Mental Health Association of Portland

Guest Column for The Oregonian, September 18, 2012

By Jenny Westberg, representing the Board of the Mental Health Association of Portland

We applaud the Department of Justice’s acknowledgement of the problem we have been talking about for years, but its recommendations to the Portland Police Bureau will only serve to extend that problem. They continue a long tradition of patchwork remedies and promised change. They repeat the City Hall mantra: blame the unfixable mental health system, blame the now-unfixable victim, add a little training, add a little policy, do anything but face the problem and make real change.

There is a way to end police brutality in Portland. Zero tolerance for killing a civilian. Kill a civilian and turn in your badge – regardless of the scenario, regardless of threat or perceived threat, regardless of your fears or prejudices against fellow Portlanders who happen to have a mental illness.

Zero tolerance is the only way to stop dangerous cops; it’s the only remedy to impunity.

Most Portland cops serve with compassion and valor. But all the training in the world won’t help those who will never learn. Zero harm is an unrealizable goal. But separating officers who kill civilians at least assures us nofuture harm will come from them: nothing short of zero tolerance will protect us from another Chris Humphreys or Kyle Nice.

Zero tolerance sets a high standard, but not an unmanageable one. It will not handcuff police, but force new thinking and greater reliance on non-lethal responses.  There will, unfortunately, be cases where an officer is unfairly penalized. But if we have learned anything from the past, it’s this: we cannot make exceptions. Inevitably they expand to accommodate all situations.

Should there be an exemption when killing is justified? According to our District Attorney, that’s always the case. What if the officer’s safety is at risk? According to police reports, that too is always the case.

Instead, to mitigate unfairness, we suggest in cases where the officer is not criminally prosecuted, they stay in city employ, fast-tracked for a meritorious civilian position, with no loss of pay, benefits or seniority.

We are living under threat of imminent harm. Besides the harm to the person with mental illness, their family and friends, and the city at large, cops have been harmed – some with permanent psychological scars. Cops have plenty of motivation to stop killing persons with mental illness. And they will – eventually.

But we who live with mental illness can no longer wait for “eventually.” We can no longer sit by and watch the body count rise. We don’t need promises, or best efforts, or court actions. We need an immediate cease-fire.

For ten years we’ve watched our friends die, while the state, county and city push out cosmetic non-solutions, and the usual suspects hem and haw about how to fix the problem. We hear fantastical proposals that often rest on the assumption that we have fewer constitutional rights. “Make it easier to lock them up!” “Force them to take medication!” “Build a new warehouse to put them in!” We get interminable what-if sessions that breed apathy and infighting.

We originally chose to direct our advocacy at police for two reasons. One, the mental health system (which has plenty of blood on its hands) didn’t kill our friends; cops did. Two, we believe cops are capable of understanding the problem and fixing it. They don’t shrink from outside scrutiny and work hard to get better.

We still believe they will be diligent in their application of the Department of Justice recommendations. But systemic change comes slowly. The system grinds, and perhaps ten years from now, we will no longer be under siege.

Slow remedies are unacceptable remedies.

We require nothing less than an immediate cease-fire, an end to unnecessary harm to persons with mental illness and other minorities.

We expect police – and future police commissioners – to embrace zero tolerance as an opportunity. We expect officers to recommit to the ideals of “protect and serve,” and remember why it was they became cops in the first place.

From The Oregonian, June 11, 2012

Portland Police Chief Mike Reese stressed multiple times during testimony before an arbitrator that Aaron Campbell posed no immediate threat to police before Officer Ronald Frashour shot him.

Portland Police Chief Mike Reese

“We don’t have a right to shoot him. He never displayed a weapon. He didn’t take any offensive action towards the officer,” Reese said in a sworn statement. “We can’t use force on him.”

For Campbell to have posed an immediate threat, the chief testified, he would have had to take an “offensive action” — “turn toward us, pull something out, take a shooting stance.”

The chief’s testimony Sept. 23, 2011, obtained by The Oregonian, stunned Portland police, union leaders and the union’s use-of-force expert, who say the chief articulated a new standard, one that’s inconsistent with their training. And in the end, the arbitrator discounted the chief’s stance in her March ruling that ordered the city to reinstate Frashour, who was fired in November 2010.

READ – Deposition of Portland Police Bureau Chief Mike Reese
READ – Deposition of W. Ken Katsaris, a ‘police training expert’ and hired witness of the Portland Police Association
READ – Deposition of James McCabe, a criminal justice professor, and hired witness of the City of Portland

It was yet another example of what the Campbell family’s attorney Tom Steenson has called a serious “disconnect” between Portland police command staff and bureau trainers that needs to be addressed for public safety.

“Courts have recognized (as does the Portland Police Bureau, according to evidence at the hearing) that an officer is not required to “await the glint of steel” before acting because it then may be ‘too late to take safety precautions,’” arbitrator Jane Wilkinson wrote.

A Portland police trainer’s testimony directly conflicted with the chief’s. Police are taught that if an officer reasonably believes a person is a significant immediate threat of death or serious physical injury, the officer would not have to wait to see a gun or see what the suspect intends to do with that gun, and would need to take “pre-emptive action.”

Action-reaction principle

Their training drills into officers the action-reaction principle that a suspect can pull a gun and shoot faster than an officer reacts.

On Jan. 29, 2010, Campbell, distraught and suicidal about his brother’s death, emerged from a Northeast Portland apartment with his back toward officers and his hands behind his head. Officer Ryan Lewton, trying to get Campbell to put his hands in the air, fired six beanbag rounds at him. Campbell ran toward a parked car and Frashour shot Campbell once in the back, killing him. Campbell was not armed, but Frashour said he thought Campbell was reaching for a gun.

The arbitrator found that a reasonable officer could have concluded that Campbell was armed and reaching for a gun. Mayor Sam Adams has refused to honor the ruling, and the city is challenging it before a state panel.

The chief testified that Campbell posed no immediate threat because police were called for a welfare check; no crime had occurred; Campbell had threatened no one but himself; and he emerged voluntarily without threatening police or showing a weapon.

During Reese’s cross-examination, union attorney Will Aitchison asked the chief again, would Campbell have had to “pull the gun out,” for him to be an immediate threat?

Reese answered: “They have to have somebody who is displaying something, a weapon, or some offensive action before he’s immediate.”

W. Ken Katsaris, an expert who has testified on behalf of the city in the past but was hired by the union in the Frashour arbitration, called Reese’s standard unusual.

