Shelter workers and providers urge Portland to preserve 24-hour and alternative shelters, warn of job losses

Shelter staff, union leaders and operators told the Portland Homelessness and Housing Committee on April 8 that recent shifts in shelter funding and planning risk dismantling 24-hour shelters and alternative programs that staff say are more effective for many people experiencing homelessness.

The testimony came from front-line workers and service providers during a scheduled panel to give the committee “perspectives from shelter providers.” Speakers included Jay Nicholson, a case manager and union steward with AFSCME Local 1790; Misha Litvak, vice president of AFSCME Local 1790; shelter resident and Hazelnut Grove villager Barbara Webber; Tyler Fellini, executive director of Portland Jobs for Justice; and Michael Anderson of the Sideline Institute.

Why it matters: Panelists said the city’s proposed pivot toward an overnight congregate “line-and-day-center” model — where people wait in line each night for a bed, put belongings into daytime storage and return each evening to rejoin the queue — will worsen access for people with disabilities, reduce continuity of care and shrink engagement that leads to housing exits.

“My name is Jay Nicholson. I’m a case manager at a culturally specific shelter and a union steward for AFSCME Local 1790,” Nicholson told the committee. “A system that would require people to wait in line for a bed that is not guaranteed … is a system that gives no thought to accessibility or stability.”

Misha Litvak, who identified himself as vice president of AFSCME Local 1790 and a case manager at a culturally specific village shelter, told the committee that focusing only on cost-per-bed calculations misses repeat use of services and the value of durable, consistent programs. “It’s almost crude to reduce the work done by the staff of our programs and the services we provide to our city’s most vulnerable to a matter of budget line items,” Litvak said, using a long analogy about repeatedly buying cheap can openers to make the point that short-term savings can cost more over time.

Panelists gave specific examples of staffing impacts tied to recent funding decisions. Litvak said closures and budget cuts at local providers have already produced losses: about 15 jobs at a downtown site that closed March 31, “more than 20 jobs” at the Y East veteran-specific shelter and roughly 20 positions tied to Sunstone Way’s Market Street site. The witnesses emphasized that these are union jobs that they say help retention and service quality.

Community and operator perspectives: Barbara Webber, who described herself as a Hazelnut Grove resident and member of Shelter Now’s board, supported continued investment in microvillages and alternative shelters. “I am in support of micro villages and other, alternative shelters because everyone has a different story,” Webber said.

Tyler Fellini, executive director of Portland Jobs for Justice, urged immediate expansion of family shelter capacity, saying Multnomah County currently has “a six-month wait list for emergency family shelter.” He told the committee newly arrived asylum-seeking families face particular barriers, including no legal ability to work and limited language supports.

Michael Anderson of the Sideline Institute reported that inclusionary-zoning work initiated earlier this year at the state level will be reintroduced in 2026, and thanked the committee and Portland Housing Bureau for prior conversations.

City response and follow-ups: Council members and staff acknowledged the concerns and discussed jurisdictional funding distinctions. Brandy Westerman, humanitarian operations director for the city’s Portland Solutions, clarified which alternative-shelter sites the city directly contracts and which are county-contracted safe-rest villages. She listed four city-contracted sites operated by Urban Alchemy and several county-partnered villages, and confirmed those sites provide kitchens, bathrooms, laundry and on-site case management.

Councilor Zimmerman and others pressed for clarity about which programs are city- or county-funded and said they will raise staff concerns in joint oversight meetings with Multnomah County. Councilor Ryan encouraged the panel to bring the same presentation to the Multnomah County Board.

Discussion versus direction: The committee allotted time for follow-up questions but did not take formal action. Council members requested that presenters share their remarks with the county and said they would raise staff concerns in county oversight forums.

Ending: Committee members thanked the presenters and said staff would follow up with county oversight and contract questions. No committee votes or formal directives were recorded at the meeting on April 8.