
стресс
стресс
Нарушение
ИЛИ выберите одно из заболеваний
подвижности
 ВИЧ/СПИД
подвижности
ВИЧ/СПИД
ИЛИ Нет, неприменимо ИЛИ не хочу
отвечать]
 Один из недугов  Нет, неприменимо  Не хочу отвечать  Один из недугов  Нет, неприменимо  Не хочу отвечать

 表格填写人: ___________________ 组织/场所: ____________________ 日期: __________

穆鲁玛郡街头流浪者统计表 2017年2月22-28日  A面：户主
用本表调查2017年2月22日当晚无家可归和无住所的流浪者。

[如为否则停止调查]

2月22日（周三）之前或当晚曾经或准备露宿街头吗*？  是  否

*一般不供人长期睡觉的公共或私人场地（例如汽车、公园、街上、废弃建筑物、露营地）
本周参加过街头统计调查吗？
是 否
[如为是则停止调查]

这个框里的问题都是必答题。无法作答的，请填写拒绝回答表。
名字的第一个字母
姓氏的前三个字母
年龄

1. 2月22日（周三）之前或当晚睡在哪里？
[单选题]
 树林/空地
 街上/人行道
 门道/其他私人物业
 车里（小汽车、卡车、货车、
 废弃的房子/建筑物
露营车）[跳到问题2]
 桥梁/天桥/铁路
 船上[跳到问题2]
 公园
 其他无遮蔽场所：
________________________

7. 您觉得自己的种族/族裔是？
选择所有适合的选项（多选题） :

8.
1a. [如果问题 1的答案不是船上或车里 :] 2月22日
9.
当晚睡在/准备睡在那个地方的帐篷里吗？
10.
 不知道
是
否
2. 2月22日当晚睡在/准备睡在城市的哪个角落？
[单选题]
 波特兰东南部
 市区/老城区/珍珠区
河流→82号）
 波特兰西南部（城外）
 波特兰东外环
 波特兰西北部（城外）
82号→162号）
11.
 波特兰北部
 格雷萨姆
 波特兰东北部内环（河流→33号）  东郡（格雷萨姆外面）
 波特兰东北部中环（33号→82号）  不知道
3. 2月22日当晚是否独自睡觉/准备独自睡觉？
12.
 是 否
3a. [如果问题3的答案为否] 2月22日当晚谁与您一起
睡觉/谁准备与您一起睡觉？
[选择所有适合的选项:]
 配偶/伴侣
 未满18岁的子女/孙子女
 其他亲属（例如父母、兄弟、成人子女、叔叔/婶婶、
祖父母）
 非亲属（例如街坊朋友）

4. 您是否平生第一次流浪？
是
否
 不知道
5. 您这次流浪了多久？
________ (月)
________ (年)
[持续12个月或以上的，跳到问题7]
6. [如果问题5的答案为不足12个月:] 过去三年里，
至少有四次（包括这次）露宿街头或庇护所里面吗？

是
否
 不知道
6a. [如果问题6的答案为是:] 过去三年里，露宿街头或
庇护所的时间加起来是否至少有12个月？
是

否

 不知道

您认为自己的性别是？

变性（女变
男性
男）
女性
变性（男变
女）
不清楚是男性、女性
还是变性

 西班牙裔/拉丁裔
 亚裔
 白人/高加索人
 斯拉夫人
 黑人/非洲裔美国人
 非洲裔
 美洲印第安人/阿拉斯加原住民  中东裔
 夏威夷土著/太平洋岛民
 不知道/不回答
其他详情: _______________________________________

您是否在上学？  是
否
您是否有工作？ 是
否
[针对年满 18岁的受访者 :] 您是否在美国的军队
(陆军、海军、空军、海军陆战队、海岸警卫队）
服过役？或者应召在国民警卫队服现役或担任预备
役军人？

 不知道
是
否
您在穆鲁玛郡多久了？
 不足3个月  3-12个月  1-2年  2年以上
 不适用，我是本地人 [跳到问题13]
您是否到穆鲁玛郡的时候就无家可归？
是
否
12a. 您为什么来这里？

[选择所有适合的选项]

 家人/朋友
 工作机会
 喜欢这里/气候好
 享受服务/资源
 其他: _________________

12b. 您从哪里来？

[单选题]
 Clack、Wash 或 Clark 县
（例如Metro地区）

 俄勒冈州Metro之外的地方
 华盛顿州或加州?
 美国的其他地方
13. [针对年满18岁的受访者:] 您是否遭受过现任或前任
伴侣（在身体/情感/言语方面的）家庭暴力？
是
否
 不知道
 拒绝回答
13a. [问题13的答案为是的:] 您是否脱离了家庭暴力
的苦海？
是
否
 不知道
 拒绝回答
14. 您是否有下列任何一种问题？ [逐一问答]
[选择所有适合的选项，回答是有部分疾病或拒绝回答]
 精神疾病
 嗑药问题
 酗酒问题
 身体残障
 行动不便

