Prepared by Candace Joyner, MPH
Office of the Mayor
8-25-2025
Introduction
The City of Portland affirms housing as a human right and recognizes homelessness as a humanitarian crisis requiring coordinated, layered responses. Emergency shelter is an essential element of the City’s Housing First program, offering immediate and accessible overnight accommodations for individuals experiencing a housing crisis. It is not a substitute for permanent housing. Rather, it functions as a stabilization strategy that promotes safety, connection to care, and access to permanent housing.
Portland’s approach to emergency shelters aligns with principles of autonomy and care. Emergency shelters that are voluntary, low-barrier, and service-connected meet immediate needs, prevent harm, and create bridges to permanent housing (Kaltsidis, 2020; Kushel, 2023; Miller, 2016). As the City expands its shelter infrastructure, it is essential to clarify how this strategy supports long-term housing goals. A review of the research indicates that emergency shelter is essential public infrastructure and foundational to a just and effective housing system in Portland.
Emergency Shelters as Public Health Infrastructure
Ending homelessness is a public health issue. Unsheltered homelessness is associated with significantly worse health outcomes than sheltered homelessness, including higher rates of chronic illness, victimization, and premature death (Richards & Kuhn, 2023; Roncarati, 2018). The absence of safe, accessible places to sleep undermines prevention and engagement efforts. Emergency shelters stabilize people in moments of acute need and help reconnect them with care systems (Garcia, 2024; Gonzalez & Tyminski, 2020; Leger, 2017).
Low-barrier, trauma-informed shelters reduce exposure to violence, environmental harm, and chronic sleep deprivation (Kushel, 2023; Leger, 2017). Among unsheltered populations, poor sleep is linked to increased substance use, cognitive fatigue, and difficulty navigating services (Gonzalez & Tyminski, 2020; Leger, 2017). By providing safer, more stable environments, shelters improve health trajectories and increase the likelihood of service engagement and housing transitions.
Municipalities with more shelter beds tend to have a lower share of their homeless population living unsheltered (Richards & Kuhn, 2023). Yet more than 40% of participants in a recent California study reported that they had wanted shelter but were unable to access it (Kushel, 2023). Portland’s plan to expand shelter access promotes public health and collective safety while reducing reliance on emergency departments, jails, and encampment removals.
Justice-Oriented Approach
Structural inequities, individual risk factors, and the absence of a functioning social safety net drive homelessness (Aron & Burt, 2001). Emergency shelter does not resolve these root causes, but it plays a critical role in reducing harm and creating access points to care and housing.
Portland’s emergency shelter strategy reflects a non-coercive, trauma-informed approach grounded in equity. Shelters are designed to be low-barrier and service-connected, offering voluntary support without exclusionary requirements. This model increases access for people with disabilities, mental illness, and substance use disorders. These groups are disproportionately represented among the unsheltered population (Kushel, 2023).
Research supports the effectiveness of this approach. Low-barrier shelters, particularly when paired with case management and housing navigation, are associated with higher service engagement, faster housing placements, and lower returns to homelessness (Kaltsidis, 2020). Shelters that center trauma-informed design promote dignity and autonomy. That is why the City’s shelter response allows pets and partners and ensures staff are trained in harm reduction. These elements are central to a functional, equity-oriented system.
This model also reduces reliance on law enforcement and mitigates the criminalization of homelessness. Without accessible shelter options, people experiencing unsheltered homelessness are more likely to encounter police, face citations, or be displaced from public space (Barocas, 2023; Chang, 2022). By investing in voluntary, low-barrier shelter as an alternative to enforcement, the City can reduce harmful interactions with the criminal legal system and shift the response from control to care.
Shelters must also be accountable to those they serve. Research grounded in lived experience affirms the importance of resident feedback. For example, Kushel et al. (2023) found that most people who use shelters are satisfied with their stay but lack access to key services they want, particularly housing navigation. This underscores the need for strong outreach, integrated services, and staff who are trained to center autonomy and respect (Kaltsidis, 2020).
Beyond stabilization, shelters can also serve as sites of reconnection. Studies show that shelters can be places where people rebuild social networks, access mutual aid, and begin to restore a sense of belonging (Dordick, 1996; Friedman, 1994). When designed with care, shelters support not only individual recovery but collective repair. In this way, emergency shelters are relational environments where people begin to reengage with the systems and relationships that support long-term housing success.
For those disconnected from traditional services or wary of public institutions, shelters may also be the only accessible entry point to care. Interventions based in shelters have successfully reached individuals considered marginal or fearful of public systems (Burty, 2004). Implemented with intention, shelters can interrupt cycles of harm and re-establish trust, laying the foundation for long-term housing stability.
Emergency Shelter FAQ
Isn’t this just a band-aid? Shouldn’t we focus on prevention?
Prevention is necessary but insufficient in the absence of a robust crisis response. Emergency shelters are the critical infrastructure that supports and enables prevention efforts. They stabilize people in moments of acute need, offering basic safety and access to services before upstream interventions can take effect. Without shelter, individuals remain exposed to trauma, violence, and worsening health conditions that make long-term recovery more difficult (Kushel, 2023).
Even families, despite the known limitations of emergency housing, report feeling safer in shelters than in encampments or vehicles (Garcia & Keuntae, 2020). However, the best outcomes emerge when shelter is paired with rapid connection to housing and supportive services. Rather than detracting from prevention or housing investments, emergency shelter expands the conditions under which those goals can succeed.
