Tulsa officials report a 4% rise in homelessness in 2025 Point‑in‑Time count; housing placements lag supply

City of Tulsa staff and homelessness service partners told the Public Works Committee the 2025 Point‑in‑Time (PIT) count identified 1,449 people experiencing homelessness on the night of Jan. 23, 2025 — a 4% increase from the same count in 2024 — and outlined challenges in rehousing capacity and affordability.

Emily (Housing Solutions staff) explained the PIT count process, which HUD requires for communities that receive federal homeless‑assistance funding: it counts people who were in emergency shelter beds, transitional housing, safe‑haven programs and those found during street canvasses. “We identified 1,449 individuals, who were experiencing homelessness on the midnight of January 23,” Emily said, and clarified that the count does not include people doubled up in hotels or couch surfing because HUD’s methodology excludes those situations.

Presentation slides and staff commentary showed the nightly tally included 812 people in emergency shelters (including 151 cold‑weather overflow beds used that night), 496 in places not meant for human habitation (encampments, vehicles, outdoors), 133 in transitional housing and eight in safe‑haven programs. Housing providers reported that during a cold week in February — when extra overflow space was opened — 1,450 unique individuals used shelter services, illustrating that when capacity expands people use it.

Officials emphasized an inflow–outflow problem: placements into housing in 2024 totaled approximately 778 people, down from prior years when roughly 1,000–1,100 people were rehoused annually. The city’s five‑year strategic target is to rehouse 5,000 individuals; Housing Solutions staff noted the system rehoused about 4,200 people over the previous five years and must scale up to meet demand.

Speakers and councilors discussed drivers of homelessness. Staff noted effective market rents across the Tulsa market rose about 40% from 2018 to 2025; the current effective market rent cited was about $1,040, compared with roughly $700 in earlier years. Housing staff said increased rents, the end of COVID‑era rental assistance and limited supply of deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing are major contributors. “There’s a real close correlation between our ability to help people reenter housing and the number of people who are on streets or shelter,” Emily said.

Subpopulation trends highlighted by presenters included a 19% increase in people classified as chronically homeless (people with a year or longer of homelessness and a disabling condition), an 18% increase in youth (linked to an expansion of youth‑specific programs and outreach), and a 6% rise in veterans (noted to be a small absolute change). Presenters stressed data nuance: the rise in counted youth reflected expanded youth services that allowed more young people to be found and served rather than evidence of a sudden surge in youth homelessness alone.

Councilors pressed staff on documentation and implementation: Councilor Dr. Wright asked for clearer one‑page settlement‑style summaries when litigation appears on agendas (in a separate agenda item), and in the PIT discussion asked about geographic spread and encampment counting methods. Staff said canvasses covered the county and extended service area; most surveys were conducted during the day and recorded where people were encountered, which may differ from the exact sleeping location.

On service needs, staff reported the most‑requested assistance was help obtaining housing, followed by food and clothing services; roughly 75% of people counted reported living in Tulsa prior to becoming homeless, and 82% were living in Oklahoma. The presenters recommended continued investment in permanent supportive housing, rental assistance, case management and ID‑assistance services; Councilor Bangor and others raised operational barriers such as fees and delays for birth certificates and Social Security documentation that impede rapid enrollment in housing programs.

Housing Solutions staff said short‑term funding (for example, ARPA allocations) can be used effectively as a bridge if coordinated with longer‑term supports and housing authority vouchers, but cautioned the system needs sustained resources to avoid reentry into homelessness after temporary aid expires.

No committee action was taken; the item was listed as discussion and update only.