 慢性健康问题
 发育障碍
 外伤性脑损伤
 创伤后遗症
 HIV / AIDS

 是，部分疾病  无，不适用  拒绝回答

在本表的B面（背面）记录该受访者其他家庭成员的信息。

 穆鲁玛郡街头流浪者统计表  2017年2月22-28日  B面：其他家庭成员
无法回答A-D项的，
其他家庭成员（二号）
其他家庭成员（一号）
请填写拒绝回答表。


A. 名字的第一个字母 [必填项]

B. 姓氏的前三个字母 [必填项]
C. 您的年龄？ [必填项]
D. 您认为自己的性别是？
[必填项]
1. 您与填写本表A面的人士是什么关系？
[单选题]

2. 您是否平生第一次流浪？

男 变性（女变男） 不清除是
女 变性（男变女） 男/女/变性
 配偶/伴侣
 未满18岁的子女/孙子女
 其他亲属（例如父母、兄弟、成人子
女、叔叔/婶婶、祖父母）
 非亲属（例如街坊朋友）
 是  否  不知道

3. 您这次流浪了多久？

男 变性（女变男） 不清除是
女 变性（男变女） 男/女/变性
 配偶/伴侣
 未满18岁的子女/孙子女
 其他亲属（例如父母、兄弟、成人子
女、叔叔/婶婶、祖父母）
 非亲属（例如街坊朋友）
 是  否  不知道

________ (月) _______ (年)
[12个月或以上的，跳到问题5]
 是
4. [问题3的答案为不足12个月的:]
过去三年里，至少有四次（包括这次）  否 [跳到问题5]
 不知道 [跳到问题5]
露宿街头或庇护所里面吗？
4a. [问题4的答案为是的:] 过去三年里，  是
露宿街头或庇护所的时间加起来是否至  否
 不知道
少有12个月？
 西班牙裔/拉丁裔
5. 您觉得自己的种族/族裔是？
 亚裔
[选择所有适合的选项（多选题）]
 白人/高加索人
 斯拉夫人
 黑人/非洲裔美国人
 非洲裔
 美洲印第安人/阿拉斯加土著  中东裔
 夏威夷土著/太平洋岛民
 不知道/不回答
 其他详情: _______________________
6. 您是否在上学？
是 否

________ (月) _______ (年)
[12个月或以上的，跳到问题5]
 是
 否 [跳到问题5]
 不知道 [跳到问题5]
 是
 否
 不知道
 亚裔
 西班牙裔/拉丁裔
 白人/高加索人
 斯拉夫人
 黑人/非洲裔美国人
 非洲裔
 美洲印第安人/阿拉斯加土著  中东裔
 夏威夷土著/太平洋岛民
 不知道/不回答
 其他详情: _______________________
是 否

是 否
7. 您是否有工作？
8. 您是否在美国的军队（陆军、海军、空军、  是
海军陆战队、海岸警卫队）服过役？或者应  否
召在国民警卫队服现役或担任预备役军人？  不知道
9. 您在穆鲁玛郡多久了？
 2年以上
 不足3个月
 不适用，我是本地人
 3-12个月
[跳到问题11]
 1-2年
10. 您在穆鲁玛郡多久了？
 是
 否
 享受服务/资源
 家人/朋友
10a. 您为什么来这里？
[选择所有适合的选项]
 其他： _________
 工作机会
 喜欢这里/气候好
________________

是 否
 是
 否
 不知道
 2 年以上
 不足3个月
 不适用，我是本地人
 3-12个月
 1-2年
[跳到问题11]
 是
 否
 享受服务/资源
 家人/朋友
 其他： _________
 工作机会
 喜欢这里/气候好
________________

0-17岁的孩子到此为止

10b. 您从哪里来？
[单选题]

 Clack、Wash 或 Clark 县（例如Metro）地区）
 俄勒冈州Metro
 华盛顿州或加州
 美国的其他地方
11. 您遭是否受过现任或前任伴侣
是
 否 [跳到问题12]
(在身体/情感/言语方面的）家庭暴力？
 不知道 [跳到问题12]
 不回答 [跳到问题12]
是
 不知道
11a. [问题11的答案为是的:] 您是否脱
否
离了家庭暴力的苦海？
 不回答
12. 您是否有下列任何一种问题？
 慢性健康问题
 精神疾病
 发育障碍
[逐一问答] [选择所有适合的选
 嗑药问题
项，或选择部分疾病，或无、不适
 外伤性脑损伤
 酗酒问题
用或拒绝回答]
 创伤后遗症
 身体残障
 HIV/AIDS
 行动不便
 部分疾病  无，不适用  拒绝回答

