Exhibit B
Minutes Exhibit B
Port Commission Regular Meeting
of August 8. 2017
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
INTRODUCTION
The goals of this report are to, a) determine the extent that City of Seattle temporary, permitted
encampments are an effective homelessness response strategy and, b) identify successes and areas of
improvement for the permitted encampment model. The majority of the data and financial findings in
this report reflect the experiences and results of the Ballard, Interbay
and Othello permitted encampments between January 1, 2016 and
"Permitted encampments are not a
December 31' 2016.
permanent solution to the crisis of
Background homelessness we are experiencing
in Seattle." said Murray. "These
The City of Seattle is the first in the country to offer public land and
encampments WI" provnde a safer
funding to support permitted encampments. As of today, the City of
community environment than
Seattle (the City) invests in six permitted homeless encampment
sleeping under a highway overpass
programsl. Based on the most recent HMIS (Homeless Management or on a park bench. Residents will
Information System) data, from September 2015 through May 2017, have improved access to services
759 people have been served through those programs and, 121 people and we hope to open the door to
have transitioned into a safe, permanent place to live. These permanent housing as quCle as we
can.
temporary, permitted encampments contribute to the City's efforts to
Mayor Murray, June 29, 2015
address homelessness.
In 2016, the City adopted a strategic plan known as the Pathways Home plan as a framework or actions
to address homelessness. The person-centered plan includes key data-driven policies and actions that
will transform the current system into one that more fully addresses the complex needs of people
experiencing homelessness. While the priority actions within Pathways Home are underway, permitted
encampment programs that include access to services and case management provide immediate
options for people without shelter.
Key Findings
0 The City permitted encampments have met and exceeded the contracted performance
measures.
0 The model is successfully serving people who have been living outside in greenbelts, on the
streets, in cars and in hazardous situations.
0 Overall, the neighboring communities have responded positively and, there is no significant
increase in crime when the permitted encampment moves in.
o The encampment self-managed governance structure offers residents a way to positively
contribute to day-to-day operations and community engagement efforts while building
individual confidence and leadership skills.
0 The success of the first two years of the permitted encampment validates the value of adding
case management and services to the self-managed encampments.
o More research is needed to provide insight into any detrimental racial equity practices or
program barriers that may exist at the permitted encampments for Black/African American,
American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic Latino people experiencing homelessness.
o It would be beneficial to evaluate the potential changes needed for the level of case
management, staffing and supportive services offered as the make-up of the permitted
encampment shifts to serve more people who have been living without shelter for long periods
of time.
I
Identied as: Ballard, Interbay, Othello, Georgetown, Myers Way and Licton Springs
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
THE MODEL
Background
In late 2014 Mayor Murray convened an Emergency Task Force on Unsheltered Homelessness to identify
number of people experiencing
a set of immediate, short-term action steps to address the growing
homelessness. The task force was made up of leaders from the housing/ homelessness services sector,
funders, neighborhood and business districts, faith community, and advocates. Over a two-month
period, the task force developed a set of proposals for the Mayor's consideration. One of those
proposals was for the City of Seattle to permit organized legal encampments to be sited on public land
or privately owned, non-religious property.
The Mayor accepted that recommendation and, in early 2015 the full City Council unanimously adopted
transitional encampments as an interim use on
an ordinance related to land use and zoning to permit
City-owned or private property. A related joint Director's Rule was adopted by the City's Human Services
Department (HSD) and Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to establish compatible
the
requirements for community outreach, encampment operations standards, and coordination with
of the
permit process for new transitional encampments on any selected site meeting the requirements
ordinance.2
The ordinance includes restrictions around the number of persons to be served at each site and limits
the permitted use for one year, with the possibility of permit renewal for an additional year. Further, the
joint Director's Rule directs the permitted encampment operational standards. These include budgeting
and fundraising, site management, maintenance and security protocols, required resident supports, and
public health and safety goals. The joint Director's Rule also outlines community outreach standards and
requires the creation of Community Advisory Councils (CAC) to provide neighborhood and business
or
input on proposed encampment operations. The CAC's also identify methods for handling complaints
concerns relating to the encampment site or its residents.
