Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

TO:	Community Commission on Homelessness (CCH)
FROM:	Danelle Dresslar, Management Analyst Margene Swarts, Assistant Director, Development Services
CC:	David L. Corliss, City Manager Scott McCullough, Director, Planning and Development Services
Date:	April 7, 2009
RE:	Homeless Camping

Staff compiled information on several communities where City-sanctioned camping has been utilized.  The communities researched included:

1.  Ontario CA (City Sanctioned homeless campground, began mid-2007)

2.  Reno NV  (City Sanctioned homeless campsite, ran from 6/08 – 10/08)

3.  Seattle WA (City approved Tent City operational on private property since 2000)

4.  Portland OR  (City recognized non-profit establishment, Dignity Village)

5.  Santa Barbara CA (City Sanctioned Safe Parking project)

There is not a large selection of City-sanctioned campgrounds to research because it is not a very common occurrence in other cities.  The research shows that sanctioned Tent Cities exist in predominately warmer weather climates, including California, Nevada, and the Pacific Northwest. The City-sanctioned campgrounds that have proven to be the most successful share all or some of the following traits:

1. Self Governed by residents under strict codes. (Seattle, Portland)
2. No Drugs/Alcohol/Weapons allowed.  Violence is a cause for removal from the camp.  (Seattle, Portland)
3. Limited Stays. (6 weeks is average stay)
4. Goal of all are to move residents into permanent housing with onsite case management and services.  Specifically, camping is not part of their established Housing Visions. 
5. Not one community looks at this as a solution to the homelessness problem; all are due to lack of shelter space or shelter facilities.
6. Onsite Outreach and Case management are present.  Some also have services onsite for job and housing inquiries.
7. All have a maximum occupancy limit set in their campground rules.
8. Many couples utilize these sites because they will be split up in shelters; however, there are rules regarding co-habitation in tents.
9. Strict Codes of Conduct. (Seattle, Portland).  All have requirements to serve on committees or boards for the tent community, as well as perform their share of security duties for the sites.
10. Fences are constructed to reduce the presence of drug dealers and crime at the sites. (Seattle, Portland, Ontario, Reno)
11. Registration and permit requirements are in place at all camps researched.
12. No one under the age of 18 is allowed at the camp, including visitors, service providers, or residents.

Some problems/obstacles that the City-sanctioned campgrounds reported via phone conversations and email correspondence:

1.  Influx of residents inhabiting the camps from word of mouth.  (Ontario, CA began with 20 campers and built to effectively handle 140 residents.  This number ballooned to 400+ residents within months, 250-300 residents of which had no ties to Ontario.)

2.  Drug, alcohol, and crime issues.

3.  Very costly to operate from the City’s standpoint.

4.  Population that stays there the longest are not interested in services or shelter.  They do not look at the camp as a stepping stone to housing.  They look at it as their home.  This is consistent in Reno and Ontario.

5.  Lack of mental/behavioral health services have proven to be an obstacle for helping a sector of the population that are not able/willing to utilize most shelter situations.

6.  Neighborhood concerns in some locations.

7.  Large population of chronically homeless.

8.  Staffing concerns (Reno).

Budget Concerns:

Location	Cost to City (yr)	Estimated Cost Breakdown
Ontario, CA	$200,000-$300,000* -Additionally spent $200,000 for fencing, fire pits, and identical tents for location.	$90,000 to Non-Profit administrators $100,000 to Daytime Security provider -Possible funding allocation of $100,000 to Nighttime Security provider if approved by City Council. *Does not include trash collection, staffing costs, water charges, and porta-potty service.
Reno, NV	$36,149 (4 Months) *	$1,289.00 for fencing $3,003.00 for sani-huts (porta-potty service) $7,540.00 for awnings $23,346.04 for security $611.16 for misc. supplies $358.50 for a drinking fountain *Does not include staffing costs, exterior lighting costs, daytime shelter, or cost to provide access to showers for women and laundry to campers.
Seattle, WA	No City/County funds given directly to Tent City.  Tent City does receive support from the City Bus subsidy program.	No funding from City of Seattle or King County.  Funds utilized are from private fundraising efforts of SHARE/WHEEL (non-profits), and the host sites provide majority of resources, both in-kind and cash.  City of Seattle does provide $174,000 per year to SHARE/WHEEL for their shelter operations.

     Code Enforcement at the City of Ontario estimates that the cost to the City for their “Temporary Homeless Service Center” will run anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000 per year.  This includes approximately $90,000 paid to the non-profit that administers the program for the City, and $100,000 for daytime security to keep drug dealers and other criminal activity out of the camp.  The additional funds are to provide nighttime security as well.  The City additionally spent $200,000 to construct a fence around the site, build fire pits, and purchase identical tents for the campers.  Although not included in the estimates above, the City also contracts Porta-Potty service to the area (10 units), and provides water and two cold water showers.  The camp is set up on City owned property near the LA/Ontario Airport. 

     The City of Ontario additionally opted to provide one way bus tickets and train fare for the campers who were evicted from the camp after the Reduction Phase.  This process was utilized for the 250–300 people who were not able to prove they had ties to the City of Ontario, and were therefore not able to obtain a permit to stay at the facility.