 Clack、Wash 或 Clark 县（例如Metro）地区）
 华盛顿州或加州
 俄勒冈州Metro
 美国的其他地方
是
 否 [跳到问题12]
 不知道 [跳到问题12]
 不回答 [跳到问题12]
是
 不知道
否
 不回答
 精神疾病
 慢性健康问题
 嗑药问题
 发育障碍
 酗酒问题
 外伤性脑损伤
 身体残障
 创伤后遗症
 行动不便
 HIV/AIDS
 部分疾病  无，不适用  拒绝回答

 Người Hoàn Thành Đơn Này: ________________ Tổ Chức/Địa Điểm: ____________________ Ngày: __________
Kiểm Đếm Số Người Vô Gia Cư Ngủ Ngoài Đường ở Hạt Multomah  Từ Ngày 22 đến Ngày 28 Tháng Hai Năm 2017  MẶT A: CHỦ HỘ GIA ĐÌNH
Dùng đơn này để khảo sát những người vô gia cư và không có nơi trú ngụ vào đêm 22 tháng Hai năm 2017
Quý vị đã hoặc sẽ ngủ ngoài đường* vào đêm Thứ Tư ngày 22 tháng Hai?  Có  Không [Nếu Không, Xin Dừng Khảo Sát]

*Nơi công cộng hoặc riêng tư mà thông thường mọi người không dùng để ngủ (ví dụ: trong xe, công viên, trên đường phố, tòa nhà bỏ hoang, sân cắm trại.)
Quý vị đã có làm khảo sát Kiểm Đếm Số Người Ngủ Ngoài Đường tuần này chưa?  Có  Không [Nếu Có, Xin Dừng Khảo Sát]

CÁC CÂU HỎI TRONG KHUNG NÀY LÀ BẮT BUỘC. NẾU KHÔNG THỂ TRẢ LỜI NHỮNG CÂU HỎI NÀY, XIN HÃY ĐIỀN ĐƠN TỪ CHỐI
Chữ cái đầu của TÊN
3 chữ cái đầu của HỌ
Quý vị xác định giới tính mình là gì?
Tuổi tác

Chuyển giới (Nữ -> Nam)
Nam
Nữ
Chuyển giới (Nam -> Nữ)
Không xác định giới tính là Nam, Nữ hay Chuyển giới

1. Quý vị đã/sẽ ngủ ở đâu vào tối Thứ Tư, ngày 22 tháng Hai?
[Chỉ Chọn MỘT]
 Đường/lề đường
 Gỗ/không có che chắn
 Trước cửa nhà/khu vực  Trong xe (xe hơi, xe tải, xe van, xe
tư nhân khác

cắm trại) [Xin tới Câu 2]

 Nhà/công trình bỏ hoang  Thuyền [Xin tới Câu 2]
 Cầu/cầu vượt/đường sắt  Các địa điểm khác không phải nơi
trú ngụ:______________________
 Công viên
1a. [Nếu Câu 1 Không phải Thuyền Hoặc Xe:] Quý vị đã hoặc
sẽ ngủ trong lều tại địa điểm đó vào ngày 22 tháng Hai?
 Có
 Không  Không Biết
2. Tại khu vực nào của thành phố mà quý vị đã/sẽ ngủ vào
ngày 22 tháng Hai? [Chỉ Chọn MỘT]
 Trung Tâm/Phố Cổ/Khu Vực Pearl  SE Portland (bờ sông  82nd)
 SW Ptld (bên ngoài khu trung tâm)  Bên ngoài E Ptld (82nd 162nd)
 NW Ptld (bên ngoài khu trung tâm)  Gresham
 East County (bên ngoài
 North Portland
Gresham)
 Bên trong NE Ptld (bờ sông  33rd)  Không Biết
 Trung tâm NE Ptld (33rd  82nd)
3. Có phải quý vị đã/sẽ ngủ một mình vào ngày 22 tháng Hai?
 Có  Không
3a. [Nếu Câu 3 = Không] Quý vị đã/sẽ ngủ với ai vào ngày 22 tháng Hai?
[Đánh Dấu TẤT CẢ Các Mục Phù Hợp:]
 Người hôn phối/Người tình
 Con cái/Cháu chắt dưới 18 tuổi
 Người thân khác (ví dụ: cha mẹ, anh chị em, con cái đã lớn,
cô dì chú bác, ông bà)
 Không có liên hệ thân thích (ví dụ: bạn bè, gia đình đường phố)

