San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has made it clear that her approach to the city’s drug crisis is rooted in aggressive policing and punitive enforcement, rather than harm reduction and meaningful solutions.
In her recent social media regarding a mass drug raid in San Francisco parks, Jenkins claimed, “Our job is not only to enforce the law — it’s to disrupt the behavior.” But what does “disrupting behavior” really mean? And, more importantly, is this strategy actually helping the city or simply perpetuating a cycle of arrests, displacement, and criminalization of poverty and addiction?
The Return of “Tough-on-Crime” Tactics
Jenkins’ rhetoric and actions signal a return to the failed War on Drugs policies of the past. Instead of addressing the root causes of drug use and trafficking—homelessness, lack of mental health resources, and economic instability—her office appears to be prioritizing high-profile arrests to create the illusion of action.
Mass arrests may look good in press releases, but they do little to solve the public health crisis of addiction. In fact, decades of research show that punitive drug crackdowns don’t work. They don’t stop the flow of drugs, they don’t deter drug use, and they don’t make communities safer. Instead, these sweeps:
Temporarily displace people without addressing the underlying issues, meaning they will simply return or relocate elsewhere.
Target marginalized communities, particularly unhoused individuals and people of color, leading to disproportionate incarceration.
Overwhelm the criminal justice system with low-level drug cases instead of prioritizing serious violent crimes.
Jenkins seems determined to repeat these mistakes rather than engage with evidence-based approaches.
Jenkins’ latest crackdown does not differentiate between drug users and dealers, despite her claim that her office is focused on traffickers rather than people struggling with addiction. In reality, these mass arrests often sweep up unhoused individuals, low-income residents, and those with untreated substance use disorders—people who need treatment, not jail cells.
By criminalizing drug users without providing viable alternatives, Jenkins is effectively setting people up for failure. Many of those arrested in these raids will be released within days, but with criminal records that make it even harder to access jobs, housing, and healthcare—all factors that increase the likelihood of continued drug use.
If Jenkins truly wanted to disrupt behavior, she would invest in proven harm reduction strategies such as:
• Expanding access to medically assisted treatment (MAT), including methadone and buprenorphine.
• Supporting overdose prevention sites, which have been shown to reduce deaths and connect people to services.
• Funding non-police crisis intervention teams to respond to drug-related incidents with medical professionals instead of armed officers.
Instead, Jenkins is doubling down on a carceral approach that criminalizes addiction rather than treating it as the public health issue that it is.
Jenkins’ strategy is as much about political optics as it is about policy. Since taking office, she has positioned herself as a tough-on-crime DA in contrast to her predecessor, Chesa Boudin, whose reform-minded policies she has worked to dismantle.
By leaning into fear-based rhetoric about drugs and crime, Jenkins is playing to conservative and moderate voters who favor a punitive approach, despite overwhelming evidence that arresting our way out of the drug crisis doesn’t work.
Meanwhile, San Francisco continues to struggle with record overdose deaths, deepening poverty, and rising rents that push more people onto the streets—problems that won’t be solved by putting more people in handcuffs.
A Smarter Path Forward
If Jenkins were serious about public safety and tackling the drug crisis, she would listen to harm reduction experts, healthcare professionals, and community advocates who have long called for policies that address both supply and demand in a way that prioritizes treatment over incarceration.
Rather than investing in high-profile arrests, San Francisco should:
Expand access to safe consumption sites that provide overdose prevention services.
Fund non-carceral approaches, such as mobile health units and mental health crisis teams.
Work to decriminalize addiction and invest in long-term solutions, including affordable housing and job training programs.
Jenkins’ raid-first, ask-questions-later approach is politically convenient but deeply ineffective. If she truly wanted to disrupt behavior, she’d stop criminalizing poverty, addiction, and homelessness—and start working toward real, lasting solutions.
San Francisco deserves better than soundbites and fear-based policies. It deserves leadership grounded in evidence, compassion, and a commitment to public health—not just more headlines about arrests.
“SF DA BROOKE JENKINS’ APPROACH TO DRUG POLICY – A RETURN TO FAILED STRATEGIES”
Like Chesa Boudin’s progressive lenient policies worked so well?
Jenkins is just trying to cover up her ineffectiveness. Arrests just perpetrate the failed war on drugs. You don’t double down on failure.
“A Return to Failed Strategies”
And yet, some parts of the City are attractive, clean and feel safe again. A long way to go, but ’round ’bout last fall I started to notice a difference especially along the Mission area and some BART stations. I’ve been told it’s much better now by others, some of whom live in the City.
I guess it’s a fail is your goal is more tents, more poop, and more drug addicts dying at your feet along the sidewalk. Not to mention the economic devastation that comes with this for any city that wallows in it’s own grime too long.
Of course, ’round ’bout last fall, there was also a large increase in so-called homeless in Davis. Coincidence? I think not!
Yeah I don’t buy it.