Katsaris, noting that he’s been in law enforcement for 50 years and has spent 45 years training police, testified: “I have never heard of the fact that you have to see a gun or some action such as presenting the firearm first. I have never seen a court decision that ever required that. And I have never seen a policy or a directive or another police chief or sheriff in the country that has indicated that, in my experience.”

Katsaris further blasted the bureau’s physical-force policy, adopted in 2008, which is more restrictive than state or federal law. The directive says officers should accomplish the bureau’s mission “as effectively as possible with as little reliance on force as practical.”

The policy continues, “The Bureau places a high value on resolving confrontations, when practical, with less force than the maximum that may be allowed by law.”

Katsaris, who worked as a St. Petersburg officer and a Leon County Sheriff in Florida, characterized the directive as “feel-good value statements” that don’t give police guidance on when force should be used. “It’s untrainable, it’s untenable, it’s unreasonable, it’s wrong … and it’s left up for an interpretation,” he testified.

The city countered that Deputy City Attorney Dave Woboril in 2009 repeatedly has trained all officers, including Frashour, on the new bureau standard.

“Authority to act first”

A city-hired expert, James McCabe, a retired New York Police Department inspector who teaches criminal justice at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., testified that the action-reaction principle does not give the police the “authority to act first.”

It’s understood that a person “looking to pull a weapon and shoot an officer” is at a tactical advantage, he said.

“However,” McCabe testified, “that does not give license, if you will, to take preemptive force to prevent that. … Wait. … Allow the situation to unfold. Remain behind cover, maintain tactical advantage, and then wait for a peaceful resolution.”

The chief and McCabe argued that Campbell posed a “potential threat,” but police had superior firepower and a police dog, and Campbell was running away from officers. Even if he’d made it behind a parked car or back to his girlfriend’s apartment, police could have called in tactical officers to reassess. If Campbell was an immediate threat, they testified, why didn’t other officers fire their guns.

“I think Frashour overreacted,” McCabe testified. “He used a preemptive force to stop a potential threat. He should have waited.”

The union expert countered that Campbell was said to have talked about “suicide by cop” in the past, surprised police when he emerged from his girlfriend’s apartment, failed to follow orders to put his hands in the air and had texted his girlfriend, “Don’t make me get my gun. I ain’t playing.”

Katsaris said it was important for Campbell to put his hands in the air; officers are taught that he could have been palming or concealing a small-caliber gun with his hands behind his head.

In his termination letter, Reese cited Frashour’s “rigid and inflexible” approach to policing, and referred to an August 2008 incident in which Frashour rammed into the wrong car as police were trying to stop a reckless driver and his 2006 firing of a Taser at Frank Waterhouse, who was videotaping officers chasing a suspect. He also testified that Frashour’s firing was “the only correct decision to make with the loss of life.”

“I don’t think that we could improve his decision-making to where I could feel comfortable putting him back as a Portland police officer,” the chief testified.

Yet Reese broke ranks with the mayor this year, saying he did not support the city’s challenge of the arbitrator’s order. Reese declined comment for this story, citing the ongoing matter before the state Employment Relations Board.

No closure in Aaron Campbell killing

Editorial from The Oregonian, June 8, 2012

It is difficult to believe the unnecessary and fatal shooting of Aaron Campbell would hold yet more repugnant surprises. But the news this week that the Portland Police Bureau’s chief spokesman, Lt. Robert King, may have changed his sworn testimony about the findings of his review into the tragedy pushes our patience to the extreme.

Portland Police Lt. Robert King

King’s role and his words throughout the Campbell proceedings need immediate investigation. Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Police Chief Mike Reese were correct Thursday in requesting that the city’s independent auditor review arbitration and grand jury testimonies not only of King but of all witnesses to the shooting.

The sorry truth in this more than two-year-old case has been slow to arrive and isn’t here yet. The independent arbitrator reviewing the case, Jane R. Wilkinson, last year heard testimony that King and an associate had concluded in five successive draft reports that Officer Ronald Frashour, who fired the fatal shot, acted in a way that was consistent with his training. In a sixth and final report, however, King concluded otherwise.

READ – Partial transcript of Robert King’s testimony about the investigation of the shooting of Aaron Campbell by Ronald Frashour.
READ – Attorneys for Portland consider Frashour’s fatal shooting ‘unjustified and egregious’, The Oregonian
READ – City of Portland brief to the Employment Relations Board re. termination of Ronald Frashour

Now, an arbitration transcript obtained by The Oregonian’s Maxine Bernstein shows King is on record as saying that he had never really asked police trainers to review the incident for him and that he discounted their opinions anyway because he felt they would be disinclined to rule against a fellow cop.

But King, who oversaw the training division’s review, ultimately decided Frashour had acted inappropriately. And Reese and Adams would soon fire Frashour.

Following the arbitrator’s ruling that Frashour acted in a manner consistent with his training, Reese swung around to support Frashour’s reinstatement. But Adams, as police commissioner, insists Frashour remain off the force and has a raft of arguments drafted by city attorneys to support his position.

King, it is worth noting, was sufficiently tortured by his reviewer role that he first considered demotion to avoid it, Bernstein reported. “I thought that I should revert to being a sergeant, because I didn’t want to take a position against an officer that would be harmful to him and his career, that could result in his termination,” he testified.

The unspeakable result for Aaron Campbell was mortal termination.

Transparency in the Campbell proceedings continues to lag. And the battle between City Hall and the union for control of the Police Bureau continues and clouds everything going forward.

On Friday, Adams was near exasperation.

“I’m calling the union out on this,” he told The Oregonian. “The selective release of arbitration transcripts is a federal violation. Our auditor will get the whole picture. And she will find what she finds. I am confident. I stand by our review.”

But we’re calling everyone out on this. The city of Portland needs closure and healing from the egregious killing of Campbell. And it won’t come in the next batch of dueling accounts of who said what to whom and when.

While Wilkinson cited federal law to support her view that a suspect reaching into a pocket could be viewed by a police sniper as armed, we take the view that anyone running away after being pelted by beanbags should first be seen as frightened rather than a serious threat. Not seeing that appears to be a failure of police action or police training or both.

More than two years ago, the Albina Ministerial Alliance correctly and effectively protested Campbell’s shooting as another inappropriate use of force against an unarmed, innocent citizen who posed no real threat. Yet Portland police won’t get it right until Campbell’s case is fully vetted, understood by everyone to mean the same thing and the source of learning both on the force and in the community.

