Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Housing Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge more sober‑living and transparency on homelessness program metrics
Summary
During the Douglas County commission’s April 9 public comment period, residents asked the county to support more sober‑living housing (Oxford houses), expanded supported housing and clearer, measurable performance metrics for homelessness programs and flexible housing funds.
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Housing Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public comment at the Douglas County Commission meeting April 9 included appeals for increased sober‑living housing and for better public metrics reporting on homelessness programs.
Ellen Johnson, speaking from the public podium, urged the county and community partners to support more Oxford houses and other sober‑living environments. Johnson cited informal comparisons in nearby jurisdictions: "Shawnee County has a 78,000 residents and 44 Oxford houses, and Douglas County has a 12,000 residents and 12 Oxford houses," she said, arguing larger shared houses provide better social support, lower costs and improved employment and family outcomes for people in recovery.
Johnson also raised concerns about the shortage of supported housing for people with serious mental‑health and substance‑use disorders, recounting a personal example in which her late partner lost access to supported housing and ultimately died while homeless.
John Imes of Lawrence urged the commission to publish measurable performance metrics for the county’s homeless programs so taxpayers can see accountability and program impact over time. Imes pointed to existing charts in Flexible Housing Program documentation and suggested year‑to‑year breakdowns by population served (e.g., chronic homelessness, transitional youth, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities) and by outcomes such as behavioral‑health utilization and criminal‑justice involvement.
Commissioners did not respond during public comment beyond thanking speakers and noting staff follow‑up options; staff indicated written comments are accepted and that the commission values input.

