See something we could improve on this page? Give website feedback.
Label:
Report
We're here to make sure City government treats residents and businesses fairly. See what we were up to in 2025.
Published
Print our Annual Report from a PDF:
A note from the Ombudsman
Dear Portlanders,
In 2025, Portland's City government structure continued to transition into its new form reflecting voter-approved changes designed to facilitate greater engagement between residents and City government. My office, part of the elected Auditor's Office and independent from the City Council, Mayor and administration, also saw that spirit of engagement in our work as an increasing number of community members brought their concerns to us. This was visible in the 32% increase in our complaint numbers from the previous year.
We also received more complaints from Portlanders experiencing homelessness, including people living at the City's "tiny home" shelter sites. Handling complaints from these and other vulnerable community members often made us aware of our role as an office of last resort for individuals seeking to advocate for their rights.
We had a transition on our team during the year and a new Deputy Ombudsman, Kim Le, joined us in September. Kim has extensive experience serving the community and working with members of systemically excluded communities, both as an immigration lawyer and as an advocate on youth issues.
We also had the pleasure to participate in an international exchange by hosting an investigator from the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia. Anggi Putri joined us for one month through the State Department Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative Professional Fellows Program.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Croft
City Ombudsman
Figure 1. We hosted a colleague from Ombudsman Republik Indonesia
We received 32% more complaints
The 617 complaints we received in 2025 that fell under our authority to investigate marked a 32% increase from the previous year, when we received 469 such complaints. Overall, we received approximately 960 requests for assistance. Of these, 651 complaints were about the City of Portland. Thirty-four of those complaints were about the City but fell outside our investigative authority, in most instances because they concerned elected officials. City Charter states that the Ombudsman shall not investigate the acts of an elected official or the official's personal staff, matters currently in litigation, matters subject to collective bargaining agreement grievance procedures, or a discrimination complaint from an employee or applicant for employment.
Figure 2. The number of complaints to the Ombudsman continued to increase in 2025
Whenever possible, we refer complainants to appropriate resources when their complaint is not about the City. For example, we refer complaints about Multnomah County services to the County Ombudsperson and complaints about Oregon Department of Human Services programs to the Governor's Advocacy Office. We also provide referral information when the complaint is about the City but concerns a matter that we do not have the authority to investigate. For example, we might suggest that a complainant with a concern about a Councilor's policy position contact the Council member directly or sign up for public testimony before Council.
We obtain complaint data and most other information cited in this report from our case management system.
We received less information about complainants' race/ethnicity than last year
We collect demographic information from complainants on a voluntary basis to better understand who we are serving and to help inform outreach efforts. We have a list of demographic questions that complainants can answer when submitting our online complaint form or when we speak to them on the phone. This includes asking how a complainant identifies their race/ethnicity. Forty-one percent of complainants, or a total of 256 people, provided us with this information. This was a smaller percentage compared to the previous year, when we obtained race/ethnicity information for 62% of complainants.
While we aim to collect demographic information from as many complainants as possible, some complainants decline to provide this information. Sometimes we do not manage to go through our questionnaire with complainants, for example if we have limited contact or if they are in crisis when they call us. Still, we have noted that we can improve, for example by making more consistent efforts to ask our demographic questions when we first speak to complainants or by following up to do so later.
More complainants who provided their information identified as Asian/Asian American in 2025 – 7% compared to 3% in 2024. Seventy-three percent identified as White, 9% as Black/African American, 5% as Hispanic/Latino, 3% as Alaska Native/American Indian, 2% as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2% as Middle Eastern/North African, and 2% as another race/ethnicity. These numbers varied slightly from last year but continue to show that some groups are underrepresented among complainants compared to Portland's population. For example, 12% of Portland's population identifies as Hispanic/Latino and 11% as Asian/Asian-American, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Figure 3. Approximately 7% of complainants who provided information on their race/ethnicity identified as Asian/Asian-American, an increase from 2024
We heard from more community members experiencing homelessness
We had an increase in complainants who were houseless. They made up 36% of those who responded to our question about housing status, compared to 15% the year before. Of complainants who answered our question about economic vulnerability, which we define as living on a limited fixed income, receiving government benefits, and/or having difficulty covering monthly expenses, 60% identified as economically vulnerable. This was an increase from 53% the previous year.1 Forty-six percent of complainants who answered our question about disability status identified as living with a disability, compared to 38% in 2024. We are encouraged that people who may be more likely to directly receive City services or who may face additional obstacles in resolving concerns with the City are reaching our office in increasing numbers.
Transportation, Portland Solutions topped list with most complaints
The Bureau of Transportation remained the bureau with the highest share of complaints, at 24%. Portland Solutions, which we began to track separately since it was established as a hub for City homelessness and livability programs on July 1, 2024, had the second-highest share of complaints, at 23%. Permitting & Development complaints represented 13% and complaints about Police made up 12%. Complaints about Parks & Recreation represented 7%. The Water Bureau and Revenue each made up 4%.
