Homelessness is a rare issue in American politics that does not cut neatly along party or ideological lines. It can be hard to predict who will support or oppose measures to expand affordable housing and services for people without homes.
San Francisco, for example – one of the most progressive U.S. cities – has adopted numerous policies that make it easy for opponents to slow or block proposed housing projects. In contrast, churches of many denominations across the U.S. have challenged local zoning ordinances by providing food and shelter to people without homes, even when city laws and codes ban sleeping or eating in areas where the churches are located.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson allows cities to penalize individuals for sleeping in public spaces even when no shelter is available. It overturned the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ previous decision that anti-camping ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
I am a researcher specializing in homelessness, and signed an amicus brief submitted by 57 social scientists in the Grants Pass case, supporting plaintiffs who sued on behalf of homeless people living in the Oregon city of Grants Pass. In my view, the outcome of the court’s ruling is both predictable and deeply troubling. Many U.S. cities now are moving aggressively to clear homeless encampments, often without providing sufficient shelter or support to the people they are displacing.
In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in July that exemplifies this shift by calling for cities to “humanely remove encampments from public spaces.” This approach, which prioritizes clearing visible homelessness over addressing a systemic lack of housing options, often leads to forced displacement that makes people without housing more likely to be arrested and experience increased instability and trauma.
Newsom’s order opened the door for more punitive actions across the state. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors is considering revisions to a local camping ordinance that would ban sleeping in a tent, sleeping bag or vehicle for over 60 minutes, and would forbid people from sleeping within 300 feet of a public location where they had slept in the past 24 hours.
The city of Fresno recently banned public camping at any time and in any location, regardless of whether shelter is available. The new law bans sleeping or camping at any entrance to public or private property along a public sidewalk.
It also prohibits sitting, lying down, sleeping or camping on “sensitive use” properties, including schools, child care facilities, parks, libraries, government buildings, warming or cooling centers and existing homeless shelters. Violations are punishable by up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
Other jurisdictions are following California’s lead. Grand Rapids, Michigan, has enacted new laws to criminalize activities associated with homelessness, such as loitering and storing unattended personal property. In Illinois, a government lobbying association drafted a model camping ban that enforces fines for initial violations and stricter penalties, including possible jail time, for repeat offenses. Several Illinois cities have adopted the ordinance.
Ironically, Grants Pass has not been able to clear its homeless encampments because of a law Oregon enacted in 2021. This measure allows local governments to enact restrictions on sleeping on public property, such as time, place and manner, as long as they are “objectively reasonable.” It requires communities to consider local ordinances in the context of available shelter services and public space.
This approach, which strikes a balance between public concerns and the needs of people who are homeless, prevents the kind of punitive measures that the Supreme Court ruling now permits elsewhere.
Many Americans are frustrated by the homelessness crisis. In their view, cities have made little progress on this issue despite substantial investments.
However, research overwhelmingly shows that criminalizing homelessness perpetuates the problem. It creates a cycle of arrest, incarceration and release, without addressing root causes, such as economic inequality, inadequate mental health and addiction services and a lack of affordable housing. People without housing are at risk of early death from violent injuries, substance abuse or preventable diseases.
In my view, supportive Housing First approaches are more effective than punitive bans. Housing First is a strategy that quickly provides permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness, without requiring them to be sober, employed or in treatment for mental health disorders.
This approach recognizes stable housing as a basic human right and a foundation for addressing other challenges that people without homes often face. By meeting their immediate need for housing, it helps people recover from the stress of being homeless and leads to better long-term results. Research shows that Housing First programs are more effective and cost-efficient than requiring treatment for issues such as addiction as a condition for housing.
Critics say that Housing First is expensive and that providing housing without mandatory support services leads to inefficient use of funds. Some studies highlight challenges in ensuring that services match individual needs. Another critique calls Housing First a “one-size-fits-all” solution that may not adequately address the homeless population’s diverse needs.
In 2024, the federal government awarded US$3.16 billion to communities nationwide through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care program, the largest investment toward ending homelessness in U.S. history.
This HUD program provides funding and support to local communities to coordinate efforts aimed at ending homelessness, such as providing rapid rehousing and support services to homeless people. This is a crisis-response strategy designed to minimize trauma associated with living on the street by moving people into housing as quickly as possible.
Making a serious and lasting dent in this problem will require scaling up proven solutions, such as rental assistance and access to affordable rental housing. A study published by HUD in 2016 found that giving homeless families permanent housing subsidies, such as housing choice vouchers, was the most effective way to ensure long-term housing stability.
Housing choice vouchers cover most of a family’s rent costs, leaving families to pay about 30% of their income on housing, with no time limit as long as participants follow program rules. The HUD study found that compared with other short-term programs, this approach improved participants’ mental health, stabilized families, supported child development and reduced the likelihood of participants becoming homeless again.
Homeless encampments raise legitimate public concerns about health and safety, including the welfare of people living in the camps. But clearing them and banning public camping won’t solve homelessness. As I see it, providing permanent housing subsidies, expanding access to affordable housing and implementing Housing First approaches, paired with supportive services, is a more effective and humane approach.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Michigan State University
Read more: Supreme Court rules cities can ban homeless people from sleeping outdoors – Sotomayor dissent summarizes opinion as ‘stay awake or be arrested’ Being homeless means not being free − as Americans are supposed to be Affordable housing in the US is increasingly scarce, making renters ask: Where do we go?
Deyanira Nevárez Martínez receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the JPB Foundation, and the Latino Policy and Politics Institute at UCLA. She signed an amicus brief submitted by 57 social scientists on behalf of the plaintiffs in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