The auditor’s review should be as swift as it is comprehensive, offering a legible path forward.

Portland police union calls for inquiry into testimony of Lt. Robert King, others in Ron Frashour firing

From The Oregonian, June 8, 2012

In sworn testimony before a state arbitrator in September, Portland police Lt. Robert King characterized the training division’s analysis of Officer Ronald Frashour’s fatal shooting of Aaron Campbell as a “coordinated effort among bureau training instructors.”

Portland Police Lt. Robert King

King, who oversaw the division’s review of the shooting and now serves as Portland police spokesman, told the arbitrator that he discussed the shooting “extensively” with seven bureau instructors and showed them a draft of his review. The review, King testified, concluded that Frashour did not act according to his training.

But King broke down in tears under cross-examination after union attorney Will Aitchison entered into evidence five drafts between May 12 and June 20, 2010, in which King found that Frashour had acted appropriately, before he suddenly concluded the opposite in his final June 21, 2010, review.

When grilled by the union attorney, King’s sworn testimony also changed and he acknowledged that he did not ask any trainers to review the full investigative files of the shooting and included none of their opinions in his final review, according to a transcript of King’s testimony obtained by The Oregonian. King testified over three days in late September 2011.

Police union leaders said the unusual turn of events suggests that Frashour’s firing was politically motivated and have asked for an independent investigation of King’s testimony and that of other city witnesses. They point to the fact that the review was done by a new lieutenant who veered from past practice by shutting out the opinions of lead police trainers, and that the findings changed after the May 12, 2010, appointment of Chief Mike Reese.

Further, the arbitration testimony revealed that the Portland Police Bureau has no policy or procedure for how its training reviews of police actions are to be done.

“As these drafts are being written, and as Lieutenant King changes his mind, the police chief is fired, we get a new police chief, appointed by a mayor who has already passed judgment on Officer Frashour,” Aitchison argued before the arbitrator. “The timing of this, I think, is significant.”

Mayor Sam Adams, who serves as police commissioner, called the union’s criticism of King “reprehensible and wrong,” likened it to “character assassination” and said it should be disregarded. “Enough is enough: (the) police union should stop bullying those who disagree with them,” Adams said.

Reese defended King, who would not comment for this story, as “well-qualified” to conduct the training review.

“To be clear, there was never an agreement between Mayor Adams and me prior to my appointment as chief of police regarding the outcome of this matter,” Reese wrote in a prepared statement. “To say otherwise is ludicrous and insulting.”

Trainers contradict King’s testimony

Aitchision asked why King, a new lieutenant at the time who hadn’t been a training instructor for at least 14 years, would ignore the opinions of the bureau’s training experts.

His answer: He doubted the training officers would rule against a fellow cop.

“One of the problems that we have in this situation is the trainers historically have not wanted to — I don’t think that they’ve wanted to write reviews that conclude that officers are out of training, for different reasons,” King testified. “It can have harmful effects in, say, a disciplinary proceeding like this one.”

Six of the seven police instructors from whom King said he had sought input contradicted his testimony, saying that no such conversations took place. Each testified that the first time they saw King’s training review was in September 2010, months after the final version was presented to a Use of Force Review Board, a panel of police and citizens who recommend discipline.

When King finally did share the final review, the lead training instructors objected in a tense meeting.

King, one trainer testified, responded by saying the bureau couldn’t ignore the political backdrop, and told them: “the elephant in the room is the fact that we shot and killed an unarmed black man.”

“I was disappointed because I think at that moment me and every other lead instructor, as I found out later, felt that that analysis was not immune to the political pressures of this case,” the defensive tactics instructor testified.

The testimony echoed concerns raised by Campbell’s family attorney, Tom Steenson, about the need for the chief to address an obvious “disconnect” between command staff and police trainers on bureau training and policy.

Said Portland Police Association President Daryl Turner: “Lt. King had a moral and civil obligation to conduct a full and thorough training review based on the facts; not on political pressure.”

Tearful testimony

Under questioning from the union lawyer, King said he regretted not including the trainers’ opinions, and during his cross-examination sought to explain how his decision-making evolved.

He testified that as a former union president and as an officer who’d had two fatal shootings scrutinized by the bureau, he was reluctant to rule against Frashour. He even considered a demotion to avoid doing so.

“This report, going through this process, was the single-most difficult thing that I’ve done in my police career,” he testified, through tears. “I was a probationary lieutenant at the time, and I contemplated demoting. I thought that I should revert to being a sergeant because I didn’t want to take a position against an officer that would be harmful to him and his career, that could result in his termination. I’d been with officers throughout the course of my career who have made those difficult decisions, and I’ve been with them and didn’t want to see them harmed.”

Up until a point, King testified, he was reluctant to be critical of Frashour’s actions.

“He’s (Frashour) saying all these sorts of things that I would expect to hear him and other officers in a situation like this to say. But it’s incumbent upon us as a Police Bureau to look very carefully and very thoughtfully, without regard to what anyone else will think or feel … at what they did and why they did it, and, if necessary, arrive at conclusions that are not what trainers or other officers or the officer himself or the union would like.”

King denied that he had been swayed by anyone in the chief’s office to find that Frashour had not complied with training. However the union submitted an email that King received from a sergeant in the chief’s office June 23, 2010, with an edited version of King’s training review attached. The subject line said, “Changes I’ve made.”

Although King had no extensive talks with the bureau’s training instructors, now-retired Officer Mike Stradley testified that King called him to discuss the shooting in depth, and at that time, they agreed that Frashour had acted as trained.

Just before Reese sent Frashour his final termination letter, Turner, the union president, and Aitchison, the union attorney, met with the chief. At that point, the union wasn’t aware of the multiple training draft reviews, but did alert the chief that the bureau’s lead instructors had disagreed with King’s findings and found that Frashour had followed his training.

When called to testify before the arbitrator, Reese was asked whether he had spoken to any of the trainers to verify that. The chief said no, but he did ask then-training Capt. Bob Day — who was at the scene of the Campbell shooting — about it. Day dismissed the union concern, telling the chief the trainers were “disgruntled,” Reese testified.

Portland mayor asks city auditor to review arbitration testimony in Frashour case

From The Oregonian, June 7, 2012

Mayor Sam Adams Thursday night said he has asked the city auditor to conduct a review of the testimony offered in the arbitration hearings on the firing of Officer Ron Frashour “in light of the serious accusations” made by the Portland police union president.

