Homelessness Reaches the Supreme Court: As It Weighs One Approach, A Better One Waits in the Wings

Mission: Reducing the number of people visibly living outside by providing housing to people who don’t have housing.

Action: When communities were granted new resources, they chose to direct 69 percent of the funds towards housing and services that help people maintain housing (e.g., case management). Most of the remaining dollars went towards street outreach and other supports that help people while they’re still homeless.

This approach results in people no longer being unsheltered in public.

Mission: Reducing the number of people visibly living outside by forcing them into less visible locations.

Action: In cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco encampment evictions forced people to leave targeted locations… but most remain unsheltered and encampments often return (because people have no place to go). L.A.’s encampments response was said to be a “complete and total failure.” Other cities have had similar results.

This approach results in people continuing to be unsheltered in public spaces.

Communities receiving supplemental funds for unsheltered homelessness tapped people with relevant expertise to shape and implement plans, including:

• Homeless services providers
• Mental and physical healthcare providers
• Housing search and public benefits experts
• People who experienced homelessness and identified ways to exit those circumstances.

The people who are most equipped for and experienced in this work are the ones who should be leading it.

Criminalization involves police officers and others in law enforcement. The primary duties of these professionals include “investigation, apprehension, and detention of individuals suspected of criminal offenses.” Such offenses often include significant threats to public safety (e.g., murder, robbery, and physical and sexual assaults). In the Supreme Court, numerous organizations and public officials are supporting the notion that living unsheltered is not a crime.

As first responders, law enforcement officers often encounter many other issues. However, they are typically not required to be experts on homelessness, poverty, mental health, or other issues tied to living unsheltered. Significant voices in the law enforcement community say they are not equipped for this work, and their involvement increases the potential for violent encounters while distracting them significant threats to public safety or “activities that matter the most”.

To be awarded a targeted grant on unsheltered homelessness from HUD, local homelessness experts had to demonstrate a thoughtful and detailed decision-making process behind their approaches. In their applications, they had to show that they:

• Analyzed local homelessness data.
• Engaged community members.
• Created a comprehensive strategy for unsheltered people.
• Committed to partnerships with housing and healthcare providers.

After engaging in this process, local homelessness experts demonstrated a clear, data-driven foundation to move forward with their approaches to unsheltered homelessness.

Local media often generates stories about people living unsheltered. Businesses and citizens complain to various types of city leaders.

In response to these pressures, local leaders take action. They often prioritize action over consulting strategies that will improve homelessness in the long term. Local leaders will decide to move people out of a targeted area because a reporter chose to talk about it, or the people in that neighborhood are particularly loud or socially or economically powerful.

Communities who received an influx of funds for unsheltered homelessness had to prove that they are using methods that work. Their focus on housing and services reflect the Housing First strategy, which pairs quick access to permanent housing with voluntary supportive services (like case management and treatment). This strategy has been repeatedly evaluated and proven effective (even for people managing severe mental health and substance use challenges).

Additionally, communities reported investing in plans to both scale up previously tested strategies and pilot new innovative approaches.

Fifty-seven homelessness researchers agree — there is no evidence that criminalization reduces homelessness or the existence of people visibly sleeping in public spaces.

Further, there is no evidence that criminalization reduces citizen complaint calls, or that public safety increases as a result.

Before receiving grants to address the unsheltered crisis, community street outreach teams often used their limited resources to target specific populations (e.g., veterans or youth) and specific neighborhoods. New resources have allowed grantees to expand their outreach to new types of people and new locations.

With enough dollars, communities can sustain and expand this work to reach all unsheltered people in all neighborhoods.

Well-resourced street outreach offers aid — connecting people to such items as food, health services, housing search help, or shelter.

Criminalization indiscriminately impacts all people who just so happen to be in an area targeted for encampment sweeps or ordinance enforcement efforts. Those unsheltered in other areas continue to be visibly homeless wherever they are.

Criminalization imposes measures such as displacement, property seizures, fines, and incarceration on people experiencing homelessness.

Social scientists point to research that says these measures worsen a person’s health, perpetuate poverty, and cause a list of other harms.