City staff report on encampment outreach: staff recommend district‑level outreach workers and note barriers to shelter

City outreach staff told the Equitable Growth and Housing Committee that the city’s street outreach and encampment response has shifted to a warmer, multi‑partner model but that capacity and shelter availability remain limiting factors.

Brooke (city street outreach staff) said she and colleague Amara visit encampments after CSR reports, engage occupants and offer shelter and services. "When we originally get a CSR ... Amara and myself will go out and we'll investigate the area. We will engage with the occupants, and one of our first points of contact, we ask them if they would like for us to link them with shelter," Brooke said. Staff said many people decline shelter for reasons including rules and loss of autonomy, prior bans from shelters, lack of identification and documentation, and language or cross‑jurisdictional issues for people coming from Kentucky.

Services and partnerships: Outreach staff described partnerships with Shelter House (men’s and women’s programs), Women Helping Women, the engagement center and Crossroads for substance‑use assistance, the health department social workers, PATH (Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health homeless outreach) and Generosity 513 for boots‑on‑the‑ground supports, including help obtaining IDs and completing housing applications. Staff said they have occasionally provided sustained on‑site assistance (for example, accompanying a person to get ID and Social Security documentation) and that having multiple partner organizations available during outreach increases uptake.

Shelter availability and legal process: Staff said that in two years they have ‘‘not yet had a shelter bed available’’ at times and noted some clients are ineligible for certain shelters (bans, documentation issues). Committee members asked how the city determines when to issue 72‑hour notices and when housing is considered available; staff said notices are issued when encampments are unsanitary or unsafe, and that staff re‑offer services at notice and cleanup operations. Council member Kramer asked the administration to clarify the legal landscape—how the city’s obligations and options intersect with court settlements and state law changes—citing frustration from constituents about tents near playgrounds and public safety concerns.

Staff recommendations and council response: Outreach staff and several council members recommended expanding the outreach team with at least one dedicated outreach worker per council district, adding more social‑work capacity, and pairing those workers with veterans services to reach unhoused veterans. Brooke said a district approach would reduce response time and increase trust. Council members underscored the need for more affordable housing and for stronger multi‑agency coordination; one council member noted an observed increase in campers from Kentucky after that state changed its laws.

Next steps: The committee accepted the report and several members signaled they will seek legal clarification and further administrative recommendations; a council motion by Council Member Kramer seeks additional legal analysis of city enforcement options and distinctions among parks, riverfront and playgrounds.

Ending: Committee members praised outreach staff for on‑the‑ground engagement and urged the administration to return with recommendations on staffing levels, interagency coordination and legal guidance.