Lessons from Transitional Villages in
Oregon and Washington
Scott Wagner spent 4 days in July, 2018, touring Dignity
Village in Portland, and eight villages in the King County, Washington area
that house about 500 people. The villages represent a broad spectrum of approaches
to building and leveraging the power of community to create and maintain
stability. All utilized either complete or a high degree of self-management
Highlights
-
Self-management
works well if it is supported by strong, proven protocols, volunteers, and
training. Most villages are led by a “Triad”, three rotating volunteers who
typically manage security, outside interactions, and operations. Management is
protective of and fiercely loyal to their villages; they are motivated by a
deep appreciation of the value of community to clients. Villages have one or
two paid staff, typically only one fulltime “case manager” targeting preparations
and coordination of housing placement.
-
All
villages maintain a 24 hour security watch, a single entry point, stopping
and logging of all visitors, and a ‘ban list’, which helps enormously with
safety issues. The security shack provides a consistent locus of community life
and coordination. The constant presence of a watch helps maintain a culture of
zero tolerance of violence and thievery.
-
Neighbors
have a generally positive view of established villages. Mandated litter
patrols, involvement in local affairs, and a tendency for villagers to work or
be home (like most people) means a low and positive profile locally. Crime has
decreased in most areas since village creation.
-
7 of the 9 villages visited were completely
composed of insulated sheds, mostly of
one design, costing about $2500 in materials. Most are funded through donation;
all were constructed by volunteers and clients. All but the family units are
designed to be moved by pallet jack; most arrived on a truck. They have very
inexpensive built-in oil heating and electricity for lighting and charging,
with solar power being implemented in stages. For some villages, infrastructure
investment upfront was significant. All villages have centralized bathroom, kitchens, and a community
areas. Most have overflow group
tents for the winter to take in more of the unhoused during the night.
-
Villages
are often successfully shut down or moved. Several shed villages have moved
recently, with other moves planned. The oldest tent village in America (Tent
Village 3, 18 years old) purposefully moves about every three months, typically
adjusting the number and mix of their population each time. They do this to share
the burden among sponsor organizations, to provide a wide variety of
neighborhoods a positive experience of the unhoused (including litter removal
in the broad area), and to keep the tent community used to the notion of
minimal impact.
-
Villages are
designed for different locales and emphasis, with loose focus on the aged,
local people, the newly homeless, substance users, the disabled, etc. Stability
and planning are enhanced when somewhat specific populations are grouped
together. Villagers’ success in permanent housing placement varies in intuitive
ways, depending on the population, the location, the availability of case
management, and local housing funding.
-
Villages
mandate about 10 hours a week in chores by all clients, and regular attendance
at village meetings. Drugs and alcohol are not allowed, except in one “low
barrier” village; abuse is managed by managing behavior. Most villages have
problems that crop up due to drug use, but they do not dominate village life or
ruin the culture they’ve developed.
-
Villages
generally cost about $300 per month per client, or $10 a day, with funding
provided by a varied combination of government, grants, donation, and client
rents. Costs are about 25% sewer/water/garbage, 40% staff and contract
services, with the rest miscellaneous insurance, supplies, and vouchers. Tent
City 3 (~100) and Dignity Village (~60) are self-funded through donations; the
rest receive government support.
Overwhelmingly,
clients prefer village life over shelter life. Client satisfaction matters
greatly when trying to achieve stability and prepare for permanent housing. Because
clients are in the coordinated entry system and trying to obtain permanent
housing, no time limits are employed. Residents are provided equivalent access
to services and permanent shelter as shelter residents, but at much less
initial and ongoing cost to government, and at much higher levels of
satisfaction
Prepared for Homeless Action!
July 16, 2018 by Scott Wa
gner
