Reducing Homelessness Requires Services, Not Arrests

This article is part of The Rooftop, a blog and multimedia series from New America’s Future of Land and Housing program. Featuring insights from experts across diverse fields, the series is a home for bold ideas to improve housing in the United States and globally.

In February, San Francisco conducted a large-scale interagency operation to arrest over 85 people in Jefferson Square Park, which had in recent months become a haven for drug activity.

I live across the street from Jefferson Square Park and heard the raid go down that night. In the months leading up to the raid, it was hard not to notice the dramatic increase in park activity, especially at night. The city had been aggressively cracking down on homeless encampments in neighboring areas in the Tenderloin, forcing people to move to other neighborhoods, including Jefferson Square Park.

Following the raid, the park is now a cleaner and more tranquil place for neighborhood residents to enjoy. But this raises the question: Where did all the people go?

Of the people arrested during the raid, around 60 were released at the scene. Similarly, when someone is arrested for illegal camping in San Francisco, they are typically cited then released, adding stress but no solution to an already difficult situation. Without sufficient shelter or resources for these people, they shift from one neighborhood to another. Despite claims to the contrary, the city is just playing whack-a-mole. Ultimately, real strategies that treat homelessness and drug addiction as humanitarian crises, by investing in services and robust support systems, are what will help alleviate these issues.

How Homelessness and Addiction Can Be Intertwined

In California, it can seem impossible to untangle the problems of homelessness and drug addiction, as the two often go hand in hand. Homelessness exacerbates drug addiction: Unhoused individuals are more vulnerable to using drugs as a coping strategy and often live in areas where drugs are more readily accessible. Being homeless also means you are at higher risk of overdosing, as there are more barriers to accessing treatment. At the same time, drug addiction deteriorates health, can drain financial resources when addiction takes hold, and can lead to incarceration, making it harder to secure housing upon release. In a vicious cycle, these intertwined problems mutually reinforce one another.

In recent years, San Francisco has shifted away from a harm-reduction approach focused on minimizing the negative effects of drug use in favor of enforcement strategies that sweep people from one place to the next. Last year, former mayor London Breed’s administration launched an aggressive crackdown on homeless encampments following the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision, which gave cities broad power to evict people from encampments, even when there is no shelter to offer those evicted. Mayor Daniel Lurie’s current administration has continued this push, conducting extensive sweeps and getting headlines for taking action.

As a result, the number of arrests for illegal camping in San Francisco has soared, while the number of street encampments has hit a new low, creating the appearance of a successful strategy. But often, people just shift to another location when they are forced to move, especially since there aren’t enough shelter beds. Beyond that, arresting people for not having a place to live is counterproductive, as a criminal record can become a barrier to securing stable housing.

What We Can Do About These Challenges

Studies show that housing challenges primarily stem from an affordability crisis gripping major cities, both in California and nationally. When housing costs too much and people can’t afford to pay rent, this can lead to evictions and, in turn, to homelessness. Without stable housing, people are at greater risk of job loss, financial setbacks, and health challenges including drug addiction. On top of that, with more arrests—whether for illegal camping or for illicit drug use—coupled with inadequate treatment and shelter options for those who need them, people get caught up in a never-ending cycle that can be extremely difficult to escape.

There have been many efforts to address the housing affordability crisis. In California, one major effort at the state level is SB 79, a bill that would make it legal to build more homes near public transit to improve affordability. Another is a “fast track” suite of over 20 bills to speed up the time it takes to approve and build new housing statewide. The City of Sacramento implemented similar reforms in the last five years, and it looks like they work: Rents in Sacramento have declined, with increased affordability across the income spectrum. However, much more needs to be done statewide to increase the housing supply and bring down rent.

At the local level, San Francisco needs to continue expanding and diversifying shelter options so that those displaced from encampments have safe places to go. Often, even when shelter is technically available, people have trouble staying there due to the eligibility rules, a lack of privacy, safety concerns including theft of personal belongings, or inadequate substance use treatment services. During his mayoral campaign, Lurie said that many shelters “are not safe and not dignified,” and he has promised to change that by increasing shelter capacity citywide. But while his administration has plans to open new treatment and interim housing sites, progress has been slow. The city has not added any much-needed mental health and substance abuse treatment beds in the past year, despite a push to expedite the process.

In addition to temporary shelter, there must be clear pathways to permanent supportive housing, and the city should continue to scale up these efforts while also integrating services for substance use treatment and mental health support. Vacant units suggest that the permanent supportive housing system is not fully optimized for occupancy, something the city must continue to address.

Finally, strengthening homelessness prevention efforts, such as by increasing local funding for rental assistance, helps people resolve their immediate housing crises and is a far more cost-effective, humane approach to homelessness than reacting punitively. Sadly, budgets proposed at every level of government would reduce or even eliminate homelessness prevention funding. Mayor Lurie’s proposed 2025–26 budget slashes funding for general civil legal services, which help San Franciscans at risk of eviction. California’s proposed 2025-26 budget contains zero funding for the state’s Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program. And the Trump administration released a budget blueprint for the next fiscal year that would reduce the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s funding by 44 percent, reduce rental assistance funding by 43 percent, and impose new rental assistance eligibility limits, potentially upending decades of federal housing policy and exacerbating the national housing crisis. At a time when funding is needed more than ever, our governments seem hell-bent on dismantling crucial support systems instead of increasing investments.

“At a time when funding is needed more than ever, our governments seem hell-bent on dismantling crucial support systems instead of increasing investments.”

Meanwhile, since the Grants Pass decision, more than 100 places across the country have banned people from sleeping outside, even if they have nowhere else to go. From cities like Nashville, to states like Kentucky, to places with low homelessness rates including West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Wyoming, unhoused people are forced to keep moving, under constant threat of fines or jail time.

Ultimately, politicians must recognize that, in addition to being inhumane, sweeping people from one place to another doesn’t end homelessness, but prolongs it. As much as I enjoy a clean and quiet neighborhood park to walk around in, I want to see real strategies that treat homelessness and drug addiction as the humanitarian crises that they are, not just as a quality-of-life concern for housed people.

Editor’s note: The views expressed in the articles on The Rooftop are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policy positions of New America. They also do not represent the views of the State of California, the author’s employer, or the California Governor.