A new report from Portland State University’s Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative (HRAC) and the OHSU-PSU School of Public Health offers a close look at how people actually move through homelessness in Multnomah County. Titled “Without a Map: A Lived Experience Study of the Paths People Create Through Homelessness,” the publication is the second and final part of the Pathways study. It is built on the accounts of people who have lived through homelessness, not on case files or shelter logs.
The report’s central finding is that homelessness is rarely a straight line. People do not simply fall into it and climb out. They weave, backtrack, pause and improvise. The study’s authors call these routes paths, and they argue that understanding them is essential if policy is to do more than manage the crisis.
What the Pathways Study Covers
The Pathways study began as an effort to track how individuals navigate homelessness over time. The first part laid the groundwork, and this second report completes the picture. HRAC and the OHSU-PSU School of Public Health collaborated on the research, which focuses exclusively on Multnomah County.
The report’s title is deliberate. It refers to the absence of a clear route out of homelessness. The people interviewed did not follow a script. They improvised, using whatever resources appeared — a friend’s couch, a shelter bed, a tent, a job that did not last.
Researchers spoke with people at different stages of their journeys. Some were currently unhoused. Others had exited homelessness and were living in permanent housing. The goal was to capture the full arc of the experience, not just a snapshot.
The Journeys People Take
The report identifies several distinct patterns in how people move through homelessness. Some paths are short and direct. A person loses a job, spends a few weeks in a shelter, and finds a new place. Others are long and circular. A person exits homelessness, loses housing again, and re-enters the system.
The report’s authors stress that these paths are not random. They are shaped by structural forces — the cost of rent, the availability of jobs, the rules of the shelter system, the limits of public assistance. A person’s individual choices matter, but they operate within a narrow set of options.
One key pattern is the cycle of exit and return. People leave homelessness into housing that is unstable — a room in a shared apartment, a unit with a short lease, a place they cannot afford on their own. When that housing falls apart, they cycle back. The report argues that this pattern is common because the housing available to people leaving homelessness is often as fragile as the homelessness itself.
Another pattern is the long pause. People remain in homelessness for extended periods not because they are not trying to leave, but because the barriers are too high. A criminal record, a poor credit history, a disability, a lack of identification — any one of these can block the path to housing.
Shelters and Services in the Mix
The report examines how shelters and services fit into these journeys. For some, shelters are a temporary stop. For others, they are a last resort. The report notes that shelters can help, but they can also create obstacles.
Some people interviewed for the study said they avoided shelters because of safety concerns, strict rules, or the loss of autonomy. Others said shelters were essential — a place to sleep, a place to store belongings, a place to connect with caseworkers.
The report also looks at the role of help from others. People who had assistance — from a caseworker, a peer, a family member — often moved through homelessness more quickly. Those who navigated alone faced longer, harder journeys.
The authors do not present this as a simple solution. They note that this kind of help is unevenly available. Some people have access to dedicated caseworkers. Others have no one to call.
The Daily Work of Survival
The report spends considerable time on the daily work of being unhoused. This is not idle detail. The authors argue that survival itself is labor — time spent finding food, water, a place to sleep, a place to charge a phone, a place to use a bathroom.
That labor consumes energy that might otherwise go toward finding housing or a job. The report describes this as a burden on people’s time and attention. A person who spends four hours a day securing basic needs has less time for a job search.
The report also documents the toll of constant vigilance. People who are unhoused must watch their belongings, their safety, their health. This vigilance is exhausting, and it compounds over time.
Accounts of Leaving Homelessness
The report includes direct accounts from people who have left homelessness. These accounts are varied. Some describe a single breakthrough — a housing voucher, a job, a family member who offered a room. Others describe a slow accumulation of small gains.
One consistent theme is the importance of permanent housing. People who exited into stable, long-term housing stayed out. People who exited into temporary or shared arrangements were far more likely to return.
The report also notes that the process of exiting is rarely smooth. People describe waiting lists, paperwork, missed appointments, and bureaucratic dead ends. A single missed deadline can undo months of progress.
Recommendations in the Report
The report does not stop at description. It offers recommendations for how to improve the system.
The first recommendation is to prioritize permanent housing over temporary fixes. The report argues that stable housing is the foundation on which everything else — employment, health, family — can be rebuilt.
The second recommendation is to reduce the barriers to exiting homelessness. This includes simplifying paperwork, coordinating services, and making it easier for people to prove their identity and income.
The third recommendation is to support peer navigation. The report suggests that people who have exited homelessness are well-positioned to help others still in it. They understand the system, and they can offer practical guidance.
The report also calls for more data. The authors note that the current system tracks people by episode, not by journey. It records how many people are homeless on a given night, but it does not capture how long they have been homeless, how many times they have exited and returned, or what paths they have taken.
Limits of the Study
The report is candid about its limitations. It is based on interviews with a specific group of people in a specific county. It does not claim to represent every experience of homelessness.
The authors note that the study captures a moment in time. The people interviewed were navigating a particular housing market, a particular set of services, a particular policy environment. Change any of those, and the paths might look different.
The report also acknowledges that some experiences are harder to capture than others. People who are chronically homeless, people with severe mental illness, people who are avoiding the system entirely — these groups are underrepresented in the interviews.
Key Facts Box
- Report title: “Without a Map: A Lived Experience Study of the Paths People Create Through Homelessness”
- Produced by: Portland State University’s Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative (HRAC) and the OHSU-PSU School of Public Health
- Focus area: Multnomah County
- Status: Second and final part of the Pathways study
- Method: Interviews with people who are currently or formerly unhoused
The report does not provide a simple answer to the crisis. It provides something more useful: a clear description of how the crisis actually works. People do not fail to exit homelessness because they lack will. They fail because the paths out are narrow, fragile and hard to find.
The study’s authors argue that the system can do better. It can build more permanent housing. It can remove barriers. It can support peer navigators. It can track journeys, not just episodes. The report is a map of the problem — and the map shows that the routes people take are shaped by forces the system controls.
Source: phys.org