4. Đây có phải là lần đầu tiên trong đời quý vị sống vô gia
cư không?
 Không  Không biết
 Có
5. Lần này quý vị đã sống vô gia cư bao lâu rồi?
________ (tháng) _______
_ (năm)
[Nếu thời gian là 12 tháng hoặc lâu hơn, xin tới Câu 7]
6. [Nếu câu trả lới cho câu 5 là ít hơn 12 tháng:] Có phải quý vị
đã từng sống ngoài đường hoặc trong một nơi trú ngụ it
nhất 4 lần khác nhau (bao gồm cả lần này) trong vòng 3 năm
trở lại đây?
 Có
 Không
 Không biết
6a. [Nếu Câu 6 = Có:] Trong vòng 3 năm trở lại đây, có
phải tổng thời gian quý vị sống ngoài đường hoặc trong
một nơi trú ngụ ít nhất 12 tháng?
 Không
 Có
 Không biết

7. Quý vị xác định chủng tộc/sắc tộc của mình thế nào?
Đánh Dấu TẤT CẢ Các Mục Phù Hợp (và chọn ít nhất một mục):

Người Tây Ban Nha/La Tinh
 Người Châu Á
Người Da Trắng
 Người Slavic
Người Da Đen/Người Mỹ gốc Phi
 Người Châu Phi
Người Mỹ Bản Địa/Bản Xứ Alaska
 Người Trung Đông
Người Hawai Bản Địa/Đảo Thái Bình Dương  Không Biết/Từ chối trả lời
Chi Tiết Thêm Vào: ___________________________________

8. Quý vị có đang đi học không?  Có  Không
9. Quý vị có việc làm không?
 Có
 Không
10. [Câu hỏi cho người 18 tuổi hoặc lớn hơn:] Có phải quý
vị từng phục vụ trong lực lượng quân đội Mỹ (Quân
Đội, Hải Quân, Không Quân, Thủy Quân Lục Chiến,
Bảo Vệ Bờ Biển) hay được gọi làm nhiệm vụ tại lực
lượng Vệ Binh Quốc Gia hoặc là một Dự Bị?
 Có
 Không  Không Biết
11. Quý vị đã ở Hạt Multomah bao lâu rồi?
 < 3 tháng  3-12 tháng  1-2 năm  >2 năm
 Không Áp Dụng, Tôi xuất thân ở đây [Xin tới Câu 13]
12. Khi quý vị tới Hạt Multnomah, có phải quý vị đã là người vô gia cư?
 Có
 Không
12a. Điều gì khiến quý vị tới đây?
[Đánh dấu TẤT CẢ Các Mục Phù Hợp]
 Gia đình/bạn bè
 Các cơ hội công việc
 Thích sống ở đây/thời tiết tốt
 Tiếp cận các dịch vụ/tài nguyên
 Khác: __________________

12b. Quý vị từ đâu tới đây?
[Chỉ Chọn MỘT]
 Hạt Clack, Wash, hoặc Clark
(ví dụ: vùng Metro)
 Oregon bên ngoài vùng Metro
 Washington hoặc California
 Nơi khác của nước Mỹ

13. [Câu hỏi cho người 18 tuổi hoặc lớn hơn:] Quý vị đã từng
bị bạo hành gia đình (bạo hành thể xác/tinh thần/qua lời
nói) trong các mối quan hệ hiện tại hoặc trong quá khứ?
 Có
 Không  Không Biết  Từ chối trả lời
13a. [Nếu Câu 13 = Có:] Có phải quý vị đang chạy
trốn khỏi bạo hành gia đình?
 Có
 Không  Không Biết  Từ chối trả lời
14. Quý vị có đang trải qua những điều sau? [Hỏi Từng Mục]

[Đánh dấu TẤT CẢ các mục Phù Hợp HOẶC Có Vài Tình Trạng HOẶC Từ Chối Trả Lời]

 Bệnh Tâm Thần
 Vấn đề nghiện thuốc
 Vấn đề nghiện rượu
 Khuyết tật thể chất
 Khả năng đi lại hạn chế

 Có Vài Tình Trạng
 Từ Chối Trả Lời

 Bệnh mãn tính
 Khuyết tật trong khi phát triển
 Chấn thương sọ não
 Căng thẳng sau chấn thương
 Bệnh HIV /AIDS

 Không có, Không Áp Dụng

Sử dụng Mặt B (mặt sau) của đơn này để thu thập thông tin về CÁC THÀNH VIÊN KHÁC TRONG HỘ GIA ĐÌNH của người được khảo sát NÀY.

