How Police Are Dealing with Homelessness

Community Perspective 

Homeless Population 

Several anti-homeless policies are being implemented today, such as "Matrix" in San Francisco and "Zero Tolerance" in New York. The reasoning behind these moves to criminalize homelessness is that they will improve the quality of life for homeless individuals. With regards to the perspective of the homeless population within urban communities, these policies create negative interactions between the homeless and the police for a variety of life-sustaining activities. These include sleeping, panhandling, and food-sharing from charitable groups (National Homeless Association, 2020). Furthermore, many of these measures are implemented in areas where there are housing crises and a lack of affordable shelter, which limits the options that homeless individuals have even after negative encounters with law enforcement (National Homeless Association, 2020). It only perpetuates the cycle of negative police interactions, creating biases and prejudice among both parties. 

Furthermore, the implementation of these policies does not solve the issue of crime on urban streets, but rather creates crime and adds to increased crime rates. The criminalization of homeless people increases the rates of arrest and imprisonment by police from the homeless population, thus inflating crime rates that would otherwise remain lower. It assists in the demonization of the homeless population, as spikes in crime rates are attributed to the homeless. It creates a self-perpetuating cycle of creating and attributing criminal behaviour to homeless individuals, using the police to punish the homeless population for it, and contributing to the overpopulation of the U.S. prison system. 

Furthermore, many homeless individuals that end up in prison over their homelessness are unable to support themselves after returning to society. Thus, they return to homelessness, where the same cycle repeats itself. This system not only negatively affects homeless individuals, but it also negatively affects the government itself. Police hours are wasted on cases of criminalized homelessness, state and federal prisons waste tax dollars on this issue, and increased friction between the police and the community lower the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies, as well as trust in other public goods such as the criminal justice system and the social welfare system. 

Homed Population 

From the perspective of the wider community, consisting of homed individuals, there are mixed results. Some perceive the homeless community as being victimized by the police. This group supports the homeless community and condemns the actions of the police. Critics of these police enforcement patterns argue that rather than the better quality of life, these activities target and harm vulnerable populations (Robinson, 2019). These opponents of police enforcement of anti-homeless policy are split into two camps: those who feel that the policies themselves are the problem, and those who feel that the enforcement patterns of the policies by police are the problem (Robinson, 2019). 

However, there are those in the wider community who support the criminalization of the homeless. It occurs for a variety of reasons. One is for the reduction of crime victimization. Evidence shows that homeless individuals are at much greater risk of being victims of criminal activity (Nillson et al., 2020). This increase in the rate of crime victimization occurs regardless of police activity in the area. As a result, the majority of interventions to reduce crime victimization of homeless people revolve around preventing homelessness in the first place and reducing the population of homeless people on the streets (Nillson et al., 2020). These efforts to reduce homelessness include intervention from the police and are supported by many members of the greater community, even though the homeless population may not agree with this perspective. 

Another reason for community support for police intervention for the homeless population is known as spatial control, or sanitizing space (Amster, 2003). It refers to supporting negative police interactions with the homeless population due to a desire to remove homeless people from public spaces as they represent an “eyesore” (Clifford & Piston, 2017). Clifford and Piston (2017) posit that disgust fuels support for police activities that exclude the homeless from public life. Their study demonstrates that the ineffectiveness of these policies does not affect the proponents’ desires to further police activities removing homeless individuals from the public eye. More support for sanitization of the public space comes from the fact that activities such as panhandling and camping provide support for the homeless situation, and increase the spell of homelessness longer than is strictly necessary (Robinson, 2019). 

Police Perspective 

The police force is not blind to the issues created by the criminalization of homelessness, and law enforcement agencies have expressed their own doubts about how criminalizing homelessness affects their ability to carry out law enforcement while still respecting the privacy and freedom of U.S. residents. These policies cause concern for both the community and the law enforcement agencies, as police are increasingly viewed as a hindrance rather than a help to society (McNamara et al., 2013). 

The conflict between the community and the police force over this issue is exacerbated by the fact that there is little research on interactions between the homeless and the police. It limits the quality of the evidence-based interventions that can be put in place to mitigate this conflict (McNamara et al., 2013). This leaves the police force in an awkward position where they must uphold government policy, but enforcing it creates friction with the community, is ineffective, and serves to delegitimize police authority through negative interactions (Mazerolle et al, 2013) 

Findings 

The interactions between the police and the homeless population are governed by a variety of anti-homelessness policies put in place in various urban areas throughout the U.S. These policies are put in place for a variety of reasons, ranging from the reduction of homeless crime victimization to sanitizing the public space. Even though many of these policies are shown to be ineffective with regards to reducing the homeless population, they still receive public support, pushing local governments to enforce them (Clifford & Piston, 2017; Nillson et al., 2020). 

The criminalization of homelessness contributes to friction between the community and the police force. One of the main reasons for this is because anti-homelessness policies specifically target life-sustaining activities such as sleeping, eating free or subsidized food targeted towards the homeless, and camping. Activities that are perceived as harmful to the community rather than helpful delegitimize the police, and this negative perception of the police spreads to other areas of their jurisdiction, such as activities about serious crime (Mazerolle et al., 2013) 

The overall findings of this research are that homeless individuals frequently interact with the police, and often for negative reasons. These are the product of an increased rate of crime victimization, which is typical for homeless individuals, and the presence of anti-homeless policies and regulation. These negative interactions serve to increase distrust in law enforcement and lower rather than improve the quality of life of homeless individuals. Thus, the enforcement of anti-homeless laws by the police, and the patterns with which they enforce these laws, has the opposite effect of their original intention – to improve homeless people’s lives. 

Conclusions 

The regulation and criminalization of homeless populations have primarily proven ineffective to reduce the numbers of homeless people, or improving the quality of their lives. Instead, the disruptive actions in which the police engage to enforce these laws worsen the quality of life for the homeless, and limit their life-sustaining activities. These activities create friction between the community and the police, which only serves to delegitimize their authority, and negatively affect their other law enforcement activities. The police force itself recognizes that there is a severe issue when it comes challenges they face when enforcing the law and respecting the human dignity of the U.S. residents that they serve. As a result, both the homeless and the police recognize that there is a problem with the effectiveness of anti-homeless policy and regulation. However, proponents of anti-homeless policy into the broader community continue to support the enforcement of these policies. There is a need for public education on how ineffective these policies are on the overall homelessness situation. The media can help bridge this gap in knowledge by demonstrating how much more effective affordable housing and welfare is for reducing homelessness than punitive criminalization measures. This will diminish support for the criminalization of homelessness, and lower the number of negative interactions homeless individuals has with police. It will also assist the homeless in achieving a higher quality of life. 

References 

Clifford, S., & Piston, S. (2017). Explaining public support for counterproductive homelessness policy: The role of disgust.  Political Behavior ,  39 (2), 503-525. 

Ivanich, J. D., & Warner, T. D. (2019). Seen or unseen? The role of race in police contact among homeless youth.  Justice Quarterly ,  36 (5), 816-840. 

Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice.  Criminology ,  51 (1), 33-63. 

National Homeless Association. (2020). Criminalization of Homelessness. Retrieved from https://nationalhomeless.org/issues/civil-rights/#:~:text=The%20criminalization%20of%20homelessness%20refers,for%20violations%20of%20these%20acts. 

Robinson, T. (2019). No right to rest: Police enforcement patterns and quality of life consequences of the criminalization of homelessness.  Urban affairs review ,  55 (1), 41-73.