Adams request comes a day after Portland Police Association president Daryl Turner called for an independent investigation of Lt. Robert King’s testimony and that of other command staff.

Union leaders argue that Frashour’s firing for his fatal shooting of Aaron Campbell on Jan. 29, 2010 was politically motivated. The union pointed to the fact that the bureau’s training review of the shooting was done by Lt. Robert King, who was relatively new in the training division at the time, and veered from past practice by shutting out the opinions of lead police training instructors.

King’s testimony before an arbitrator in September 2011, according to transcripts obtained by The Oregonian and reported in a story that ran in the paper Thursday, changed during his cross-examination by union attorney Will Aitchison.

During his direct examination, King first characterized the training division’s analysis of the shooting as a “coordinated effort among bureau training instructors.” He said he had discussed the shooting “extensively” with seven bureau instructors and showed them a draft of the review, which found Frashour did not act according to his training.

Yet King broke down in tears under cross examination after the union attorney entered into evidence five drafts of training reviews King wrote between May 12 and June 20, 2010, in which King found that Frashour had acted appropriately, before he suddenly concluded the opposite in his final June 21, 2010 review. King also acknowledged during cross-examination that he did not ask any trainers to review the full investigative files of the shooting and included none of their opinions in his final review, according to the transcripts.

When the union president first called for an independent investigation on Wednesday, the mayor released a statement, saying the union should stop “bullying” those they disagree with and that the “union’s rant should be disregarded.”

By Thursday night, Adams released this statement: “Tonight I asked the city’s independently elected auditor to review the testimony in the Frashour arbitration matter. This request is in light of the very serious accusations the Portland Police Union president made against members of the PPB command staff – as well as the Chief and me – in an attempt to discredit them.”

Turner, reached Thursday night, said he had not seen the mayor’s statement and could not comment.

On his Facebook page, the mayor released his letter to the auditor:

Auditor Griffin-Valade:

Sam Adams
Mayor

Mayor asks auditor to review Campbell shooting testimony

Auditor says she will lead a team to look for material inconsistencies that require further investigation
From the Portland Tribune, June 7, 2012

Mayor Sam Adams has asked City Auditor LaVonne Griffin-Valade to review all of the testimony given by city employees related to the police killing of Aaron Campbell.

The request, which was emailed to Griffin-Valade Thursday evening, includes all the testimony given during the arbitration proceedings that reversed the decision by Adams to fire Ron Frashour, the officer who shot Campbell.

Griffin-Valade tells the Portland Tribune she will lead a four-person team from within her office that will review the testimony given by city employees in all administrative reviews conducted by the Portland Police Bureau into the shooting, as well as all testimony given during the arbitration hearings. Griffin-Valade said the review will look for material inconsistencies that could require further investigation. If the team finds any, they will be investigated by the Independent Police Review division of the auditor’s office.

“I hope to wrap this up as expeditiously as possible because this is a matter of great public concern,” said Griffin-Valade.

Adams is refusing to obey the arbitrator and rehire Frashour. The Portland Police Association that represents rank-and-file bureau employees has filed an unfair labor practice in the matter with the state Employment Relations Board and has also demanded that Frashour be re-hired.

Adams’ request comes after PPA President Daryl Turner wrote an article in the police union newspaper the Rap Sheet saying the decision to fire Frashour was political. Among other things, Turner said then-training Lt. Robert King only said Frashour violated bureau policies in the final version of his report on the matter.

The earlier drafts did not say Frashour violated bureau policies, wrote Turner, who also said King did not ask any training officers to review his drafts or the investigative files.

Frashour shot Campbell in the back with a sniper rifle after a lengthy police standoff at a Northeast Portland motel in January 2010 Although police had been told Campbell was armed, he did not have a gun on him when he was shot.

At the time of his death, Campbell, an African-American, was upset by the recent death of his brother. The killing sparked community protests, including a visit from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who denounced it.

Adams and then-Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman subsequently asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate it and a number of other incidents where the police killed minority members. The review is ongoing.

Adams took the police bureau from Saltzman before firing Frashour.

Here is the email Adams sent to Griffin-Valade:

Auditor Griffin-Valade:

Sam Adams – Mayor

READ – Portland Auditor Agrees To Review Police Shooting Case, OPB.org
READ – Adams asks for independent review of Campbell shooting testimony, KOIN.com
READ – BREAKING: Mayor Asks Auditor to Review Frashour Arbitration Testimony, Portland Mercury

By Denis C. Theriault, Portland Mercury, March 01, 2012

It was about 9pm on a blustery, rain-soaked Tuesday night — and, yet, thanks to a horde of Mardi Gras revelers, Old Town was unusually festive.

Precisely what happened next isn’t exactly clear, but the basic inflections of the story, told by a handful of different people, all agree on one point: A group of homeless men had been turned away from their usual overnight spot at Right 2 Dream Too (R2D2) — the camp-like refuge on NW 4th and Burnside — because the small lot, dotted by a few dozen tents, had already been filled by others with nowhere to go.

Shelter space, like it is every winter night, was also tight, and so the men had to make do. They could have crashed on the sidewalk across from R2D2, waiting amid drunken noise and dampness, until a tent maybe opened up in the wee hours. Instead, they split up. One man went in one direction, and the other two went another: east, across the Willamette River and down into the grim-but-dry industrial underbelly of the Morrison Bridge.

Sometime before 5am on Wednesday, February 22, they were sleeping, covered, when a dark-colored station wagon pulled down SE Belmont. Someone inside leaned out with a gun and opened fire, and then the car vanished as quickly as it arrived. Carter Hickman, 57, took a bullet to the chest, while Albert Dean, 43, was merely grazed — and soon both men were on the way to OHSU.

As crimes go, this was particularly horrifying. And the questions, and the fears, remain fresh: Did the men do something to bring this upon themselves? Or was this one of those rare, random, senseless incidents?

But none of that really matters. Because this was something else: a wakeup call. On the streets, violence and vulnerability are inextricably linked — it’s just that we never really hear much about it. According to Multnomah County’s 2011 one-day homeless street count, nearly half of unsheltered people reported enduring some kind of violence that might otherwise have been avoided behind walls or if they were just somewhere safe.

And that wakeup call comes at a portentous time for Portland. Twin protests over the city’s ban on tent camping — one of them around the clock — remain outside city hall, confronting staffers and politicians with the issue daily. On February 29, after at least one false start, the city is scheduled to present a tepid plan to settle a years-long federal lawsuit over that same camping ban. And March 1 will mark the second month of steep fines for R2D2′s landlord — continuing a code enforcement crackdown on the well-managed safe haven for the homeless that, its backers say, the city really ought to be embracing instead.