 Kiểm Đếm Số Người Vô Gia Cư Ngủ Ngoài Đường ở Hạt Multomah  Từ Ngày 22 đến Ngày 28 Tháng Hai Năm 2017 
MẶT B: CÁC THÀNH VIÊN KHÁC TRONG HỘ GIA ĐÌNH
NẾU CÂU A ĐẾN CÂU D KHÔNG THỂ TRẢ LỜI, THÀNH VIÊN KHÁC TRONG HỘ GIA ĐÌNH: SỐ 1 THÀNH VIÊN KHÁC TRONG HỘ GIA ĐÌNH: SỐ 2
XIN HOÀN TẤT ĐƠN TỪ CHỐI


A. Chữ cái đầu tiên của Tên [bắt buộc]
B. 3 chữ cái đầu tiên của Họ [bắt buộc]
C. Tuổi của quý vị? [bắt buộc]
D. Quý vị xác định giới tính mình là gì?
[bắt buộc]
1. Mối quan hệ của quý vị với người
hoàn tất Mặt A của đơn này là gì?
[Chỉ Chọn MỘT]

2. Đây có phải là lần đầu tiên trong đời
quý vị sống vô gia cư không?
3. Lần này quý vị đã sống vô gia cư bao
lâu rồi?

Nam
Nữ

Chuyển giới (Nữ -> Nam) Không Xác Định Giới Tính
Chuyển giới (Nam -> Nữ) là Nam/Nữ/Chuyển giới

Người hôn phối/Người tình
Con/Con cái/Cháu dưới 18 tuổi
Người thân khác (ví dụ: cha mẹ, anh chị em,
con cái đã lớn, cô dì chú bác, ông bà)
Không có liên hệ thân thích (ví dụ: bạn bè,
gia đình đường phố)
Có
 Không
Không biết

________(tháng) ________(năm)
[Nếu 12 tháng hoặc lâu hơn, xin tới Câu 5]
4. [Nếu Câu 3 < 12 tháng:] Có phải quý vị đã từng Có
sống ngoài đường hoặc trong một nơi trú ngụ it nhất 4 Không [Xin tới Câu 5]
lần khác nhau (bao gồm cả lần này) trong vòng 3 năm Không Biết [Xin tới Câu 5]
trở lại đây?

4a. [Nếu Câu 4 = Có:] Trong vòng 3 năm trở lại đây, Có
có phải tổng thời gian quý vị sống ngoài đường
Không
hoặc trong một nơi trú ngụ ít nhất 12 tháng?
Không Biết
Người Tây Ban Nha/La Tinh
5. Quý vị xác định chủng tộc/sắc tộc của
Người Da Trắng
mình thế nào?
Người Da Đen/Người Mỹ gốc Phi
[Đánh dấu TẤT CẢ các mục Phù Hợp
Người Mỹ Bản Địa/Bản Xứ Alaska
và ít nhất là một mục]

Nam
Nữ

Chuyển giới (Nữ -> Nam)
Chuyển giới (Nam -> Nữ)

Không Xác Định Giới Tính
là Nam/Nữ/Chuyển giới

Người hôn phối/Người tình
Con/Con cái/Cháu dưới 18 tuổi
Người thân khác (ví dụ: cha mẹ, anh chị em,
con cái đã lớn, cô dì chú bác, ông bà)
Không có liên hệ thân thích (ví dụ: bạn bè,
gia đình đường phố)
 Không
Không biết
Có
________(tháng) ________(năm)
[Nếu 12 tháng hoặc lâu hơn, xin tới Câu 5]
Có
Không [Xin tới Câu 5]
Không Biết [Xin tới Câu 5]
Có
Không
Không Biết

Người Châu Á
Người Slavic
Người Châu Phi
Người Trung Đông
Không Biết/Từ Chối Trả Lời

Người Hawai Bản Địa/Đảo Thái
Bình Dương
Chi Tiết Thêm Vào: _______________________

Người Châu Á
Người Tây Ban Nha/La Tinh
Người Slavic
Người Da Trắng
Người Da Đen/Người Mỹ gốc Phi Người Châu Phi
Người Mỹ Bản Địa/Bản Xứ Alaska Người Trung Đông
Người Hawai Bản Địa/Đảo Thái Không Biết/Từ Chối Trả Lời
Bình Dương
Chi Tiết Thêm Vào: _______________________

 Có  Không
 Có  Không
DỪNG TẠI ĐÂY ĐỐI VỚI TRẺ EM 0-17 TUỔI
 Có  Không
 Có  Không
7. Quý vị có việc làm không?
 Có
8. Có phải quý vị từng phục vụ trong lực lượng quân đội Mỹ
 Có
(Quân Đội, Hải Quân, Không Quân, Thủy Quân Lục Chiến,  Không
 Không
Bảo Vệ Bờ Biển) hay được gọi làm nhiệm vụ tại lực lượng Vệ  Không Biết
 Không Biết
6. Quý vị có đang đi học không?