     The City of Reno expended $36,000 to keep the “Temporary Emergency Overflow Area” facility open.  The emergency overflow area was located adjacent to the Men’s shelter, which closes every spring for the summer.  The site was officially open from June 9 to October 5.  The above figure does not account for the staff cost, or for the utility costs for exterior safety lighting, the cost to allow women access to showers and laundry or for campers to escape the elements regularly for some part of the day.  Staff estimated that 30 City workers were involved with the temporary site while it was operational.  There were two staff members that were primarily in charge, and they each monitored the site seven days a week during both the days and the evenings.  The staff members averaged 60 hour work weeks supervising the camping community.  The City did not provide anything to campers besides basic services such as bathrooms, showers, and the place to sleep.  Blankets, tents, personal hygiene products, and clothes were largely donated.

     In Seattle, the majority of the funding is handled by the “host” of Tent City.  The “host” is the private property owner who invites Tent City to locate on its grounds.  The non-profit administrators of the Tent City, the Seattle Housing and Resource Efforts (SHARE) program and the Women’s Housing, Equality, and Enhancement League (WHEEL), do private fundraising to secure funding, and the host sites are usually the entities that provide the most resources, both in-kind and cash.  The City of Seattle does provide funding in the amount of $174,000 to the SHARE/WHEEL agencies for operating their 11 shelters in the City.  The Tent Cities do also receive support from the City bus subsidy program.

Feedback from Communities

The Temporary Emergency Overflow Area in Reno has been highly regarded as a successful Tent City venture by the media.  While this did create a temporary solution to the issue at the time, according to staff, this was not the most ideal situation for the City to undertake.  There were neighborhood concerns and it dominated staffing resources while it was open.  A staff member in Reno stated that “If you don’t have strict control over it, it will become a pile of filth, a crime haven, and a place where people can just hang out and not be accountable for their behaviors.” They also indicated that when they started Tent City, they thought the clientele would be those who were suffering from the effects of the economy but they found that in the end it was primarily the chronically homeless who utilized the site.  This specific population is the same population that is still accessing shelter and other resources in the Reno area.  The staff member also indicated that without two dedicated staff members, Tent City would not have been possible because although they tried assigning chores (and enforcing them) to residents that were staying there, there was not much accountability among the campers.  Residents were given a list of rules, and each individual had to register for the site.  Campers had to re-register for the site every Monday, and they had to show proof that they were working towards employment, income, housing or other mechanisms to get off the street.  If they could not show proof they were asked to leave.

     In Ontario, they had to undertake the Reduction Phase of the camp, which was essentially the installation of permit requirements to those utilizing the site.  As mentioned above, Ontario ended up with 250-300 out-of-town campers that had gotten word about the site and traveled there with the intention of staying at the site.  The City of Ontario had to enforce the permit rule, and the campers now have to meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless, as well as prove one of the following three requirements:  1) Educated in Ontario, 2) Family in Ontario, and 3) Former owner/renter of property in Ontario.  The camp now has approximately 80 residents.

     The City of Ontario has worked very closely with city staff in the Legal and Risk Management departments to devise specific language on the permits and the campsite signage that releases the City from any liability issues.  Staff does not have an estimate as to how long the temporary facility will be open, but it has survived the first two rounds of budget cuts in the current fiscal year.  There is no set of rules that prohibit alcohol from the camp, but with the police and code enforcement presence in the camp, if an illegal activity is viewed, appropriate legal action is taken.  They are reviewing the possibility of stricter ordinances in the City regarding the homeless that are not utilizing the campground, and they are also looking at a requirement for the permit process that works harder to encourage participation in housing or services; if they are offered services and do not accept them it may be grounds for non-renewal of their occupancy permit.

     Tent City in Seattle receives a permit from the City of Seattle, however it has to relocate every 90 days, and it cannot reside in the same location more than once in a rolling 12 month period.    The sites can only be on private property, so there is mostly utilization of religious sites and private University sites.  There is a strict list of requirements that need to be met by the host sites per their agreement with the City of Seattle and King County, including a community notification and meeting, maximum occupancy limits, buffer requirements, parking requirements, health regulations, fire safety regulations, and enforcement of the code of conduct.  Most of the residents of this particular Tent City have jobs, either full time or part time, or they are students. The Tent Cities in Seattle are self-managed, meaning that the residents organize themselves for clean-up, security patrol, etc.  Although there are two legal Tent Cities in Seattle, there are still several that operate illegally within the City limits.  The list above of successful traits of Tent Cities is compiled information that has been utilized by Seattle in their project.  This project works primarily from donations from private entities and the host sites.  Information received from King County as well as the City of Seattle shows a favorable experience with the Tent Cities that are located on private property when they also are accompanied by a strong non-profit organization that is accountable for the administration and funding of the project.  King County also reports that there is no statistical evidence of an increase of crime in the neighborhoods where the Tent Cities are located on the private property grounds.

Staff Recommendation

Locally, Staff continues to recommend the City Commission not pursue the avenue of a legalized temporary campground.  The cost estimates require funding sources that are not currently included in the City of Lawrence budget, nor is there anticipated additional funding for the near future.  Additionally, the staffing requirement to operate a temporary homeless camp facility is not something that any City Department is currently able to effectively undertake. The Homeless Outreach Workers have a full workload as it stands currently, so it is unknown how the demands of supervising a campsite would affect the effectiveness of their program.  Further, this is not currently part of the agreement between the City and the Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center with regard to case manager job responsibilities. 

A second issue to camping in this area is weather related.  The original emergency shelter in the City operated by The Salvation Army was only open November through April because it was acknowledged that the winter months were the most problematic for homeless individuals in terms of shelter needs.  As noted previously, the communities that have year round camps are located in temperate climate zones.   Finally, although some of the cities have had success in gathering their homeless population and isolating them in a campsite, all staff contacted agreed this arrangement is not the desired solution to the homeless problem in their community.