People Experiencing Homelessness Are More Visible Than Ever. That Doesn’t Mean They’re Being Counted.

Volunteers prep for the Point in Time Count last Saturday. (Photo by Jana Birchum)

When I talked to the experts who help people exit homelessness in advance of the Point in Time (PIT) Count, an annual census required by the federal government, one question on everyone's mind was how City Council's decision to loosen restrictions on public camping could impact totals.

We won't know the answer until the Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO) releases numbers from the 2020 Count, which occurred this past Saturday, Jan. 25, from 3-11am. And even then, other changes to the process this year will have to be factored into any perceived under- or overcounts. The maps that volunteers walked and drove this year are different from previous years, the times volunteers hit the streets differed, and for the first time, ECHO used a digital tool to document the count.

But, logically, the new public camping rules seemed like they would produce a higher count, because people experiencing homelessness are more likely to stay put in visible places around the city, where they are safer and will have an easier time connecting with services and work. City leaders, advocates, and service providers all pointed to this idea as key in their support for modifying the camping rules; and the increased visibility of people experiencing homelessness – especially in the tents that have popped up around town – ignited debate over the issue during the previous summer.

Consider this, though: A tent is a shelter that provides privacy. When zipped up, it gives people living without housing an opportunity to enjoy something many of us take for granted – the ability to shut our door to the outside world.

As I walked around the East Riverside area with Team Section 55, this is the experience we encountered repeatedly: We'd find evidence of someone living on the street – or on a median along Riverside Drive near Pleasant Valley Road, or in a wooded area near Riverside and Grove Boulevard – but could not get a response from the people presumably living inside the tents. Requirements set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prohibit counting these sites; a person can only be counted if a volunteer actually sees or hears them after making contact.

In some cases, our group was approaching people as early as 4am – people with their tents zipped to the world. How likely would you be to answer your door to a stranger between 4 and 7 in the morning?

So, my subgroup in Section 55 ended up recording about five people in a span of four hours. Section 55 covers an area of about six miles, so our team leader wisely split us into smaller teams; overall, about 30 individuals were recorded in the section.

I'm reluctant to draw any broad conclusions based on the small corner of the county I walked (about four miles, according to my step counter). But what I can say is that everything I had heard about the PIT count being a flawed and ineffective way to conduct a census of people without housing was evidenent in my experience. Maybe, like experts have done with strategies for ending homelessness, it's time to reconsider how we go about doing the vital work of finding people experiencing homelessness.