Binh Quốc Gia hoặc là một Dự Bị?

9. Quý vị đã ở Hạt Multomah bao lâu rồi?

 <3 tháng
 3-12 tháng
 1-2 năm

10. Khi quý vị tới Hạt Multnomah, có phải
quý vị đã là người vô gia cư?
10a. Điều gì khiến quý vị tới đây?
[Đánh dấu TẤT CẢ các mục Phù Hợp]







10b. Quý vị từ đâu đến?
[Chỉ Chọn MỘT]

Có
Không
 Tiếp cận dịch vụ/
Gia đình/bạn bè
tài nguyên
Cơ hội việc làm
Thích sống ở đây/  Khác: __________
_______________
thời tiết tốt

 >2 năm
 Không Áp Dụng, Tôi xuất
thân ở đây [Xin tới Câu 11]

 Có
 Không
 Gia đình/bạn bè
 Cơ hội việc làm
 Thích sống ở đây/
thời tiết tốt

 Tiếp cận dịch vụ/
tài nguyên
 Khác: __________
_______________

 Hạt Clack, Wash, hoặc Clark (ví dụ: vùng Metro)  Hạt Clack, Wash, hoặc Clark (ví dụ: vùng Metro)
 Wash hoặc Calif
 Oregon, bên
 Oregon, bên ngoài  Wash hoặc Calif
 Nơi khác của nước Mỹ
 Nơi khác của nước Mỹ
ngoài vùng Metro
vùng Metro

11. Quý vị đã từng bị bạo hành gia đình (bạo hành  Có
thể xác/tinh thần/qua lời nói) trong các
mối quan hệ hiện tại hoặc trong quá khứ?
11a. [Nếu Câu 11 = Có:] Có phải quý vị
đang chạy trốn khỏi bạo hành gia đình?
12. Quý vị có đang trải bất kỳ những điều
nào sau đây?
[Hỏi từng cá nhân]
[Đánh dấu Tất Cả những mục phù hợp
HOẶC Chọn Tình Trạng Mất Khả Năng
Lao Động HOẶC Không Có, Không Áp
Dụng, HOẶC Từ Chối Trả Lời]

 >2 năm
 <3 tháng
 Không Áp Dụng, Tôi xuất
 3-12 tháng
thân ở đây [Xin tới Câu 11]  1-2 năm

 Có
 Không






 Có
 Không [Xin tới Câu 12]
 Không Biết [Xin tới Câu 12]
 Từ chối trả lời [Xin tới Câu 12]
 Không Biết
 Từ chối trả lời

Bệnh tâm thần
 Bệnh mãn tính
Vấn đề nghiện thuốc  Khuyết tật trong khi phát triển
Vấn đề nghiện rượu  Chấn thương sọ não
Khuyết tật thể chất
 Căng thẳng sau chấn thương
Khả năng đi lại hạn chế  Bị bệnh HIV/AIDS

 Tình Trạng Mất Khả Năng Lao Động
 Không Có, Không Áp Dụng
 Từ Chối Trả Lời

 Có
 Không

 Không [Xin tới Câu 12]
 Không Biết [Xin tới Câu 12]
 Từ chối trả lời [Xin tới Câu 12]
 Không Biết
 Từ chối trả lời

 Bệnh mãn tính
 Bệnh tâm thần
 Vấn đề nghiện thuốc  Khuyết tật trong khi phát triển
 Vấn đề nghiện rượu  Chấn thương sọ não
 Khuyết tật thể chất
 Căng thẳng sau chấn thương
 Khả năng đi lại hạn chế  Bị bệnh HIV/AIDS
 Tình Trạng Mất Khả Năng Lao Động
 Không Có, Không Áp Dụng
 Từ Chối Trả Lời

 One Night Shelter Count Form – Multnomah County
Please Complete ONE Sheet Per Household
!! The Homeless Street Count Form should be completed for any Turn-Aways !!
1) First Name (at least first letter)
2) Last Name (at least first 3 letters)
Relationship to Head of Household