Like Chasing Ghosts

Until the night they were shot, Hickman and Dean — better known by some as “Joe” and “Allen,” respectively — had been staying off and on at R2D2 for about five weeks. They had a regular tent near the rest area’s entrance, specially chosen because of their work schedule.

“We’d always put them in the same spot” in C7, said Joe Green, R2D2′s top security man, a couple of days after the shooting. “They always had to get up early to go to work.”

That’s the point of Right 2 Dream Too. It’s built so people who need a night’s sleep, or several, or a place to dry out, can sack out in peace and store their belongings — and then maybe get their bearings enough to find and keep a job and begin the slog back up to self-sufficiency.

Most nights, if its residents can’t make it back early enough, there’s a long line of people hoping to check in by 7 pm. The site holds up to 80 people, and on any given day, two or three dozen of them are new faces.

Joe and Allen and their friend became quiet fixtures at the site, Green and others say. When they weren’t working, they would help keep things tidy and even helped reengineer some tents. They would take meals at Sisters of the Road or at nearby churches.

“There were always the three of them,” Green says. “We would call them our workers.”

Later, an Occupy Portland member wrote that he remembered seeing the men in camp last fall.

But learning more about Joe and Allen was, in some ways, like chasing ghosts. On Friday, February 24, police said, both were still in OHSU, with Hickman expected to live. But an OHSU switchboard operator said there was no record Hickman had ever been at the hospital and said Dean, despite what police said, had been released from the emergency room after the shooting.

Neither man has a serious criminal record in Multnomah County. Court records, in fact, show just a single TriMet exclusion for each, issued on separate days in August 2011. The files list the same cell phone number (it’s not working) and a common address, the Portland Rescue Mission, at 111 W Burnside.

It was only after I made my way to the end of the dozens-strong line of Rescue Mission visitors that someone’s ears perked up. “I know them,” said a stricken-looking younger man, who gave his name as John. “They came from Seattle.”

On his way inside the mission, John offered a heartbreaking detail: He said the men weren’t just friends, but partners who were living “as husband and husband.”

“They’re my best friends,” he finished, before disappearing inside.

“Am I Scared? I Don’t Know”

It’s still unclear, publicly at least, why Joe and Allen were shot. Police, despite offering a $1,000 reward for tips (503-823-4357), are sharing precious little about what detectives have uncovered, including during their interviews with the two men.

Rhetoric at city hall and among social services providers immediately homed in on the possibility that the attack was random — a sociopathic strike against two people who did nothing more than bunk up on a sidewalk under a bridge. That fear was felt on the streets.

Less than 24 hours later, a block east of the shooting, a man named Tim was propped up in a lawn chair keeping watch on three blanket-swaddled companions, one of them a pregnant woman. It was a gritty vigil, with trains lurching past a few blocks away, cars rumbling overhead, and rats skittering for food scraps.

“Am I scared?” he said. “I don’t know. I don’t know if I can get any sleep. Being out here like this, I don’t want someone to roll up and go pow-pow-pow-pow.”

Since then, reactions have grown more measured. But the emphasis on vulnerability remains.

“In terms of this specific incident, we don’t have a good idea yet of what was happening there. But we do know that people sleeping on the streets take a variety of different risks,” says Marc Jolin of JOIN, an agency that works to link homeless Portlanders with services and housing. “Violence, theft, assault. That is not uncommon. We get reports from folks of the violence they experience at the hands of partners on the street, and verbal and physical assaults… from strangers.”

The 2011 street count found more than 1,700 people sleeping outside, and a few thousand more in emergency shelters. The Portland Police Bureau does not directly track how many reports each year involve someone who’s considered homeless. Nor does the bureau track cases in which violence seems to be motivated solely because a victim is homeless. Multnomah County, alongside Street Roots, is currently trying to put a number on how many homeless Portlanders die on the streets — of natural causes and otherwise.

The National Coalition for the Homeless, however, has tracked a modest increase in hate-crime-like attacks against Oregon’s homeless in recent years. Overall, from 1999 to 2009, it counted 37 attacks, 10 of them fatal.

But some attacks never lead to a report. Not that they don’t hurt. The same night Joe and Allen were turned away from R2D2 — Fat Tuesday — drunks walking by couldn’t resist pounding on the site’s walls or shouting insults, says one of the men keeping watch that night, Dale Ardway.

Inside the Machine

The plight of Right 2 Dream Too — founded in October 2011 by the same organizers behind Dignity Village out by the airport — has added new electricity to the fight against Portland’s camping ban.

And because it sits on private land, hosted by a landlord who’s partially trying to jab a finger in the city’s eye, R2D2 has had time to show off its success. Cops in the area appreciate the eyes on the street. Neighbors, looking past the fact that the site sits under the Chinatown Gate, appreciate the quiet respect R2D2′s residents have for the area.

The place runs like a machine, with security patrols around downtown, governing meetings, ample storehouses of tools, blankets, and food, and strict rules against intoxication and violence. It’s given hope and offered a model for how to cheaply, if still imperfectly, help people in need at a time when government coffers are starving just as much. R2D2 takes couples and pets and undocumented immigrants, and asks few questions — something the shelters in town don’t always do.

And yet the city has declared the place an unpermitted recreational campground — and is bombarding its landlord with massive fines that could drive it out of existence. Getting a permit, and adding facilities like a sewer line to get legal, are too expensive for volunteers who rely on donations to pay for steady bills like laundry, electricity, and porta-potty service.

“We provide walls. We provide security, and they want to charge us money for something they should be doing,” says Ibrahim Mubarak, an R2D2 spokesman and founder.

Mubarak says close to 600 people passed through the site from February 1-15, and that security has to kindly refuse, on some nights, up to 20 people. Nearly a dozen inhabitants have found more permanent housing, he says, and dozens more have used the respite to find work.

They’re raising money, dreaming of a bigger lot downtown, close to social services—and pleading with city hall.

“If they close us down, where are these people going to go?” asks Mubarak. “What sidewalk can they sleep on?”

A Chill From City Hall

Reaction from Portland City Hall has so far been frigid. Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who runs the city bureau in charge of code enforcement, has steadfastly refused to waive any fines. In fact, his office says, they’re considering whether to ask a city hearings officer for permission to dramatically increase the $641 monthly fine in coming months.