The program regulations and guidelines for the operation of the sites are further outlined in the Project
Service Agreement, which is executed by agency and HSD authorized representatives. Program oversight
is maintained by HSD through a monthly Contractor Invoice Form and Monthly Status Report that
document progress towards the contracted performance commitments and line-item reimbursement.
Additionally, HSD staff meet regularly with the staff, in person and often on site, to assess the program
progress and work collaboratively on addressing issues.
Leveraging Expertise of Local Operators and Service Providers
A qualification review process was used by HSD to select the operators of the encampment sites. The
organizations selected to partner in the permitted encampments bring to the program decades of
tent
experience in supporting unsheltered and low-income people. Longtime and nationally recognized
city operator SHARE (Seattle Housing and Resource Effort) was selected to manage the Interbay
In March of
encampment and established operator Nickelsville was selected to manage the Ballard site.
2016, Nickelsville began operating the third permitted encampment, named Othello. The Low Income
the
Housing Institute (LIHI) was invited to act as fiscal agent for the two organizations and to provide
case management services for the residents at the three encampments.
2 Council Bill No.
118310, Ordinance No. 124747, DPD Director's Rule 20-2015, HSD Director's Rule 01-2015
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
KEY FINDINGS
Elimination of the 90-day Relocation Requirement
In the past encampments, or tent cities, were only permited to stay in one location for a 90-day period.
The disruptive nature of the 90-day limit placed a burden on the encampment community. The
encampment leaders were constantly searching for the next host congregation. Each 90-day move
meant many residents had to abandon progress made with a service provider or agency to begin with
one that was closer to the new location. The City's permitted encampments are now allowed to stay in
place for a one-year period with a second-year option based on successful Operation. This longer-term
siting means residents can make greater progress towards their stability goals and build stronger
relationships with the surrounding community.
Bringing together the Self-Managed Model with Case Management Services
What makes the Ballard, Interbay and Othello permitted encampments different from other non-
sanctioned or unpermitted encampments is the incorporation of structured case management services
into the self-management model. The model was without historical experience or comparisons, which
meant much of the operating norms and expectations were created simultaneously with the physical
setting up of the sites. More than one person interviewed described the experience using an analogy
like, "We were building the airplane in the air."
The encampment self-managed governance structure offers
residents a way to positively contribute to day-to-day
"The people in the encampment are very
operations and community engagement efforts while budding proud of what they have accomplished in
indiwdual confidence and leadership skills. The reSIdents
creating the encampment. One man said at
support and encourage each other, which adds to the increased the low barrier encampment that this place
sense of well-being that contributes to positive outcomes. was the last chance for many people."
Residents tell stories about how they help each other out and, Healihcare for the HOWE/988 staff reection
how they celebrate successes and milestones.
Although each of the organizations uses slightly different methods, the core tenets are similar. The
primary elements of the governance model are:
0 Democratic decision-making with every member having an equal vote. Paid staff does not have
a vote in camp decisions.
0 All residents contribute to the day-to-day operation of the encampment. This includes
contributing to camp security, participating in neighborhood service activities and other
operational duties.
0 Residents hold each other accountable for individual actions. A grievance procedure is used to
resolve conflicts.
0 Residents can be barred from camp for serious violation of the rules. Barred individuals are
asked to leave the camp property. Re-entry can be petitioned depending on the severity of the
offense.
The permitted encampment case management is provided by the Low Income Housing Institute who has
more than 20 years of experience identifying and developing affordable housing programs. The agency
also holds demonstrated expertise in providing person-centered, service enriched programing to a wide
range of low-income and homeless populations. LlHI is also responsible for the administrative, financial
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
and data collection activities that contribute to the success of the programs. The permitted
encampment service-enriched, case management model includes:
Entry into King County's Coordinated Entry for All (CEA) program
Referrals to diversion programs and local shelters when appropriate
Coordination with local affordable and homeless housing providers including rapid rehousing
programs
Connection to legal services to clear up outstanding issues that create barriers to housing and
employment
Employee training and educational referrals
Help covering transportation costs forjob searches, education and accessing resources
Family reunification and homeless diversion assistance
Childcare subsidies for working parents and coordination with McKinney Vento Act
transportation for school aged-children
Refugee and immigration services including interpretation resources
Referral to King County Veterans Program and other VA resources
Domestic violence services and advocacy
Access to healthcare, mental health and substance abuse programs through the Healthcare for
the Homeless mobile medical van and other programs that enrich the experiences ofthe camp
residents
Even with the inevitable challenges faced by most startup programs
The "A" family has been at
that pioneer new ideas, one of the biggest outcomes of the first two
Othello since it opened and have
years is the validation of the compatibility of the self-management become sober. employed and
and case management models. Although stakeholders consistently
regained custody of their infant
mentioned the lack of clarity in roles and poor communication as the son. They are saving money and
biggest challenge they face, each expressed commitment to finding waiting for housing. Their goal is
solutions and improving processes. to "restart their lives
.
