A Place to Be Alternatives to Unsanctioned Homeless Encampments A Report for the City of Oakland from the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley Prepared by: Justin Patrick Jones Khalia Parish Peter Radu Taylor Smiley Jenny van der Heyde May 1, 2015 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. 4 NAVIGATING THIS REPORT ....................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 12 PROJECT MOTIVATION ........................................................................... 13 REPORT OUTLINE .................................................................................... 14 Research ................................................................................................ 14 I. Needs Assessment .................................................................................................................................................... 14 II. Quantifications of Oakland’s Homeless Encampment Population and Services ......................... 14 III. Quantification of Current Encampment Abatement Efforts ............................................................... 15 IV. Best Practices of Three Policy Alternatives ............................................................................................... 15 VI. Recommendations and Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 16 Evaluative Criteria ................................................................................. 17 I. Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 II. Social Equity .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 III. Implementation Feasibility ............................................................................................................................... 17 Analysis ................................................................................................. 18 OAKLAND’S HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS ................................................ 19 Definition of “Encampment” .................................................................... 19 Quantification of Oakland’s Homeless Population .................................... 19 Distribution and Characterization of Encampments ................................. 20 Specific Geography ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Camp Sizes ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Cultural Diversity and Tensions ............................................................................................................................ 21 Camp Membership ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 Outreach Encounters .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Alameda County Shelter and Housing Resources ..................................... 22 Permanent Supportive Housing Inventory in Alameda County .............................................................. 22 Shelter Bed Inventory in Alameda County ........................................................................................................ 24 Shortage of Affordable Housing ............................................................... 26 Encampment Abatement Expenditures and Activities .............................. 27 Public Works Activity and Expenditures ........................................................................................................... 27 Oakland Police Department Activity .................................................................................................................... 28 CalTrans Expenditures .............................................................................................................................................. 31 Encampment Resident Needs Assessment ................................................ 31 Encampment Resident Perspective ..................................................................................................................... 31 Outreach and Direct Services Perspective ........................................................................................................ 33 STATUS QUO: Oakland’s Standard Operating Procedure ............................ 36 Stakeholder Perspectives on the Problem ................................................ 36 Encampment Cleanup Procedure ............................................................. 38 Obstacles to Improving Outcomes ............................................................ 40 ALTERNATIVE #1: City-Sanctioned Encampment ...................................... 44 Case Study #1: Ontario, CA: Temporary Homeless Services Area .............. 45 Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Eligibility and Service Model ................................................................................................................................... 45 1 Design Features ............................................................................................................................................................ 46 Funding and Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 47 Implementation Feasibility Considerations ..................................................................................................... 47 Case Study #2: Portland, OR: Dignity Village .......................................... 48 Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Who are the residents of Dignity Village? .......................................................................................................... 48 Eligibility and Service Model ................................................................................................................................... 50 Design Features ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 Funding and Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 50 Case Study #3: King County, WA: Tent Cities #3, #4, & Nickelsville ........ 52 Overview: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Eligibility and Service Model ................................................................................................................................... 53 Design Features ............................................................................................................................................................ 54 Funding and Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 54 Implementation Feasibility and Considerations ............................................................................................ 55 Design Feature Considerations for Sanctioned Encampments ................... 57 Governance Structure: ............................................................................................................................................... 57 Connection to Social Services ................................................................................................................................. 58 Allowance of Substance Use .................................................................................................................................... 58 Degree of Permanence ............................................................................................................................................... 59 Location ............................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Safety & Policing ........................................................................................................................................................... 61 Sanitation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62 Storage .............................................................................................................................................................................