Why invest in shelters instead of permanent housing?
Housing First systems rely on both immediate shelter access and permanent housing supply (Miller, 2016). Emergency shelters serve as the front door to coordinated housing systems. They provide basic safety, health stabilization, and opportunities for assessment and service engagement. Without them, the pathway to housing is inaccessible to many people.
Investments in shelter complement investments in permanent housing. When shelters are integrated with health care, case management, and housing navigation, they improve long-term health and housing outcomes. Portland’s emergency shelter response leverages available vacant spaces, enabling the City to swiftly address this humanitarian crisis. Permanent housing remains the goal.
Is the 90-day shelter limit reasonable?
Yes. The 90-day model emphasizes system efficiency and alignment with national recommendations that shelter stays remain brief and linked to housing transitions (Miller, 2016). The policy’s effectiveness depends not solely on the timeline itself but on the availability of supportive services and exit pathways. In other words, it establishes a system benchmark intended to encourage active case management and put pressure on inter-governmental cooperation. As with any system benchmark, its implementation will continually be evaluated to ensure it supports, rather than hinders, equitable and humane outcomes. Thus, the 90-day timeframe functions as a policy mechanism aimed at encouraging throughput and prioritizing housing-directed planning.
Aren’t shelters just a justification for encampment sweeps?
No. In fact, one goal of expanding shelters is to reduce police interactions. Overnight shelters are part of a broader system of repair. They create pathways to reduce displacement. The goal is not to clear people from public space, but to create dignified alternatives that meet immediate needs and support transitions into housing.
Temporary emergency shelter is a vital component of a larger system to reduce encampment sweeps (Barocas, 2023). For instance, Chang et al. (2022) recommend voluntary, low-barrier shelters to reduce the frequency of encampment sweeps and mitigate persistent harms of living outside. In cities without adequate shelter, encampment removals continue under the justification of public health or safety concerns. Investing in low-barrier shelters creates a public health alternative to enforcement. When we create and implement policies that center care, we build the systems that make it possible to end displacement.
Conclusion
Emergency shelter is not a substitute for permanent housing, but it is an essential part of a just and functional housing system. Without it, we leave people in harm’s way, exposed to trauma, violence, and deteriorating health. When implemented thoughtfully, shelters create critical entry points to care and housing. They reduce reliance on emergency services, support public health, and lay the groundwork for recovery and reconnection.
Portland’s shelter strategy reflects a pragmatic and values-driven approach. It centers dignity, autonomy, and access, while responding to the urgency of the crisis on our streets. We cannot end homelessness without permanent housing. However, we also cannot build a more equitable system if people are left to wait in unsafe and degrading conditions. Emergency shelter, as part of a layered and coordinated response, brings us closer to a system rooted in care and builds the infrastructure we need to make housing a reality for all.
References
Aron, L., & Burt, M. (2001). Helping America’s homeless: Emergency shelter or affordable housing. Urban Institute.
Barocas, J. A., Nall, S. K., Axelrath, S., Pladsen, C., Boyer, A., Kral, A. H., (2023). Population-level effects of involuntary displacement of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness who inject drugs in US cities. The Journal of American Medical Association, 329(17), 1478-1486.
Burty, M. B. (2004). Continuum of care. In D. E. Levinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of homelessness. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Chang, J. S., Riley, P. B., Aguirre, R. J., Lin, K, Corwin, M., Nelson, N. (2022). Harms of encampment abatements on the health of unhoused people. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health, 2(1), e100064.
Dordick, G. (1996). More than refuge: The social world of a homeless shelter. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24, 373–404.
Friedman, B. D. (1994). No place like home: A study of two homeless shelters. Journal of Social Distress & the Homeless, 3(4) 321-339.
Garcia, C., Doran, K., & Kushel, M. (2024). Homelessness and health: Factors, evidence, innovations that work, and policy recommendations. Health Affairs, 43(2), 164-171.
Garcia, I., & Keuntae, K. (2020). “I felt safe”: The role of the rapid rehousing program in supporting the security of families experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake County, Utah. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 4840-4855.
Gonzalez, A., & Tyminski, Q. (2020). Sleep deprivation in an American homeless population. Sleep Health, 6(4), 489-494.
Kaltsidis, G., Grenier, G., Cao, Z., & Fleury, M. J. (2020). Change in housing status among homeless and formerly homeless individuals in Quebec, Canada: A profile study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 6254-6269.
Kushel, M., Moore, T., Birkmeyer, J., Dhatt, Z., Duke, M., Knight, K. R., & Young Ponder, K. (2023, June). Toward a new understanding: The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness. UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.
Leger, D., Beck, F., & Richard, J. B. (2017). Sleep loss in the homeless—an additional factor of precariousness: Survey in a group of homeless people. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(2), 278-279.
Miller, K. (2016, April). Using shelter strategically to end homelessness. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
Richards, J., & Kuhn, R. (2023). Unsheltered homelessness and health: A literature review. AJPM Focus, 2(1), e:100043.
Roncarati, J. S., Baggett, T. P., O’Connell, J. J., Hwang, S. W., Cook, E. F., Kriefer, N., & Sorensen, G. (2018). Mortality among unsheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts, 2000-2009. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(9), 1242-1248.