Why Providing Free Services Alone Will Not Solve the Homelessness Crisis
Solving Oregon’s homelessness crisis requires more than offering free services to unhoused individuals. If free services were sufficient, the crisis would already be behind us.
Portland’s Commitment to Compassion
Portland has a well-earned reputation for compassion. Residents have repeatedly shown generosity, approving five affordable housing bond measures in recent years, allocating hundreds of millions to supportive services, and financially supporting over 325 nonprofits dedicated to addressing homelessness. These efforts reflect the deep empathy of our community—but despite these investments, homelessness has continued to grow.
Noncompliance needs to be addressed
The truth is, until we confront the uncomfortable but essential issue of noncompliance among a portion of the homeless population, meaningful progress will remain out of reach.
By "noncompliant," I refer to those who are consistently offered:
Access to safe, clean shelter,
Free addiction treatment services, and
Free mental health care—
—but choose not to accept any of these resources.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. Many individuals living on our streets have been offered help multiple times and have declined it. Reasons vary - whether due to untreated mental illness, addiction, distrust, or a desire for complete autonomy, their refusal to engage with available services renders even the most generous programs ineffective.
We must grapple with a difficult but necessary question: What should be done when people refuse help that could improve both their own lives and the overall health and safety of our communities?
No solution to homelessness will succeed if it ignores the reality of noncompliance. Continuing to pour resources into services without requiring any form of accountability or participation will only prolong the crisis.
Consequences of Avoiding the Issue of Noncompliance
Failing to address chronic noncompliance has serious consequences:
Ineffective spending: Millions are allocated to services that remain underutilized by those most in need.
Public health and safety concerns: Unregulated encampments pose risks such as fatalities, substance abuse, illegal activities, waste buildup, strain on public resources, property damage, and increased crime.
Community fatigue: Public support for long-term solutions wanes when residents perceive a lack of progress in reducing homelessness.
How should we deal with the “noncompliant?”
Expand Court-Ordered and Assisted Outpatient Treatment - Develop legal pathways for mandated mental health and addiction treatment in cases where individuals pose a risk to themselves or others. This approach prioritizes care while ensuring safety.
Implement a structured intake process along with well-resourced, service-oriented temporary shelters—similar in organization to FEMA camps—that include personalized case management and supportive tracking to better address individual needs.
Establish Consequences for Chronic Noncompliance – While everyone has the right to dignity, no one has the right to live on our streets. Compliance with our vagrancy laws should be required by those who choose homelessness as their lifestyle of choice. Policies should include clear, graduated consequences starting with outreach and warnings, and, if necessary, followed by incarceration of ever-increasing times served for those who continue to flaunt our vagrancy laws.
I can see your raised eyebrows after reading the previous paragraph. “Well, that’s not going to happen in Portland,” is what you’re thinking. But this policy is being considered right now in California, the state with the largest homeless population in the country. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan is proposing that unhoused people who refuse multiple offers of shelter should face arrest, arguing that they have a “responsibility” to move indoors if the city has a bed available.
Conclusion
It’s time to restore a necessary balance between the rights of the unhoused and the rights of the broader community. For too long, the scales have tipped too far in one direction—allowing public spaces to become unsafe, unsanitary, and unusable for the vast majority of residents. Compassion means creating a system that encourages recovery and reintegration—not permanent, unchallenged street living.
Oregon cannot solve its homelessness crisis without acknowledging the role of noncompliance. While services are essential, they alone cannot resolve this crisis. Policymakers should strive to balance compassion for individuals experiencing homelessness with the safety and well-being of the broader community. Envision Oregon cities free of encampments, where businesses prosper, neighborhoods flourish and homelessness is rare.