3) Date of Birth
4) Ethnicity
5) Race [Check ALL That Apply]

6) Gender

7) U.S. Military Veteran? (18+ Years and US
Armed Service or Active Duty National
Guard/Reservist)
8) Does the Client have a Disabling Condition?
8a) If #8=Yes
[Check ALL That Apply]

9) Residence Prior to Project Entry
[Select Only ONE]

Length of Stay in prior residence
Was that stay less than 90 days?
Was that stay less than 7 days?
Approximate date Homelessness Started
# of times Street, ES or SH in past 3 years
# of Months Street, ES or SH in past 3 years
13) Domestic violence victim/survivor?

Complete a column for each household member
Individual #1
Individual #2
Individual #3

 Head of Household

__/__/__ OR Age: _______
 Hispanic/Latino
 Amer Indian/Alaska Nat
 Asian
 Black/African American
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island
 White
 Don’t Know/Refused
 Male
 Trans (MF)
 Female  Trans (FM)
 Does not identify as Male,
Female, or Trans
 Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
 Yes

 No  Refused  Yes

 Mental Health Problem
 Alcohol Abuse
 Drug Abuse
 HIV/AIDS
 Street
 TH
 ES
 Owned
 Foster
 Rental
 Hospital  Doubled-up
 Jail
 Refused
 Treatment
___days ___mos ___yrs
 Yes  No  Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
__ / __ /__

 Yes

 Child
 Partner or Spouse
 Other
 Non-related
__/__/__ OR Age: _______
 Hispanic/Latino
 Amer Indian/Alaska Nat
 Asian
 Black/African American
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island
 White
 Don’t Know/Refused
 Male
 Trans (MF)
 Female  Trans (FM)
 Does not identify as Male,
Female, or Trans
 Refused
 Yes  No  Refused

 No  Refused  Yes

 Mental Health Problem
 Alcohol Abuse
 Drug Abuse
 HIV/AIDS
 Street
 TH
 ES
 Owned
 Foster
 Rental
 Hospital  Doubled-up
 Jail
 Refused
 Treatment
___days ___mos ___yrs
 Yes  No  Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
__ / __ /__

 No  Refused  Yes

 Child
 Partner or Spouse
 Other
 Non-related
__/__/__ OR Age: _______
 Hispanic/Latino
 Amer Indian/Alaska Nat
 Asian
 Black/African American
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island
 White
 Don’t Know/Refused
 Male
 Trans (MF)
 Female  Trans (FM)
 Does not identify as Male,
Female, or Trans
 Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
 No  Refused

 Mental Health Problem
 Alcohol Abuse
 Drug Abuse
 HIV/AIDS
 Street
 TH
 ES
 Owned
 Foster
 Rental
 Hospital  Doubled-up
 Jail
 Refused
 Treatment
___days ___mos ___yrs
 Yes  No  Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
__ / __ /__

 No  Refused  Yes

 No  Refused

FOR PERSON FILLING OUT FORM:
Please review the attached Housing Inventory Chart information, update as necessary and return with this form. (See
the Housing Inventory Chart instructions in the attached cover letter.)
CAA or Lead Agency: ___________________________________________________________________________
Project Name: __________________________________________________________________________________
Project Type:  Emergency Shelter (ES)
County: Multnomah

 Transitional Housing (TH)

 Safe Haven (SH)

City: ______________________________________

Person Completing Form: ___________________________ Phone: _____________ Email: __________________
One Night Homeless Count

February 22, 2017

 Additional Household Members
1) First Name (at least first letter)
2) Last Name (at least first 3 letters)
Relationship to Head of Household

3) Date of Birth
4) Ethnicity
5) Race [Check ALL That Apply]

6) Gender

7) U.S. Military Veteran? (18+ Years and US
Armed Service or Active Duty National
Guard/Reservist)
8) Does the Client have a Disabling Condition?
8a) If #8=Yes
[Check ALL That Apply]

9) Residence Prior to Project Entry
[Select Only ONE]

Length of Stay in prior residence
Was that stay less than 90 days?
Was that stay less than 7 days?
Approximate date Homelessness Started
# of times Street, ES or SH in past 3 years
# of Months Street, ES or SH in past 3 years
13) Domestic violence victim/survivor

One Night Homeless Count

Individual #4

Individual #5

Individual #6

 Child
 Partner or Spouse
 Other
 Non-related
__/__/__ OR Age: _______
 Hispanic/Latino
 Amer Indian/Alaska Nat
 Asian
 Black/African American
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island
 White
 Don’t Know/Refused
 Male
 Trans (MF)
 Female  Trans (FM)
 Does not identify as Male,
Female, or Trans
 Refused
 Yes  No  Refused