At one point there was hope among organizers that Commissioner Amanda Fritz might broker a compromise — she showed up at a march in support of the site — but that talk has since fizzled.

Portland’s housing commissioner, Nick Fish, also has been quiet about the site. In the aftermath of the shooting, he issued a statement lashing out at the attack, but it was criticized by some advocates for not being more vocally supportive of R2D2.

“The city is making progress in its effort to end homelessness,” he wrote. “The opening of Bud Clark Commons is but one notable example. This shameful criminal act reminds us that everyone in our community deserves a safe and decent place to call home.”

The Commons, which wouldn’t be here without Fish, has been a godsend — for some. It has a day center that’s helped thousands since June 2011, but its shelter has room for only 90 men at a time, and its 130 apartments for the chronically homeless are already full (and they also allow substance abuse). Then there’s the cost: $47 million, making it hardly replicable.

If Fish is sympathetic to R2D2′s model, he’s keeping his cards very close. After protesters filled his office earlier this month, he agreed to sit down with Saltzman and talk about R2D2 — nothing more.

In his favor, last December Fish did push the council (over the clamor of the Portland Business Alliance) into backing a car-camping pilot program that could, one day, be stretched to include a site like R2D2. Under his plan, churches and nonprofits would be able to host as many as four cars, with a written agreement from Saltzman’s office directing code enforcers to turn a blind eye.

A dozen or so churches have expressed interest, and the Portland Housing Bureau is expected to release specific guidelines as soon as this week.

But when asked about R2D2 the day after Joe and Allen’s shooting — after the Mercury first reported the men had stayed there — Fish walked very carefully.

Instead, he said the shooting of Joe and Allen was a chance to rally against looming city budget cuts that might threaten millions in cash for things like short-term rent assistance, more social services, and more brick-and-mortar housing.

“I want to know what the options are at this site first,” he says. “You know there’s not support on this council for the wholesale relaxation of the camping ordinance, even though as practical matter we don’t always enforce it.”

The fluid nature of the city’s camping ban — a term of art some of its lawyers disagree with — is glaringly obvious down under the Morrison and Hawthorne Bridges, where some people prop up tarps and other structures that offer more cover than mere bedrolls.

It’s up to officers, right now, to decide when to enforce city rules against tents and sidewalk sleeping. One officer’s wishes on one night may not be the same as another cop’s on another night. Just like violence, that murkiness is another fact of life for Portlanders on the streets.

And whatever settlement emerges from court may not make that any clearer.

A previous attempt at an agreement would have allowed small tent clusters. The latest version, last time the city discussed it on the record, was expected to include only changes in training and enforcement, but not any exemptions.

“There’s no ban in town. It’s happening. It’s tolerated,” says David Woboril, a deputy city attorney who handles police issues and isn’t working on the settlement. “But the city has to manage it.”

Woboril and Fish both said the city worries that large camps won’t always be as well run as R2D2 — and will cost the city resources to keep the peace.

“Large camps have a victim problem,” Woboril says. “That’s always the question: Can you do it on a large scale?”

The folks at R2D2 say they, at least, have earned the right to keep trying. Mubarak says activists from California and cities across Oregon have come around to take notes. Cities don’t have to spend big, he says, or surrender the rule of law to let homeless residents help themselves.

Joe Green, R2D2′s main security volunteer, was thinking about all the other homeless Portlanders who could’ve wound up like Joe and Allen.

“Without us,” he said, “there’d be a whole lot more lives at stake.”

The Mercury’s Sarah Mirk contributed to this report.
Photos by Daniel Cronin

‘Like’ this Posting on Facebook

By David Stabler, The Oregonian, Friday, February 24, 2012

Benjamin Brink / The Oregonian
Because it was full, the Right 2 Dream Too tent area in Old Town turned away the two men who were later shot under the Morrison Bridge. The organization turns away an average of 20 people a night.

Hours before they bedded down Tuesday night under the Morrison Bridge, Carter “Joe” Hickman and Albert “Allen” Dean, sought shelter at an Old Town homeless tent area, said Ibrahim Mubarak, who runs the shelter. They were turned away for lack of room — an increasingly common event for Portland-area shelters.

At 5:12 a.m. Wednesday, Portland police officers responded to reports of a shooting under the bridge’s east side. Hickman, 57, and Dean, 43, were shot while they slept. Both are expected to survive. The assailant remains unknown, but police have a description of the vehicle.

The two men had shown up Tuesday night with a third friend, Mubarak said. “All three were turned away because we were full,” he said. Each night, the shelter, Right 2 Dream Too, turns away an average of 20 people, he said.

Mubarak knows Hickman, who remains in fair condition at OHSU Hospital. Hickman frequently slept at the shelter, which occupies a vacant lot by Old Town’s Chinese Gates. Dean was treated for a grazing wound and released.

The circumstances of Wednesday’s shooting underscore the area’s severe shortage of homeless shelters. Demand has never been higher, advocates say.

Hickman and Dean are two of the roughly 2,700 homeless people who sleep outside, in vehicles, abandoned buildings or in Multnomah County’s emergency shelters. In Washington County, 1,356 people were homeless or in transitional housing on a one-night count in 2011. Clackamas County homeless numbered 2,747 last year, with only 48 beds in emergency shelters.

Homelessness increased 8 percent in Multnomah County in 2011, according to a survey by Portland Housing Bureau and Multnomah County. In January, 361 men and 173 women were waiting for a room at Transition Projects Inc., Portland’s largest homeless agency for single adults.

Portland Homeless Family Solutions, which shelters families, used to overfill three or four times a year. Today, the agency fills 75 percent of the time, said Brandi Tuck, Executive Director. “For years, we have not had less than capacity,” she said. Twenty families are waiting for shelter. The average wait is one month.

Portland isn’t alone. A woman waited six months to get into My Sister’s House, a woman’s shelter in Gresham, said director Becky Coleman. Another shelter, My Father’s House, is also full.

“A lot of homeless just camp out on the Springwater Corridor or downtown in alleyways, underneath awnings,” Coleman said.

Washington County’s three homeless shelters are full, too. In January, 64 families were waiting for emergency shelter, said Annette M. Evans, Homeless Program Coordinator for Washington County’s Department of Housing Services.

Demand no longer spikes only in winter, advocates said.

“When I first came here 17 years ago, we would see a substantial difference between summer and winter,” said Doreen Binder, Transition Projects’ Executive Director. “We don’t see that anymore.”

When winter warming shelters close in spring, demand at other emergency shelters rises, said CityTeam’s Roger Burke.