Figure 4. The Bureau of Transportation and Portland Solutions had the largest share of complaints
Not all complaints attributed to a bureau reflect that someone made a complaint about the bureau. We also categorize a complaint as being about a bureau when the bureau may be able to assist with the problem but hasn't yet had the opportunity to do so. For example, if a tenant complains that their landlord has failed to address serious maintenance issues, we refer them to the City's process for reporting code violations and mark the complaint as being about Permitting & Development.
We began tracking complaints by service area after bureaus were organized into service areas during the transition to the new form of government in 2024. Two service areas, Budget & Finance and Vibrant Communities, were phased out during 2025. Of complaints that fell under one of the City's four service areas, the largest share were about Public Works (50%). Public Safety made up 23% of complaints, as did Community & Economic Development. City Operations had 5% of complaints. Programs or offices that do not fall under a service area include Portland Solutions, Government Relations, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, which includes Revenue among other divisions.
We investigated complaints and assisted complainants
Of the 617 complaints that fell under our authority to investigate, we accepted 372, or 60%, for assistance, meaning that we either investigated (in 20% of those complaints) or made another type of intervention to address the concern (40%). Declining to assist with a complaint, as we did in 245 complaints, or 40%, doesn't mean that we simply say "no". We explain our decision and direct complainants to appropriate resources whenever possible. We also often mark a complaint as "declined" when the complainant does not provide a way for us to contact them to get more information or does not respond to us when we follow up.
Other interventions besides investigations usually involve making limited inquiries and facilitating informal resolution of the issue. For example, we assisted a community member who was concerned that the City was making changes to a program without a promised public engagement process. We clarified with the program manager that the process had not started yet and provided the community member with their contact information for additional questions.
Of those complaints that fell under our authority to investigate, we investigated 123 complaints and assisted with another type of intervention for 249 complaints. When considering whether to investigate a complaint, we consider factors such as whether the complaint may involve an egregious individual injustice, access to essential human needs, or inequitable impacts. We also weigh considerations such as whether we have sufficient resources to investigate, whether an investigation will be able to resolve the issue, and whether the complainant has alternative avenues to achieve the desired resolution.
In the 113 investigations we completed, we found that complaints were substantiated in 47, or 42%, of those cases and not substantiated in 29 cases (26%). In another 37 cases (33%), we were unable to determine whether a complaint was substantiated based on the available evidence. These outcomes vary somewhat from year to year, but it is typical that less than half of investigated complaints are substantiated. Ten investigations were started but not completed, either because we continued to investigate past the year's end or because we discontinued the investigation. We might discontinue an investigation when a complainant stops responding to our attempts to reach them, for example.
We generally make recommendations to bureaus if a complaint is substantiated, unless the issue has been otherwise resolved. Bureaus fully or partly accepted our recommendations in 77% of cases where we made recommendations, a slightly lower percentage than in 2024 (81%). Cases when the City declined to accept our recommendations included instances when they did not reduce fines or liens or did not allow shelter residents to have relatives or partners join them to live in their tiny homes due to an unwritten City rule that individuals entering City tiny home shelters should specify if they want another person to join them during the intake process. If our recommendations are not accepted, we explain the outcome to complainants and suggest other resources when appropriate. We might also consider whether the issue merits our review at a more systemic level.
Implementation of our recommendations helped community members get relief from stressful situations and assisted them with practical outcomes such as regaining their property or accessing shelter. In other examples, we requested the City make changes to how they inform parking permit holders about Leaf Day and asked the City to make a shelter bathroom safer for people with disabilities. We also helped people obtain refunds and other types of financial savings totaling $306,780, about twice as much as last year. Most of this amount was due to $248,192 in fines against multiple short-term rental operators that were lowered.
Figure 5. Our interventions helped community members obtain significant financial relief from City fines and fees
We helped Portlanders get a fair result
These are a few examples of how we helped individual community members who were treated unfairly.
Return to shelter
A resident of one of the City's tiny home shelters was exited after they were absent for more than 72 hours in violation of the rules. They had been in the hospital after a scooter accident. We recommended making an exception to the rule given the circumstances. The resident was allowed to return and was able to transfer to an apartment about six months later.
Refund after a predatory tow
A community member shopping at a convenience store asked the clerk if they could leave their vehicle in the lot while they got money from a friend to buy a candy bar. When they returned a few minutes later, their vehicle was hooked to a tow truck. They had to pay $325 to get it released. We determined that the tow truck driver had failed to obtain written authorization from the business as state law requires. The Transportation Bureau ordered the tow company to refund the vehicle owner.
Relief from a tree removal fine
The City notified a homeowner that they needed to pay nearly $18,000 or plant 27 trees after removing a tree without a permit. The homeowner removed the tree because they were afraid it was in danger of falling. The tree service company they hired agreed that the tree was a hazard. The homeowner felt a sense of urgency and did not look into City rules, which required them to obtain a permit or authorize the company to obtain one on their behalf. The City inspector who issued the violation notice did not respond to the homeowner's request to meet in person to discuss what happened. We asked an Urban Forestry supervisor to review the case. After they did so, they dropped the fine and reduced the tree replanting requirement to one tree, which the homeowner had already planted. Urban Forestry also issued a fine against the tree service company for removing the tree when a permit had not been issued.