Three additional permitted encampments were opened in 2017 (Myers Way, Georgetown and Licton
Springs). The City of Seattle and its partners are committed to continuous learning and flexible program
development as they pioneer new methods of employing person-centered responses to homelessness
and poverty. This includes periodic evaluation and program adjustments based on data and real-time
learnings which were utilized in the deployment of the 2017 sites. Therefore, the new sites benefited
from the experiences and learnings observed in this report.
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
People Served
The three permitted encampments are programmatically designed to serve single men, single
women,
couples and adults with children who are part of a family unit. Unaccompanied children under the age of
18 are not served at the encampments. Operational
procedures are in place to quickly and safely refer any -
unaccompanied children to the appropriate agency. "My stay at Tent City5 allowed me to
stabilize and recover from a horrible
During 20163, 403 adults over the age of 18 and 64
situation. The social immersion,
children as part of a family were served at the permitted. . .
responsibilities and opportunities that the
encampments. These individuals equaled 323 households, camp and SHARE provided helped me to
with 37 of those containing children. Of the total regain my footing and functionality. I'm now
population, 60% were male and 39% female. The other working {0" SHARE and have stable shared
1% includes two individuals who identify as transgender, housrng.
one who selected 'doesn't identify as male, female or
transgender' and two who declined to share their gender
identity.
A total of 25 (5%) of encampment individuals were between the ages of 18 and 24 and, 13 (3%) were
over the age of 62. There were 23 children who were under the age of S and, 41 who were school-aged
(aged 5-17). Of the individuals served 27% are chronically homeless" and 5% are veterans.
The race and ethnicity of the individuals served are described in the table below. One of the primary
findings of this evaluation and, recommendations for future study is the high percentage of White
individuals (57%) served at the encampment as compared to the City funded Single Adult Enhanced
Emergency Shelters (43%). The low representation of Black/African American, American Indian or Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian people as compared to other programs should be researched to identify any
racial disparities and make programmatic changes that lead to racial equity.
Tmf Ethnicity Total
WW Non-Hispanic/ Non-Latino 399 85.5%
Black/African American 88 19% Hispanic/ Latino 33 7%
Asian 5 1% Refused/ Not Collected 35 7.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 30 6%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacic islander 7 1%
Multiple Races 46 10%
Refused/ Not Collected 26 6%
Of the 403 adults served during 2016, 93 (23%) reported a history of domestic violence (DV) in their
lives. Fifteen of those who reported were part of a family with children. Additionally, 31 (33%) of those
who reported experiencing DV in their lives said they were fleeing a DV situation at that time.
3
Collected in Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), see Methodology for details. Data characterized
as people or individuals includes both adults and children.
4
To be considered chronically homeless, an individual or head of household must meet the denition of "homeless
individual with a disability" from the McKinney-Vento Act, as amended by the HEARTH Act and have been living
in a place not meant for human habitation, in an emergency shelter, or in
a safe haven for the last 12 months
continuously or on at least four occasions in the last three years where those occasions cumulatively total at least 12
months.
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
The table below describes the physical and mental conditions reported by the individuals staying at the
encampment at program entry. Mental health and physical disabilities are the conditions that were
most cited during intake. During interviews with staff and residents, one of the most mentioned areas of
success was the Healthcare for the Homeless Mobile Medical Van where people are receiving treatment
for physical conditions that would be untreated without that service.
