Over the past few weeks, the city of San Francisco has begun aggressive encampment evictions as a direct response to a recent executive order by California Governor Gavin Newsom. This move reflects a homelessness response that is expensive and ineffective, and, once again, taxpayers will end up footing the bill for a “solution” that does not work.
San Francisco’s response is part of a broader rising movement of criminalization efforts around the country. Over the past two years, more than two dozen cities and states have already passed laws banning public camping and begun enforcing these mandates through encampment evictions.
Newsom’s mandate is the first major order since the Supreme Court ruled in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that fining or arresting people for sleeping outdoors (even when no shelter is available) does not violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the 8th Amendment.
Before state and local governments consider similar actions, it’s critically important for elected officials to understand the crippling socio-economic effects that mass encampment removal efforts will have on their budgets and their constituents’ tax dollars.
What is the Cost of Encampment Evictions?
A report published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) analyzed the costs associated with encampment responses in four major U.S. cities: Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; San Jose, CA; and Tacoma, WA during 2019.
In these four cities, encampment response entailed three distinct actions:
- removing structures and belongings from encampments;
- removing people from encampments; and
- direct outreach to connect unhoused people with services and somewhere to go after removal.
The study found that the total cost of intervention per unsheltered person measured in encampment-related expenditures ranged from $1,672 in San Jose to $6,208 in Tacoma ($2,835 in Chicago and $2,102 in Houston).
In the year 2019, total spending on encampment activities reached up to $8,557,000 in San Jose, $3,905,000 in Tacoma, $3,572,000 in Chicago, and $3,393,000 in Houston.
Resources for Encampment Evictions Are Inefficiently Spent, and City Budgets Hurt
Encampment evictions are an incredible strain on resources, but we also must remember who pays the bill. Federal funding from HUD cannot be used for encampment removals or policing. Therefore, cities account for nearly all funding used for encampment removals. Those costs are paid by taxpayers.
For example, in the HUD/HHS study, cities funded 97 percent of encampment responses in Tacoma and 91 percent of encampment responses in Chicago. To be sure, the costs of street outreach are a significant portion of these expenses. But we also know that services offered under the threat of arrest or removal are less effective: they can erode trust and discourage participation.
Encampment evictions only serve to prolong one’s experience of homelessness in the majority of cases, where even more funding will be required to support or remove them again.
In fact, many homeless encampments reappear soon after being swept. Last week, just days after police had cleared multiple encampments in San Francisco, tents had returned to those same locations.
What Cities, States, and Taxpayers Can Expect When Criminalization Efforts are Implemented at Scale
Around the country, taxpayers want solutions. With this new mandate, instead of seeing solutions, taxpayers in California who once only saw encampments on state property will now begin to see them in their own neighborhoods.
City budgets and funding for homelessness responses in California are already extremely tight and this new order will undoubtedly cause city budgets to become more inefficient. San Francisco already spends billions on homelessness responses each year 1 of 2 things will happen:
- Funding will have to grow to accommodate the increased number of encampment evictions.
- Funds that would otherwise be going to affordable housing, increasing shelter capacity, or necessary services for unhoused people in shelter, temporary housing, or permanent supportive housing will need to be redirected to encampment evictions and removals.
Other cities around the country can expect similar consequences if they decide to implement similar widespread encampment bans.
Funding for Housing-Minded Approaches is Money Better Spent
Homelessness solutions require investment, and a lot of it. This is a fact no matter which approach a city decides to take. However, there is insurmountable evidence on the effectiveness of housing-minded approaches and the inefficacy of criminalization efforts.
To be clear, housing projects, assistance, and development are not cheap either, but they are the only thing that ends someone’s experience of homelessness permanently and prevents long term spending on someone living on the streets. And in multiple cases, studies have shown that these initiatives can actually reduce the amount of money cities spend on homelessness in the long term.
All taxpayers should be pushing their local governments to invest in affordable housing assistance and initiatives. Their tax dollars will go to funding real, long-term solutions instead of expensive short term “fixes” that harm everyone in the process.
It may seem counterintuitive or dehumanizing to reduce this work down to the monetary effect on taxpayers. But analyzing the efficacy and implications of these criminalization efforts through an economic lens can be a powerful advocacy tool at the local and state levels, where funding and resource allocation are of the utmost importance in supporting our unhoused neighbors.