Why the CEIC Urges Council to Vote “No” on the Proposed $4.3 Million Cut to the Impact Reduction Program
From our experience in the Central Eastside, we have seen firsthand how the City of Portland’s Impact Reduction Program (IRP) provides a crucial balance between compassion, public health, and livability. IRP is a structured, legally required system designed to ensure humane treatment of individuals experiencing homelessness while keeping streets safe and accessible for workers, businesses, and residents. There’s a lot of information about this proposal, so we’re sharing a clear overview of how the Impact Reduction Program works, what the proposed $4.3 million cut would mean, and why we are urging Council to vote “no” on this amendment.
How the Impact Reduction Program Works
Before any cleanup occurs, reported campsites go through a multi-step process that emphasizes outreach, assessment, and support:
Assessment: Partner organizations visit reported sites to document conditions, identify safety or health risks, and determine whether outreach or crisis intervention is needed.
Outreach: If individuals appear to need help, crews coordinate with Crisis Prevention Specialists, Street Services Coordination Center (SSCC) outreach team, or County contracted outreach providers.
Notification and Support: Campers are given advance notice. If they begin cleaning or relocating, IRP teams assist — often offering to connect them to shelter, recovery programs, or family reunification.
Reminder: In most cases,12-24 hours before a removal, IRP teams return to check in, again offering resources or transportation to shelter.
Property Handling: Personal belongings collected are photographed, cataloged, and stored for 30 days. Identification and essential items are kept indefinitely and can be reclaimed at any time.
What Qualifies as a Campsite for Removal
There’s a common misconception that the City removes camps arbitrarily when, in fact, removals are based on health, safety, and accessibility impacts. These factors include:
Evidence of drug use or hazardous materials
Accumulation of uncontained debris or biohazards
Proximity to schools, parks, businesses, or residences
ADA access issues or blocked rights-of-way
Verified reports of violence or criminal activity
Environmental impacts in natural areas
Restricting critical city maintenance activities
Camps that are low-impact and located away from sensitive areas like schools or business entrances are typically de-prioritized unless they pose a direct health or safety risk.
It’s worth noting that in many of these assessments, teams find abandoned or inactive campsites filled with trash, debris, and hazardous materials. These are still public health and safety concerns and without the IRP, there is no clear system in place to remove them. If the IRP is not performing this work, the question becomes: who will?
Why the Proposed Budget Cut Matters
The proposal to redirect $4.3 million from the IRP budget would dramatically reduce the City’s ability to maintain this essential balance. According to the City’s Impact Reduction team, if the cut passes, only $2 million would remain for campsite removals citywide through the rest of the fiscal year. This is based on dollars already spent, and the expiration of ODOT’s agreement with the City to do camp removal work on ODOT’s property in the City. It’s a known fact that the Central Eastside has multiple jurisdictional overlays, with large and often unmanaged ODOT properties along the Esplanade and main corridors. The reduction of IRP funds would have a serious and detrimental impact on the District.
Further, the reduction would shrink IRP crews from 20 to about 6, cutting weekly cleanups from roughly 155 sites to just 25–30. This means slower response times, longer cleanup delays, and likely suspension of micro-cleaning programs such as Ground Score Association’s GLITTER program, which provide vital sanitation services and low-barrier employment opportunities in business districts like ours.
While some have suggested this cut would not affect critical contracts and services, that’s not the case. The City Council cannot selectively choose which programs continue. The IRP ecosystem operates as a network of interdependent contracts that would all feel the impact of such a reduction. And these smaller contracts would be de-prioritized because the City is legally required to maintain certain levels of access and maintenance under the Tozer Settlement, an ADA compliance agreement. In order to remain compliant, this cut would force the IRP to cut smaller contracts.
Why This Work Matters
While much of the IRP budget supports trash removal and sanitation, these efforts are about more than cleanliness. They are public health measures that reduce fire risk, prevent disease, and maintain safe conditions for both housed and unhoused Portlanders.
The IRP ensures that people are treated with dignity through consistent engagement, outreach, and property protection–while keeping the city accessible and functioning.
The system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best framework Portland has to manage the humanitarian and public health realities on our streets. Maintaining full funding means maintaining that balance and keeping Portland compliant, compassionate, and livable.
What We’re Seeing in the Central Eastside
Since November 1, we’ve seen IRP crews, outreach providers, and police working together to help individuals transition into shelter and recovery services. It’s one of the first times in recent memory that this coordination has felt tangible in our District.
As more neighbors move into shelters aligned with the Mayor’s plan to reduce unsheltered homelessness, now is not the time to dismantle the system supporting that progress. Voting “Yes” on this budget would be a step backward from the City’s efforts to stabilize and restore livability in Portland.
We look forward to a day when the community no longer needs to fund programs like the IRP because every Portlander has access to safe, stable housing and our shared spaces are healthy and vibrant. When that day comes we will be eager to have that conversation. But the hasty manner in which this proposal has been introduced is undermining the progress now underway and does not give the Mayor’s plan a chance to prove itself. Portland deserves thoughtful, coordinated transition–not a sudden reduction that would strain services, jeopardize legal compliance and leave neighborhoods without essential support.
The Central Eastside community stands ready to support real solutions–not reductions–that moves Portland forward. We urge the Council to vote “NO” on this reduction and to continue working collaboratively toward a brighter future.