With shelters chronically full, it’s hard to track changes in demand. But another yardstick, meals served to the homeless, shows increased demand. Zarephath Kitchen in Gresham served a record 142,000 meals last year. Portland Rescue Mission on West Burnside normally serves 250 to 350 meals a day. Last Tuesday, it dished up 420.

Age is another change in homelessness. Today’s homeless men and women are younger than in previous years. More mothers and children are homeless, as well, advocates said.

“We used to see a lot of two-parent families with kids who had been around for a while,” Tuck said. “Now, we’re seeing younger parents with toddlers.”

At 5 p.m. Thursday, a line of men stretched down a Portland block, each hoping to secure a mat to sleep on the floor at CityTeam International, a homeless shelter on Grand Avenue.

When the doors opened at 6 p.m., the line surged forward. Within 10 minutes, all but six of the 51 spots were taken.

“We can’t keep up,” said Rev. Chuck Currie, who has worked with homeless issues for 25 years. “Portland is the national model for how to address homelessness, but that only shows you how bad off the rest of the country is.”

Deborah Kafoury, a Multnomah County commissioner who works on housing issues, points to programs such as Rapid Rehousing for Homeless Families as one solution. The program seeks to get families into permanent housing quickly, often by working with landlords.

“When families lose their housing, we’ve found jumping through a bunch of hoops is not helpful to anyone and costs more money,” she said.

Also see:

Portland Mercury: Drive-By Shooting Injures Two Homeless Men Sleeping Under Morrison Bridge
Portland Mercury: Homeless Men Shot Under Morrison Bridge Had Been Turned Away from Packed Old Town Tent Refuge
KATU TV: Two homeless men shot in ‘drive-by’ under Morrison Bridge
KPTV TV: Homeless men shot while sleeping under Morrison Bridge
Rev. Chuck Currie: Statement On Ash Wednesday Shootings Of Homeless Portlanders
The Oregonian: Two Homeless Men Shot While Sleeping Under Morrison Bridge
The Oregonian: Police Release Suspect Information, Victim Names in Homeless Shooting
Right 2 Survive Pdx: Right 2 Dream Too Response to Shootings of Two Unhoused Men

‘Like’ this Posting on Facebook

Portland Housing Bureau, ‘News from PHB’, February 14, 2012

Medford Hotel, 506 NW 5th Ave. (from PortlandMaps.com)

The Portland Housing Bureau is investing over $9 million in nonprofit developers to build and preserve affordable rental homes.

Last fall, PHB announced the availability of funding through a competitive process and invited developers to submit proposals for either new construction or repair of existing apartments serving low-income families and individuals.

The available funding is from three sources: Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) from the Interstate Urban Renewal Area, and federal funds from the HOME and Community Development Block Grant programs.

PHB received a total of 17 proposals requesting almost $27 million.

Through a transparent process involving input from jurisdictional partners, subject matter experts, and community members, PHB selected three nonprofit development teams for funding: Central City Concern, ROSE CDC, and LifeWorks NW.

Collectively, they will preserve 60 affordable apartments in the Old Town/Chinatown area, repair 31 apartments for families in Southeast Portland, and build 31 new affordable apartments in Northeast Portland.

The investments announced by PHB underscore the bureau’s commitment to provide more rental housing for our most vulnerable – the number one investment priority in PHB’s 2011-13 Strategic Plan. Other criteria included: equity and social justice goals; Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business emphasis; ability to leverage other funding sources; focus on furthering fair housing goals; and green building components.

Priority was given to applicants focused on the needs of people and families with incomes below 30% of Median Family Income (MFI), which is $15,150/year for one person or $21,600 for a family of four.

Notice of Funding Availability Awards Debrief: March 7

PHB invites the community for a debrief meeting on the Notice of Funding Availability awards. The debrief is scheduled for 1 to 3pm on Wednesday, March 7 at the PHB office, 421 SW 6th Ave., Suite 500, in downtown Portland. Click here for the draft agenda.

The Awards:

Central City Concern: Medford Hotel Apartments, NW 5th and Glisan

Central City Concern will complete major renovation of the Medford Hotel Apartments in Old Town/Chinatown. The Medford currently offers 60 affordable apartments that, in partnership with Multnomah County, provide extremely low-barrier housing for people transitioning from the corrections system who are at risk of becoming homeless.

Many of the residents are people of color, and earn 30% or less of the area’s Median Family Income. In addition to safe, affordable homes, The Medford provides rent assistance, help with job searches, and other services to support formerly incarcerated people transitioning back into our community.

ROSE CDC: Greenview Terrace, SE 148th and Stark

ROSE CDC will acquire and rehabilitate Greenview Terrace, a 31-unit building in outer southeast Portland that includes a mix of one- and two-bedroom apartments.

To serve veterans experiencing homelessness, ROSE will work with the Veterans Administration, JOIN and Impact Northwest to provide services to Greenview Terrace residents. In particular, the Veterans Administration is providing Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing – VASH – rent assistance vouchers to help make the homes affordable to veterans. Two-bedroom homes will be available to hard-working single mothers with children who earn less than 50% of the Median Family Income, which is $25,200/year for one person.

LifeWorks NW: New Construction, NE Garfield and Beech

LifeWorks Northwest will develop a unique building combining LifeWorks’ drug and alcohol treatment program with affordable apartments serving women in recovery and their children.

LifeWorks Northwest’s “Project Network” provides culturally specific recovery services to women and children who are involved in both the child welfare and criminal justice systems. The new facility will include on-site childcare, a playground, individual and family therapy rooms, a library, and community space.

‘Like’ this Posting on Facebook

Michael Kaplan, Executive Director of Cascade AIDS Project

It was announced [September 27, 2011] the Portland Housing Bureau received $1.365 million in new funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund a variety of housing services, including short-term rent assistance, employment services, and permanent housing for people living with HIV and experiencing homelessness. Per a press release, this new funding will provide homes for up to 60 more people living with HIV/AIDS per year and connect them to employment opportunities.

More than 600 people living with HIV/AIDS are experiencing homelessness, or on the brink of becoming homeless, in the Portland metropolitan area. While the economic recession has severely impacted the local community in recent years, the effects of unemployment are more pronounced among people living with HIV/AIDS. Seventy percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have incomes below the federal poverty level. Lack of employment and benefits income presents a major barrier to securing housing.

While a total of 46 projects were considered for funds from HUD, Portland is one of only eight communities throughout the country receiving the money. In particular, the grant money will assist Cascade AIDS Project’s housing and employment programs greatly.