Alan, your comment suggests that the recent changes in parts of San Francisco, particularly around the Mission District and BART stations, indicate a successful shift in policy, but it’s important to examine what policies have changed and at what cost.
Correlation ≠ Causation – You imply that an increase in homelessness in Davis is directly related to policy changes in San Francisco, but there is no evidence supporting this. Homelessness is a regional crisis driven by economic factors, housing shortages, and systemic failures—not simply a matter of people being “moved” from one city to another.
Increased law enforcement presence and sweeps have indeed pushed unhoused individuals out of high-visibility areas, but that doesn’t mean homelessness is being solved. Criminalizing homelessness does not reduce homelessness—it just relocates it.
Failed Strategies? Failed Strategies? The “failed strategies” you refer to are likely compassionate, housing-first models, which are backed by decades of evidence as the most effective way to reduce chronic homelessness. Meanwhile, the sweep-and-criminalize approach has failed in city after city. Los Angeles, for example, has spent billions on enforcement-heavy responses without meaningfully reducing homelessness.
You mention economic devastation, but SF’s struggles are more tied to remote work shifts and commercial real estate collapse than street conditions alone. Other cities with low homelessness rates, like downtown Oakland, are also seeing business flight due to office vacancies—it’s a broader economic issue, not just a “poop on the sidewalk” problem.
If we want real solutions, we should focus on affordable housing, mental health services, and harm reduction—strategies that have worked in places like Houston, which has reduced homelessness by over 60% through permanent supportive housing, rather than displacement.
So, while some areas of SF might look “cleaner,” the question is at what cost and for how long? If the underlying problems remain unaddressed, this is just a temporary illusion of progress, not real change.
Regarding Houston, how is it that they had a homeless problem in the first place – given that they have some of the cheapest housing in the country?
Isn’t the argument that housing prices are creating homelessness? If so, it would seem that the evidence from Houston doesn’t support that claim.
In any case, you’ve made this claim before, but have never provided details regarding “how” Houston achieved this, or the source of funds.
Also seems to me that if they’re so successful with it, maybe they should be the “national headquarters” for homeless housing. Not sure why some think it makes sense to build housing for homeless people in the most-expensive places in the country, instead.
While housing affordability is a major factor, it is not the sole cause of homelessness. Houston’s experience actually reinforces this point rather than contradicting it.
Even though Houston has relatively low housing costs compared to cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York, homelessness persisted due to:
Extreme Poverty & Low Wages – Houston has a high rate of working poor who may still struggle to afford even cheap housing. Many earn below a livable wage, and when combined with other economic pressures, some people still fall into homelessness.
Lack of Social Services – Historically, Houston had few emergency housing programs, so even those experiencing temporary setbacks had nowhere to turn.
Mental Health & Addiction Issues – Like other cities, Houston has a significant population of unhoused individuals dealing with mental illness and substance use disorders, and these conditions often make securing even affordable housing difficult.
The answer in Houston is housing first
Instead of relying on shelters or policing to manage homelessness, Houston implemented a “Housing First” approach, which provides permanent supportive housing without requiring people to get sober or meet other conditions first. Key policies included:
Massive investment in rapid rehousing (over 25,000 people housed since 2011 according to one article ).
Strong collaboration between public and private organizations, ensuring efficiency.
Prioritizing permanent housing over temporary shelters, preventing people from cycling back into homelessness.
3. Does Houston Disprove That Housing Costs Cause Homelessness?
No, because cheap housing alone doesn’t prevent homelessness—but it does make solving it easier.
In cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco, where even low-end rentals are out of reach for minimum-wage workers, homelessness is more entrenched because there’s no affordable housing to move people into.
Houston was able to house people faster than places like California precisely because their housing stock was cheaper.
In contrast, cities with expensive housing markets require far greater public investment to create enough affordable units.
Houston’s example doesn’t disprove that high housing costs drive homelessness—it actually shows that lower housing costs make it easier to reduce homelessness when paired with the right policies. If California had Houston’s housing prices, its homelessness crisis would still exist—but it would be far easier and cheaper to solve.
So here’s what AI has to say about “who” pays for Houston’s “housing first” program:
“Houston’s “Housing First” program is primarily funded by a combination of public sources, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the City of Houston, Harris County, local management districts, and sometimes philanthropic donations, all working together under the “The Way Home” initiative to address homelessness in the region; essentially, taxpayers contribute to the program through these funding channels.”
Isn’t Trump cutting HUD funding? But more importantly, wouldn’t those type of funds go much farther in housing homeless people where it’s much less-costly to build in the first place? Places like Houston? (Pretty much what your AI source confirms in the first place.)
Also, I found that the claim regarding “where” homeless people originate from was not supported by the data that another commenter presented on here the other day.
You keep speaking of a ‘homeless’ problem, but the visible street people are a drug problem. It’s the hijacking of the language to make it look like ‘affordable housing’ is the solution that is, in itself, the problem.
