By Malik Washington, Investigative Journalist, Destination Freedom Media Group and Contributor, Davis Vanguard
San Francisco wants credit for reducing visible homelessness.
Its own records suggest the city may also need blame for helping fill a jail system now described by a Civil Grand Jury as overcrowded, understaffed, deteriorating, and near a “breaking point.” That is the contradiction at the heart of the city’s current public-safety narrative.
In May 2026, Mayor Daniel Lurie stood before cameras and celebrated preliminary Point-in-Time Count results showing unsheltered homelessness at its lowest level in fifteen years. City officials said encampments had fallen 44 percent compared with 2024 and that nearly 1,000 fewer people were sleeping outdoors. Those numbers generated headlines about momentum, improvement, and order restored.
What those headlines did not answer was the most obvious question.
Where did the people go?
That question is no longer rhetorical. A growing body of public records suggests that San Francisco did not merely reduce the visibility of poverty. It intensified the machinery used to move poor people out of public view: anti-camping enforcement, illegal-lodging arrests, drug-market sweeps, repeated displacement, and custodial detention. At the same time, the county jail system absorbing that pressure was itself entering crisis.
This article is not an argument against public order.
It is an argument for factual honesty.
A city that clears tents without providing enough housing, enough shelter, enough treatment, or enough long-term care has not solved homelessness. A city that removes visible suffering while increasing police contact and jail exposure has not ended a crisis. It has relocated one.
The 2026 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury found that the city’s homelessness response suffers from a profound oversight and accountability failure: the Homelessness Oversight Commission has left much of its authority unused, contracts have emphasized fiscal compliance over safety and real housing outcomes, and fragmented data systems prevent the city from tracking client needs, provider performance, or whether interventions actually lead to stability. In that vacuum, San Francisco has been able to measure activity without proving success—and to clear encampments without demonstrating that displaced people were meaningfully connected to the homelessness system the city itself created. Read alongside the Civil Grand Jury’s separate findings on the jail crisis, the result is a disturbing institutional pattern: when oversight is weak and accountability is diffuse, the city can move people out of public view and into another bureaucracy altogether, shifting homelessness from streets and sidewalks into the San Francisco County Jail rather than through a functioning, transparent continuum of shelter, treatment, and housing.
THE STREET-LEVEL OPTIC
There is a now-familiar choreography to removal in San Francisco. A block is deemed intolerable. City crews arrive. Deputies stand nearby. Tents are cleared. Shopping carts disappear. Medications, identification, blankets, and family keepsakes are treated as disposable debris or tagged property. Traffic resumes. The block looks cleaner. The political system records the result as progress.
The city has been warned for years that this approach does not eliminate homelessness. It disperses it.
That warning did not come only from advocates resisting sweeps. It came from the internal logic of the policy itself. If San Francisco still lacks sufficient affordable housing, still lacks adequate shelter capacity, and still struggles to provide durable treatment for addiction and severe mental illness, then fewer visible encampments can only mean a combination of displacement, concealment, institutionalization, or some combination of all three.
That is why criticism of “tent count politics” matters.
As Davis Vanguard reported during the release of the 2026 homelessness figures, Coalition on Homelessness Executive Director Jennifer Friedenbach challenged the city’s emphasis on encampment counts by noting that a tent is a piece of fabric, not a human being. That distinction is more than rhetorical. A government can reduce objects from view faster than it can stabilize the lives attached to them. It can count absence without proving recovery.
That is exactly why San Francisco’s claims of success require closer scrutiny.
THE LEGAL SHIFT THAT CHANGED THE TERMS
The city’s enforcement turn accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson. The decision gave municipalities broader authority to prohibit camping on public property even where shelter access remained inadequate. It did not invent anti-homeless enforcement. It removed an important legal barrier to expanding it. For cities already under political pressure to clear encampments, the ruling functioned as permission.
San Francisco responded accordingly.
According to data analyzed by CalMatters and later cited in city homelessness reporting, arrests and citations for illegal lodging rose from 71 in the six months before Grants Pass to 427 in the six months after it — roughly a 500 percent increase. Over the following year, more than 1,000 homeless people were arrested in San Francisco for living in public spaces.
Those numbers should have changed the entire debate.
Because once arrests and citations rise that sharply, the question is no longer whether the city is “managing public space.” The question becomes what system those arrests feed into, and at what human cost.
National research already points to the answer. In December 2025, Davis Vanguard reported on a Bail Project analysis finding that unhoused people are jailed in the United States at extraordinary rates: roughly 205,000 annually. The report found that unhoused defendants spend a median of 14 days in jail — about three times longer than the general population — and that 40 percent are booked multiple times in a single year. Jail, in other words, is not interrupting homelessness. It is often entrenching it.
San Francisco’s post-Grants Pass trajectory fits that national pattern with disturbing precision.
THE ENFORCEMENT PIPELINE WIDENS
Encampment enforcement alone does not explain the mounting strain on San Francisco’s jails.
Another major driver was the city’s intensifying drug-market crackdown.
In May 2023, officials launched the Drug Market Agency Coordination Center, or DMACC, to target open-air narcotics markets in the Tenderloin and South of Market. The public case for intervention was straightforward: fentanyl was killing people, visible drug activity had become politically combustible, and elected officials wanted results. But enforcement does not end with arrest statistics. It ends with booking, classification, medical intake, court transport, psychiatric evaluation, housing assignment, overtime, and custody.