Specifically, the new, local funding will support Springboard to Stability, Self-Sufficiency and Health (S4H), a collaborative initiative combining the work of Cascade AIDS Project in providing rent assistance, case management and employment services, with the employment and training services offered at WorkSource Portland Metro funded by Worksystems, Inc.

“Here in Portland, we are fortunate to work collaboratively with community and agency partners, increasing housing and services for people who need it most,” says Housing Commissioner Nick Fish. “It’s a big win for our community when we bring new dollars to help our most vulnerable neighbors, and also leverage existing partnerships and resources.” Fish acknowledged the outstanding work of the team at the Portland Housing Bureau who worked with partners to secure this grant, and thanked HUD for their continued support of Portland’s work.

The new grant will strengthen Cascade AIDS Project’s (CAP) housing and employment programs and help fulfill CAP’s mission of caring for and empowering people affected and infected by HIV/AIDS. With the new funds, CAP’s housing program – already the largest provider of housing for people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon and southwest Washington – will develop housing plans and find homes for up to 60 more people a year.

“We are thrilled for this opportunity to expand our partnership with the City of Portland and Work Systems,” says Michael Kaplan, executive director, Cascade AIDS Project. “This funding will not only substantially reduce the waitlist of individuals living with HIV in need of stable housing, but with the funding for the integrated employment program, it offers many the opportunity for self-sufficiency.”

The new grant also ensures three additional years of operation for Working Choices, a program offering a full menu of workshops, one-on-one assistance, and networking groups for HIV-positive job seekers.

“Worksystems is delighted to be part of this innovative partnership that aligns and unites housing, employment and social service agencies to serve people living with HIV/AIDS,” says Andrew McGough, Executive Director, Worksystems Inc. “Funds from this grant will support a liaison to provide ongoing technical assistance to help Cascade AIDS Project staff connect their program participants with training and employment services available at WorkSource Portland Metro.”

“Portland’s ability to leverage funding dollars is made possible by the strength of local collaborations,” says Commissioner Fish. The City partners with Home Forward [Housing Authority of Portland], Multnomah County Departments of Health and Human Services, the Oregon Health Authority, Coalition of Community Health Clinics, Outside In and Central City Concern, among others.”

From the Portland Mercury, September 23, 2011

Traci Manning

It’s Traci Manning, chief operating officer for Central City Concern and a member of the Portland Housing Advisory Commission (PHAC). Manning will take over in October, according to Fish’s office. She’ll replace outgoing director Margaret Van Vliet, who was tapped by Governor John Kitzhaber this summer to lead the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department.

Manning has worked at Central City Concern since 1993 and recently has helped the nonprofit on projects like the new Crisis Assessment and Treatment Center in inner Southeast. CCC also is building a $19 million clinic over what once was an infamously troubled Burger King at Broadway and Burnside downtown.

Update: I just spoke with Manning, who said her colleagues at CCC were just getting the news and reacting with “mixed emotions.” She said she approached the city about the post—adding that she was “incredibly intrigued with the idea of working on the same issues, but from a public service angle.”

At CCC, Manning ran operations for an organization with a $41 million budget and 600 employees. At Housing, she’ll preside over just 62 workers but a $99 million budget. Manning prides herself on building relationships with the Portland Police Bureau, local governments, other nonprofits, and the Portland Business Alliance. She says that will remain her focus at the Housing Bureau.

“It’s a direction I’ve seen them starting to go, and it’s one that hopefully I can continue,” she said.

Moreover, Manning says, serving on the bureau’s advisory committee means she’s already familiar with the bureau’s newly adopted strategic plan—as well as with the challenges of finding new cash once the bureau’s urban renewal tax spigot starts going dry after this fiscal year.

READ – announcement from Nick Fish’s office.
READ – Manning named Portland housing boss, Portland Business Journal
READ – Traci Manning to Serve on Portland Housing Advisory Commission, press release from CCC, 11 15 2010

From the Oregonian, June 21, 2011

Homelessness in Multnomah County jumped about 8 percent between 2009 and 2011, according to a new report that looked at how many people were living on the streets, at emergency shelters or in motels with vouchers earlier this year.

READ – ‘The Portland Housing Bureau, Multnomah County and their partners worked together to produce the “2011 Point-in-Time Count of Homelessness,” a comprehensive report examining a point-in-time snapshot of homelessness in our community.’

Precisely how much worse the picture has gotten amid the recession depends on how one defines homeless.

The report, compiled by the city of Portland and Multnomah County, studied four types of homelessness: people who sleep outside, in short-term shelters, transitional apartments or on the couches of friends and relatives. In those categories, homelessness increased between 7 and 9 percent between 2009 and 2011.

Generally speaking, the number of homeless Multnomah County residents grew from 2,542 to 2,727 in the two-year period. Using the broadest definition of the term, which includes all four categories, the increase went from an estimated 14,451 to 15,563.

“Even one person on the street is too many,” said Portland Commissioner Nick Fish, who oversees the Portland Housing Bureau.

Other statistics from the survey, released Tuesday but conducted in January, reveal additional trends. For example, 12 percent of the homeless population identified themselves as military veterans this year, although only 9 percent of Multnomah County’s overall population falls into that category. In 2011, 35 percent of homeless women said they had experienced domestic violence.

African-Americans comprised 18 percent of the county’s homeless population, but only 7 percent of the general population. Native Americans saw a similar over-representation. They accounted for 9 percent of the homeless population compared with 2 percent of the overall population.

The down economy explains most of the uptick, city and county officials said. But better, more exhaustive methods for counting the homeless also contributed to the increase, which they characterized as relatively slight given the historic proportions of the recession.

“The fact that there is anybody who is homeless in our community is something to be concerned about,” said Multnomah County Commissioner Deborah Kafoury.

The count took place on Jan. 26, because federal rules say the survey must occur when the number of people in emergency shelters is typically highest. If local governments want federal grants to address homelessness, they must provide updated figures for homelessness every two years. The state of Oregon also requires an annual tally of shelter occupants for budgetary reasons.

Doreen Binder, executive director of the Portland nonprofit Transition Projects, said Tuesday the latest snapshot of the county’s homeless population doesn’t account fully for the impact of the recession on low-income residents.

Her agency gives people free laundry detergent, toiletries and food so they can save their money for rent. “Just because they’re not living on the street, doesn’t mean their needs haven’t increased,” Binder said.