Physical and Mental Conditions Total Reported
Mental Health Problem 177
Physical Disability 134
Chronic Health Condition 110
Developmental Disability 63
Drug Abuse 25
Alcohol Abuse 20
Both Alcohol and Drug Abuse 10
HIV/AIDS 2
Almost half (45%) of the adults report they have no income when they enter the permitted
encampment. Additionally, 36% report other income from sources like the Veteran's Administration
(VA), governmental programs such as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and SSI/SSDI
(Supplemental Security Income) and, 12% of the adults reported earned income or a combination of
earned and other income.
Number of Adults By Income Category Total
Adults with Only Earned Income" 44 11%
Adults with Only Other Income 145 36%
Adults with Both Earned and Other Income 4 1%
Adults with No Income 182 45%
Adults Refused/Not collected 28 7%
*i.e. employment
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
Performance Measures
The three temporary encampments located in the City's Interbay, Ballard and Othello neighborhoods,
met the 2016 contracted performance commitments. Those combined performance commitments
were: (a) 125 unduplicated homeless individuals/families meet their emergency or immediate shelter
needs and, (b) 45 homeless individuals or families enter transitional or permanent housing.
0 The encampments are helping individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness
meet their emergency or immediate shelter needs. In 20165, 467 people or, 323 households
were served at the Interbay, Ballard and Othello encampments. More than half (55%) of the
adults served slept the night before in a place not fit for human habitation.
o Homeless individuals or families are entering transitional or permanent housing. Of those who
exited the encampments during 2016, 85 (26%) moved into a permanent place to live and 41
(13%) entered a transitional housing program.
System Comparison
The following section describes how the permitted encampment performance for adults compares to
City funded Single Adult Enhanced Shelter programs that similarly provide 24/7 access, storage, services
and case management.
Last Place Slept (Adults) Encampments Enhanced Shelter
Place Not Meant for Human Habitation
Shelter/Safe Haven 82 20% 666 48%
Staying with Friends/Family 41 10% 7O 5%
Hotel/Motel 15 4% 22 2%
Transitional Housing 13 3% 20 1.5%
Institutional Setting 8 2% 88 6%
Permanent Housing For Formerly 0 0% 3 0%
Homeless Persons
Rental or Owned 7 2% 21 2%
Refused / Not Collected 15 4% 84 6%
Total 403 1381
Length of Stay Encampments Enhanced Shelter
Left During Still There Left During Still There
2016 12/31/16 2016 12/31/16
Average 88 123 61 104
Median 69 71 15 60
5
12 months of data for Interbay and Ballard, 9 months of data for Othello
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
Encampments Enhanced Shelter
Exit Destination Total Exit Total Exit
Permanent Housing 85 26% 207 18%
Place Not Fit for Human Habitation 43 13% 53 5%
Transitional Housing 41 13% 87 8%
Shelter / Safe Haven 17 5% 175 15%
Institution 7 2% 3O 3%
Other Temporary Situation 5 2% 75 7%
Deceased 0 0% 3 0%
I
Missing/ Refused 129 39% l 504 44%
Total exited 327 1134
Cost Summary
It is challenging to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the permitted encampments because there are no
historical comparisons or standards with which to compare. This report summarizes the total cost of the
program for 2016 and offers a baseline for future evaluation.
During 2016, the City of Seattle contributed $559,600 of a total program budget of $755,500 for the
operations and case management costs for the Ballard, Interbay and Othello permitted encampments.
The cost per person exited from the program during the year is $2,310 and the City of Seattle's
investment is $1,711 per person exited. The total program cost per individual who exited the program
to permanent housing in 2016 is $8,888 or, $6,584 of the City of Seattle Investment.
Tents on Platforms Compared to Tiny Structures Performance
The three permitted encampments are comprised of sleeping areas that are both tent and wooden
structures (also called tiny houses or tiny structures). The following table describes the configuration of
sleeping areas for each of the three sites being evaluated in this report. The capacity of each site was
gradually built up during 2016 and this configuration reflects the final capacity of the permitted
encampment sites as of December 31, 2016.