For anyone interested…
Alan Miller’s statement reflects a common but flawed perspective that conflates homelessness with substance use disorder while downplaying the broader systemic issues driving the housing crisis. While it’s true that some people experiencing homelessness struggle with drug addiction, this is not the defining characteristic of the crisis, nor is it the primary reason people lose their housing.
The vast majority of unhoused individuals end up on the streets due to economic hardship, rising rents, stagnant wages, and a severe shortage of affordable housing—not drug use. Research consistently shows that housing costs are the biggest predictor of homelessness. Cities with high rental prices, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, have significantly higher homelessness rates than cities with lower housing costs, even when controlling for other factors like drug use or mental illness.
While some people experiencing homelessness do struggle with addiction, the idea that street homelessness is primarily a drug problem ignores a key fact: most people with substance use disorders are housed. If addiction alone caused homelessness, then wealthy individuals with substance use issues would also be living on the streets. The reality is that poverty, housing insecurity, and a lack of support services are the key drivers of homelessness.
The “Housing First” approach—providing stable, affordable housing without preconditions—has been shown to dramatically reduce homelessness and improve outcomes for those struggling with addiction. Numerous studies demonstrate that when people are housed, they are more likely to seek treatment, maintain employment, and improve their well-being. The notion that people must “fix” their addiction before being housed is not supported by evidence.
Miller accuses advocates of “hijacking” language to frame affordable housing as the solution, but in reality, it’s the deliberate misrepresentation of the issue—framing homelessness as solely a drug problem—that distorts public perception. This narrative shifts responsibility away from policymakers and developers who refuse to build affordable housing and instead blames the individuals suffering on the streets.
Solving homelessness requires evidence-based policy, not moralizing. Cities that have invested in permanent supportive housing, rental assistance, and tenant protections have seen reductions in homelessness. Those that have relied solely on criminalization or drug enforcement have not.
Unfortunately, Miller’s argument is a distraction from the real issue. Homelessness is not just a “drug problem”—it’s a housing problem, an economic problem, and a policy failure. A serious solution must start with affordable housing, supportive services, and policies that prevent people from losing their homes in the first place.
DG say: ” . . . a “Housing First” approach, which provides permanent supportive housing without requiring people to get sober or meet other conditions first.”
This way of thinking is delusional and killing people. You can take your ‘evidence-based’ evidence and stuff it where the sun don’t shine. This way of thinking is delusional and killing people.
If something is evidence based – that means that evidence shows it to be effective which would tend to counter your argument that it’s killing people
Your response is rooted in emotion rather than evidence. Your impulsive rejection of “Housing First” as “delusional” and “killing people” contradicts a large body of research demonstrating its effectiveness. If we’re serious about addressing homelessness and addiction, we need policies based on facts, not fear or frustration
DG say: “If something is evidence based – that means that evidence shows it to be effective which would tend to counter your argument that it’s killing people”
The term ‘evidence based’ was not widespread until the progressive left starting using it, as if adding the word ‘based’ made it more ‘sciency’. In truth, the Homeless Industrial Complex is a multi-billion dollar per year fraud, run by sick deluded people who don’t mind that they are killing people for their own gain, or they are hopelessly lost in their own ideological delusions.
When you have billions in profits, it is important to protect your industry and your fellow members of the H.I.C. Thus, having consultants produce bogus ‘evidence-based’ evidence is essential. It is also important to fund ‘non-profit’ blogs to spread the BS far and wide.
DG Say: “Your response is rooted in emotion rather than evidence.”
BS. You and those that think like you are killing people, deluding people and destroying economy and the country.
DG say: “Your impulsive rejection of “Housing First” as “delusional” and “killing people” contradicts a large body of research demonstrating its effectiveness. If we’re serious about addressing homelessness and addiction, we need policies based on facts, not fear or frustration”
It’s not an impulsive rejection. It’s the core of who I am. I back myself, and your rejection of my beliefs is all the ‘evidence’, based or not, to reinforce my own glory.
David says: “Houston’s experience actually reinforces this point rather than contradicting it.”
Actually, the opposite is true – per your own AI source. Housing is much cheaper in Houston, and yet they had a homeless problem.
“Harm Reduction”, “Housing First”, “Decarceration” are all destructive policies based on idealism and false ‘evidence-based’ evidence, and you’re never going to convince me otherwise. In fact, your support is reason enough to reject them.
I’m not trying to convince you, rather I post these detailed responses for the purpose of having a response on the record for other readers.
David says: “The vast majority of unhoused individuals end up on the streets due to economic hardship, rising rents, stagnant wages, and a severe shortage of affordable housing—not drug use. Research consistently shows that housing costs are the biggest predictor of homelessness. Cities with high rental prices, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, have significantly higher homelessness rates than cities with lower housing costs, even when controlling for other factors like drug use or mental illness.”
That is correlation, not causation. And I doubt that even the correlation is accurate. For example, Atherton and Tiburon don’t seem to have a lot of homeless people compared to Sacramento. Nor does Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Granite Bay . . .
I’d suggest checking the correlation between cities that provide a lot of homeless services, vs. those that don’t.