 Child
 Partner or Spouse
 Other
 Non-related
__/__/__ OR Age: _______
 Hispanic/Latino
 Amer Indian/Alaska Nat
 Asian
 Black/African American
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island
 White
 Don’t Know/Refused
 Male
 Trans (MF)
 Female  Trans (FM)
 Does not identify as Male,
Female, or Trans
 Refused
 Yes  No  Refused

 Child
 Partner or Spouse
 Other
 Non-related
__/__/__ OR Age: _______
 Hispanic/Latino
 Amer Indian/Alaska Nat
 Asian
 Black/African American
 Nat Hawaiian/Pac Island
 White
 Don’t Know/Refused
 Male
 Trans (MF)
 Female  Trans (FM)
 Does not identify as Male,
Female, or Trans
 Refused
 Yes  No  Refused

 Yes

 No  Refused  Yes

 Mental Health Problem
 Alcohol Abuse
 Drug Abuse
 HIV/AIDS
 Street
 TH
 ES
 Owned
 Foster
 Rental
 Hospital  Doubled-up
 Jail
 Refused
 Treatment
___days ___mos ___yrs
 Yes  No  Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
__ / __ /__

 Yes

 No  Refused  Yes

 Mental Health Problem
 Alcohol Abuse
 Drug Abuse
 HIV/AIDS
 Street
 TH
 ES
 Owned
 Foster
 Rental
 Hospital  Doubled-up
 Jail
 Refused
 Treatment
___days ___mos ___yrs
 Yes  No  Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
__ / __ /__

 No  Refused  Yes

 No  Refused

 Mental Health Problem
 Alcohol Abuse
 Drug Abuse
 HIV/AIDS
 Street
 TH
 ES
 Owned
 Foster
 Rental
 Hospital  Doubled-up
 Jail
 Refused
 Treatment
___days ___mos ___yrs
 Yes  No  Refused
 Yes  No  Refused
__ / __ /__

 No  Refused  Yes

 No  Refused

February 22, 2017

 Multnomah County Homeless Street Count  February 22-28, 2017
REFUSAL FORM
COMPLETE ONE FORM PER PERSON
INSTRUCTIONS: This form should be used to document individuals who refuse to complete a survey or cannot
provide the identifying information in the shaded box. Only fill out this form if you know or are fairly certain
that the person slept outside on Wednesday night February 22nd. If someone is unapproachable, either return
to the location at another time or inform the next shift of data collectors to try again, if possible.
Person Completing Form: _______________________

Organization/Site: ___________________________

Date: ___________________
1. Was this person homeless on February 22nd?

 Yes
 Most Likely
 No [If No, Do NOT Complete Refusal Form]

2. Reason for Refusing to Complete Street Count Survey: [Select ALL That Apply]
 Doesn’t want to give their information (i.e., privacy or trust issues)
 Did it before and nothing changed for the homeless community
 Individual cannot/will not provide the identifying information in the shaded box
 Language issue (after attempts to offer other language forms or to call translation number)
 Other [please describe]: _______________________________________________________________________
3. Type of location: [Select Only ONE]
 Street or sidewalk
 Doorway or other private property
 Abandoned house or building
 Bridge, overpass, or railroad
 Park

 Woods or open space
 Vehicle (car, truck, van, camper)
 Boat
 Other unsheltered location [please describe]:
__________________________________________

3a. [If Q3 Is NOT Vehicle or Boat:] Sleeping in a tent:
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
4. Area of Portland/Multnomah County: [Select Only ONE]
 Downtown, Old Town, Pearl
 SW Portland (outside downtown)
 NW Portland (outside downtown)
 North Portland
 Inner NE Portland (river  33rd)







Central NE Portland (33rd  82nd)
SE Portland (river  82nd)
Outer East Portland (82nd  162nd)
Gresham
East County (outside of Gresham)

4a. Did the individual sleep in the location selected in Q3 and the area selected in Q4 on February 22nd?
 Yes
 No
 Don’t Know
5. Gender: [Select Only ONE]
 Male
 Female
 Unable to Determine
7. Race/Ethnicity: [Check ALL That Apply]
 Hispanic/Latino
 White/Caucasian
 Black/African American
 American Indian/Alaska Native
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

6. Age: [Select Only ONE]
 0-17 years
 18-24 years
 25-55 years
 56 years or older
 Unable to Determine






Asian
Slavic
African
Middle Eastern
Unable to Determine

Additional Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________