Othello Interbay Ballard
Tents on Platforms 12 40 12
Tiny Structures 28 O 5
Although there are other factors that could contribute to the results, some preliminary observations can
be made between the permitted encampment sites. For example, the data shows a slight difference in
the length of stay and exits to housing between Othello (mostly tiny structures), Interbay (all tents on
platforms), and Ballard (mixture of tents and tiny structures). The Othello site also has the highest
percentage of people moving into permanent and transitional housing. The data shows Othello has a
significantly lower rate of exits to a place not meant for human habitation compared to the other sites.
Future study is recommended to evaluate the reasons for these differences and identify the most
effective way to incorporate the results into future permitted encampment models.
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
Othello Interbay Ballard
70% Tiny Structures All Tents 70% Tents
Left During Still There Left During Still There Left During Still There
2016 12/31/16 2016 2016
Length of Stay 12/31/16 12/31/16
I
Average 88 88 84 116 88 165
Median 78 64 63 62 68 112
Othello Interbay Ballard
70% Tiny Structures All Tents 70% Tents
Exit Destination Total Total Total
Permanent Housing 47 31% 26 20% 14 22%
Place Not Fit for Human Habitation 10 7% 26 20% 10 16%
Transitional Housing 36 24% 3 2% 2 3%
Shelter / Safe Haven 6 4% 7% 2 3%
Institution 1 1% 3 2% 3 5%
Other Temporary Situation 2 1% 4 3% 2 3%
Missing/ Refused 32% 30
Impact on the Neighborhood and Community
During interviews with partner agency staff, the Ballard and Interbay Community Advisory Committee
members (CAC) and permitted encampment residents, one of the most frequently mentioned positive
outcomes is the increased neighborhood resident engagement and support. This includes physical
donations, enjoyable community interactions and other positive experiences. One of the Interbay CAC
members described how the siting of the encampment has brought together the Queen Anne and
Magnolia faith communities to more effectively work together to address homelessness and poverty in
their neighborhoods.
Each of the encampments has seen increased visits from interested community members and others
who want to observe the operations. This has resulted in opportunities for relationship building and, in
some cases, increased community understanding of homelessness. One person said, "The camps are
considered a place to go to learn about homelessness and get involved."
The permitted encampments are committed to being good neighbors. One way they demonstrate that
commitment is through neighborhood cleanup efforts (i.e. Litter Busting), and neighborhood safety
walks.
There is no consistent method being used at the sites to capture data around the amount of community
interactions, which could include donations, meal preparation and serving, fundraising and volunteer
programs (including setting up the encampment and building donated tiny structures). It is
recommended that the partner agencies develop a common tool that can capture the types and levels
of community support at each site. The quantitative data can be combined with qualitative data
collection around the perception and attitudes about the permitted encampments and homelessness in
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
general leading to a greater understanding of the impact of the permitted encampments on the
community.
In the meantime, several indicators illustrate the change in the quantity and type of community
responses to the permitted encampments in their neighborhood. For example, there was a significant
decrease in the number of phone calls, email messages and in-person meetings during the re-permitting
of the three permitted encampments. Although no data was collected during the 2015 public
notification process for all three of the encampments, the intensity of negative neighborhood reaction
to the siting of the permitted encampments was evident. In comparison, when the public comments for
the 2016 re-permitting were analyzed, the number of positive remarks about the neighborhood
experiences outweighed those that contained negative responses.
Crime and Safety
The permitted encampment sites operate under a set of rules, codes of conduct and policies that each
resident receives as part of the intake process. Although the language varies between Nickelsville and
SHARE, the intent is to provide safety and security to the individuals who reside in the encampment and
to the surrounding neighborhood. Camp security is a critical part of the successful operation of the
permitted encampments. External complaints are handled through permitted encampment procedures
that are designed for fast and efficient response. Generally, the permitted encampment staff are the
first contacted when a problem is identified.
The permitted encampments have 24-hour security shifts, with each adult resident participating.
Security duties include monitoring the environment for dangerous situations and working with camp
leadership to identify and address any resident action that is contrary to the established rules of the
camp. If a resident is determined to be in violation of the rules, he/she is barred from the premises.
Depending on the severity of the situation, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) is contacted. The SPD
responds as appropriate and works with the permitted encampment operators to resolve any situation.