Complainants provided us with feedback
We send a short feedback survey to complainants when we close their cases so that we can identify potential areas for improvement. We received responses from 45 complainants, representing approximately 7% of the total.
Forty-two percent of respondents said our work created a sense of fairness and accountability, while an equal percentage said that our work did not benefit them. Even though 53% of respondents disagreed that their complaint was resolved in the way they were seeking or found acceptable, 80% agreed that we were courteous and respectful. The majority (64%) said they would recommend our office to others.
We asked complainants what we did well. Here's what some shared:
"I felt heard and saw a real change at the end of the months long journey."
"Friendly, caring and efficient, made me feel like I mattered."
"Speedy responses, straightforward and non bureaucratic language."
We also asked how we can improve. Some respondents said that we should have followed up to ensure their issue was fully resolved. One respondent stated that they felt that there was a misunderstanding between their complaint and our inquiry with the City. These comments highlight the importance of communicating clearly with complainants about whether we will continue to follow up on their issue and about how we are exercising our discretion in determining how to handle their complaint. City Code describes why we may decide not to investigate a complaint, at our discretion.
Several respondents commented that we should do more to raise public awareness of our office. We agree that getting the word out about our services deserves ongoing attention. We do this in various ways, from outreach events to the use of posters to earning media coverage of our reports. If you'd like to provide additional feedback or invite us to speak with your community group or organization, please contact us at ombudsman@portlandoregon.gov or 503-823-0144.
Figure 6. We raise awareness of our services by conducting outreach at cultural events and other community gatherings
We contributed to systemic change
In addition to resolving individual issues, we also recommended changes to City policies or practices to ensure fairness.
Fairer conditions for Water Bureau customers in crisis
A community member who relocated after experiencing domestic violence was struggling financially and unable to pay the water bill from their previous home. The Water Bureau found a solution that relieved the immediate financial burden, but we identified gaps in Water billing practices that we recommended they address to create fairer conditions for other survivors of domestic violence. The Bureau implemented some of the changes we recommended, including publishing information about the Bureau's crisis voucher on its website and adding domestic violence as one of the cues that customer service representatives listen for when determining whether to refer a caller to apply for financial assistance. The Bureau also began to explore development of an interagency partnership with Multnomah County to strengthen its work with survivors of domestic violence.
Citywide discontinuation of returned payment fees
The Water Bureau and three other City agencies decided to remove returned payment fees after our investigation pointed to the inequitable impact of these fees and the inefficiency of collecting them. The Water Bureau agreed to implement recommendations we made in April 2024 to eliminate returned payment fees and refund customers who had been previously overcharged this fee. In addition, the Revenue Division, PBOT, and the Fire Bureau decided to stop charging returned payment fees.
We published memos about two investigations and one follow-up report
We published two memos to City officials containing our findings and recommendations from investigations that stemmed from individual complaints and became broader reviews of situations affecting other people besides the complainant. We generally make our work public when an investigation addresses an issue that is systemic or otherwise affects numerous Portlanders. This is also a way for us to be transparent about our work.
- We investigated concerns about fire safety at Cherry Blossom Townhomes, an affordable housing complex. We recommended in April 2025 that the Fire Bureau document how it can safely respond to a fire and what steps the homeowners association should take to ensure fire truck access, and hold a community meeting with homeowners.
- Another investigation focused on private request tows, which Police can order on behalf of motorists who experience a collision or breakdown. We recommended in July 2025 that the Bureau of Transportation ensure that community members pay fair standardized rates for private request tows, for example by amending the City towing contract.
When bureaus accept our recommendations, we monitor whether they are implemented and continue to follow up on implementation to keep the City accountable. We published a January 2025 follow-up report to a November 2021 report that focused on the inequitable impacts of the City's complaint-driven system for enforcing property maintenance requirements. Our 2021 report recommended that the City commit to eliminating the disparate impacts of this system, engage with affected communities, and assign a project manager to conduct engagement and develop reforms. The City accepted the report recommendations but did not fully implement them. We pointed out in the follow-up report that more work was needed to find a better balance between reactive enforcement and proactive support for economically vulnerable homeowners, including by reforming the complaint-based system and critically assessing the underlying property maintenance rules that form the basis for enforcement.
Footnote
1 This percentage is revised from last year's annual report so that it is based on the number of people who provided an answer to the question, like how we calculate race/ethnicity data.
About the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman is here to make sure City government treats Portland residents and businesses fairly. We investigate complaints and identify ways to resolve them. As part of the City Auditor’s Office, we’re independent and impartial. The word “ombudsman” is a gender-neutral Swedish term that describes an official who investigates complaints about government.
The Ombudsman produces an online dashboard as a self-service tool for the public to view and explore information about complaints we have handled since 2012.
View our new Ombudsman data dashboard