The Civil Grand Jury’s 2026 report documents what followed. Within months of intensified enforcement, the jail population surged by more than 30 percent, forcing the reopening of the long-idled Jail Annex in San Bruno. The jury later concluded that the Annex was ill-suited to the increasingly complex population now entering county custody. It also found that misdemeanor narcotics arrests had risen from 184 in 2022 to 1,246 in 2025. By January 2026, DMACC had generated 6,722 arrests in a single year.
Those figures should be handled with care. They do not all describe the same population. They likely include alleged dealers, people using drugs, people in acute withdrawal, people living unhoused, and people whose poverty, addiction, mental illness, and street survival had already become inseparable in practice. But while the categories differ, the institutional destination increasingly did not. Arrest after arrest entered the same county jail system.
That matters because San Francisco’s jail system was not a neutral container waiting to absorb new pressure. It was already deteriorating.
THE INSTITUTION DOWNSTREAM
On June 9, 2026, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury issued a 50-page report describing a detention system in visible distress.
Its findings were not vague. The jury documented aging facilities, deferred maintenance, broken infrastructure, severe staffing shortages, overreliance on overtime, obsolete booking hardware, overcrowded holding areas, and a detained population with increasingly acute mental-health and medical needs. It found that sworn staffing in custody operations had run 20 to 30 percent below authorized levels for years. Deputies were averaging 28 hours of overtime per week. Annual overtime spending had roughly doubled from $29 million in FY19 to more than $52 million projected in FY25.
The human profile of the jail population had also changed.
By late 2025, 47 percent of incarcerated people had open mental-health cases. Thirty-seven percent were on psychiatric medication. By early April 2026, the average daily jail population had reached 1,281, with roughly 85 percent held pretrial. Mission Local, reporting on the Grand Jury’s findings, described the intake operation as buckling under constant use as a detox facility while documenting crowding, infrastructure failures, and a detention system increasingly unable to meet its own legal obligations.
This is the point city leaders cannot avoid.
A surge in arrests does not disappear into paperwork. It lands somewhere. In San Francisco, it landed in an institution already described by the city’s own jurors as neglected and overburdened.
THE BUDGET TELLS THE TRUTH
If political rhetoric obscures the consequences of enforcement, budgets often expose them. In March 2026, Mission Local reported that the Sheriff’s Department was on track to spend $60.2 million on overtime in fiscal year 2025-26 — 46 percent above the $41.2 million approved by the Board of Supervisors, a projected overrun of $19 million. The Controller warned that even leaving vacancies unfilled and drawing from reserves would not be enough to close the gap. The Sheriff’s Department said it would pursue reappropriations, cost reductions, and staffing adjustments, but also acknowledged the likely consequences: slower response times, reduced access to incarcerated people, and fewer services to the community.
That is not a side detail.
It is the financial fingerprint of the policy choice.
A city willing to spend tens of millions above budget to keep an overstressed jail system functioning cannot credibly claim surprise when enforcement-driven population growth produces institutional breakdown. Nor can it claim that public order comes cheaply. The cost is simply being moved off the sidewalk and onto the books of the Sheriff’s Department.
WHAT THE CITY COUNTED — AND WHAT IT DIDN’T
San Francisco counted fewer tents.
It also counted more arrests.
It counted more citations.
It counted more people moving through booking.
It counted more people with psychiatric needs inside county custody.
It counted more overtime.
It counted more evidence that the jail system was straining under pressures the city was helping create.
What it did not count with equal candor was the relationship between those numbers. That omission is not trivial. It is the center of the story.
San Francisco’s current narrative asks the public to evaluate homelessness policy by looking at what is no longer visible in public space. But any serious evaluation must also examine what became more visible inside public institutions — especially the institutions charged with confinement. Once that lens is applied, the city’s success story becomes much harder to sustain.
THE QUESTION THAT CANNOT BE EVADED
A government that clears encampments while still lacking sufficient
housing cannot call the result resolution.
A government that arrests more unhoused people while its jail system
sinks deeper into crisis cannot call the result efficiency.
A government that measures cleaner sidewalks while ignoring the
downstream burden placed on overcrowded, understaffed, deteriorating
detention facilities is not telling the public the whole story.
Mayor Daniel Lurie can point to declining encampment figures.
Sheriff Paul Miyamoto can point to a jail system under extraordinary pressure.
The public should understand that those may not be separate facts. They may be part of the same policy sequence. San Francisco did not make poverty disappear. It changed where the city expected the public to stop looking.
Part II begins there: inside the institution that absorbed the fallout, behind the walls where the city’s homelessness strategy became a jail crisis.
We will also be covering the William Palmer controversy.
Malik Washington’s Code Tenderloin interview with Del Seymour and Donna Hilliard (2020)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Malik Washington is a San Francisco-based journalist and co-founder of Destination Freedom Media Group, an independent nonprofit newsroom dedicated to accountability reporting at the intersection of civil rights, public integrity, disability justice, structural accountability within American institutions, and community survival. He has been a published journalist for over 14 years.
His work—published in partnership with the Davis Vanguard—focuses on government power, criminal justice, environmental justice, and the human consequences of policy decisions too often insulated from public scrutiny. Washington’s reporting amplifies the voices of impacted communities while insisting on documentary evidence, transparency, and the unvarnished truth—especially when institutions demand silence.
His work appears on platforms such as Muck Rack and Black Voice News, examining the intersection of justice, governance, and community.
You can reach him via email: mwashington2059@gmail.com or call him at (719) 715-9592.
Facebook: facebook.com/destfreedom13
Instagram: @destinationfreedom13
X: @dest_freedom
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