In addition, SPD has been collecting data and information about the levels of crime that occur around
the permitted encampment. This data shows that there is no significant increase in crime because of the
encampment. There is some evidence of increased numbers of people who come to the neighborhood
in search of a safe place to stay and this could contribute to some negative public perception of the
encampments. Further study is needed to identify trends and impacts of the possible change in foot
traffic.
10
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
WHAT CHALLENGES EXIST?
Communication
Communication is an integral part of any new program, especially one that was created within a short
time frame with no previous experience or model to use as a guide. As noted above, the City permitted
encampments were a response to the growing crisis of homelessness. There was little time for extensive
planning sessions and, much of the decision-making was done in real-time. This resulted in disconnected
communication channels and, in some instances, miscommunication around policy and procedures.
While it was the most mentioned challenge, almost every person interviewed described some changes
that were put in place to improve the communication channels. There was also a clear commitment
from all parties to find ways to improve, especially around clarity on roles, expectations and procedures.
Data Collection Challenges & Limitations
Data collection challenges were identified that, with creative approaches could be reduced or
eliminated. These include:
o Short-stays: While the permitted encampments operate on a 24-hour timetable, the case managers
hold scheduled office hours. Campers who stay for short periods may not have interacted with
a
case manager and therefore, not be captured in the HMIS data set. There should be a mechanism
for collecting basic information about these individuals including reasons for leaving before
connecting with case manager.
0 Staffing turnover: During periods of staffing changes and turnover, camp residents reported
challenges receiving consistent access to case managers. This could also limit the quantity and
quality of data collected.
0 Data collection: As with any new program start, the process for data collection included multiple
iterations. While every effort was made to utilize HMIS, the data set may contain gaps from early
program start up challenges.
Services / Operations
0 Staff training: The permitted encampment model serves people who have spent many years living
outside in hazardous conditions. The City's Navigation Team, comprised of outreach workers and
SP0 officers who are trained to work with this population, rely on the permitted encampments
as an
option to offer to people with high barriers to housing. This means the staff and case managers at
the permitted encampments need access to training on trauma-informed care and other trainings
that will help them give the most effective services possible.
0 Caseload levels: The case managers at the permitted encampments work with each resident to
create a housing plan. With high caseloads, it is sometimes difficult to make progress with people
who have multiple barriers to obtaining housing or other issues. The
case manager to client ratio
should be evaluated and adjusted as needed.
0 Budget analysis: During interviews, the operators consistently mentioned the restrictions they face
with the program resources available. It was recommended there be a review of the budget
allocations and determination if adjustments could be made to increase or redistribute the funds
available for administrative activities and case management costs.
ll
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
CONCLUSION & FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
The City permitted encampments have met and exceeded the contracted performance measures. The
model is successfully sewing people who have been living outside in greenbelts, on the streets, in cars
and in hazardous situations. The neighboring communities have responded positively, and crime does
not increase significantly when a permitted encampment moves in.
The challenges identified in the previous section should be researched further and plans made to
address them in the next operating year. Additionally, research and attention is recommended in the
following areas:
0 Although the percentage of permitted encampment missing responses (Client Doesn't Know/
Client Refused, Data Not Collected) are within the range of the single adult enhanced programs,
efforts should be made to research the reasons people exit the program without providing
destination information. This research could point to program gaps, service barriers or, racial
bias.
0 More research is needed to provide insight into any detrimental racial equity practices or
program barriers that may exist at the permitted encampments for Black/African American,
American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic Latino people experiencing homelessness.
o A low percentage of residents at the permitted encampments are between the ages of 18-24.
Research should be done to determine if there are any barriers to Youth and Young Adult use of
the permitted encampments.
0 Inquiry should be made into the services offered to residents with a history of, or who are
fleeing domestic violence to ensure connection to City of Seattle funded DV legal assistance and
mobile flexible advocacy programs.
0 There should be deeper research into the reasons for the differences between tiny structures
and tent results.
0 It would be beneficial to evaluate the potential changes needed for the level of case
management, staffing and supportive services offered as the make-up of the permitted
encampment shifts to serve more people who have been living without shelter for long periods
of time.
c There would be a benefit to a study around the presumption that there is an increase in "foot
traffic" in a neighborhood because of the camp and its potential impact.
0 A public perception survey and data collection tool should be developed to capture levels of
community support and perception by neighborhood.
12
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
Appendix
Appendix 1: About the Partners
The permitted encampments are designed to offer a safe place where people without shelter can access
health and addiction services, find housing and participate in activities that encourage independent
living skills, increase income, and promote health and well-being. Each of the partners plays a critical
role in reaching the goals of the permitted encampment programs.
Organization descriptions as stated by the partners:
SHARE: SHARE and WHEEL are partnered organizations of homeless and formerly homeless men
and women dedicated to surviving and solving homelessness, primarily through self-help, self-
managed solutions. SHARE (Seattle Housing and Resource Effort) is co-ed and a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation. WHEEL (Women's Housing Equality and Enhancement League) is made
up solely of women.
SHARE/WHEEL is committed to providing survival, safety, dignity, empowerment, and leadership
development to homeless people in need of shelter. Our shelters, our encampments, and our
organization are run by participants themselves. SHARE participants determine the policies,
rules and operating principles of SHARE and, take responsibility for the day-to-day (and night-to-
night) work of running the encampments and shelters.
This commitment assures that our sites are safe, comfortable, and welcoming to all. Our self-
managed model welcomes diversity in all aspects as long as participants adhere to our strict
Code of Conduct.6
Nickelsville: The Nickelsville Othello Site is a self-managed encampment with a diverse
population of homeless men, women, families and pets living in tents and simple wooden
structures that is expected to start in March 2016.
Empowerment and dignity are promoted through self-management. The day-to-day operations
of the camp are in the hands of leadership elected at camp meetings. Although Nickelsville has
staff, they do not live on-site, and can't vote or make motions at meetings.
Nickelsville is a 501(c)3 organization with a goal of educating the public and homeless people,
particularly those living in encampments, about the causes of homelessness and with a broader
goal of working to solve homelessness. Nickelsville has been in operation since September 22,
2008 providing safe shelter to thousands of homeless people.7
Low Income Housing Institute: Founded in 1991, LIHI has grown to be one of the most
productive affordable housing developers in the Northwest. LIHI owns and/or manages over
1,700 housing units at 50 sites in six counties throughout the Puget Sound region.
LIHI provides a variety of supportive services to help residents maintain their housing and
develop self-sufficiency. Our efforts include providing residents with case management, life skills
training, technology access and training, financial literacy training and savings programs, and
access to employment, healthcare, and educational programs.8
6From the Tent City 5 Interbay Management Plan
7
From the Othello Site Management Plan
8
From the Low Income Housing Institute Service Management Plan- Encampments
l3
Permitted Encampment Evaluation
June 28, 2017
Appendix 2: Methodology
This report contains analysis and findings based on data collected at the Ballard and Interbay
encampment sites from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 and, from the Othello site from March 1,
2016 through December 31, 2016 (contracted period). Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) case
managers adhered to King County HMIS Standard Operating Procedures and interview protocol, which
include obtaining a "client's informed written consent" to participate in HMIS. Before any HMIS
information was collected, camp residents were informed that access to services would not be tied to
participation.
The HUD Annual Performance Report (APR) was the primary data source for this report. The report
findings are measured at the individual rate. Head of household measurements were not used due to
the complicated structure of the encampment households. Use of head of household race, ethnicity,
disability, residency and exit data may not describe the true composition of the encampment residents.
(Example: a 2-person family could have the female adult sleeping at an emergency shelter with the male
adult sleeping in a place not fit for human habitation the night before entering the encampment.)
Qualitative Information
This report is supplemented by information collected during interviews with key stakeholders within the
city of Seattle. Additionally, informational interviews were conducted with people from the following
organizations/ programs:
0 Community Advisory Committees (Ballard, Interbay)
o Nickelsville, SHARE staff, camp leadership and residents
0 Low Income Housing Institute (case managers, fundraising, data management, volunteer
coordination and other staff)
- Seattle-King County Public Health (Healthcare for the Homeless, Solid Waste/Rodent/Zoonotic
Disease Program)
14
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.