Davis, CA – I have written a series of commentaries opposing a criminalization-based approach to clearing homeless encampments, but in the process several people have asked—what to do about those who refuse services? It’s a legitimate question.
This is after all the premise of the CARE Court system—which seeks to often compel mental health and other treatment, even though most professionals and homeless advocates do not believe it is the best or most cost-effective approach.
One of the reasons many of us in Davis advocated the creation a Social Services Department and homeless coordinator is to avoid the compulsion/carceral approach.
That doesn’t address the issue of those refusing help.
However, many advocates would argue that the idea that some or most homeless are somehow “service resistant” is a myth not based on reality.
But at the 30 thousand foot level of looking at macro-level data, we may not be able to properly assess what is going on.
To put it simply, if a homeless person is resisting offers for services, it could be due to a number of factors: mistrust of the system, negative past experiences, concerns about losing personal belongings, mental health issues, substance abuse problems, or simply a lack of understanding about the available options.
What experts will tell us is that this is not necessarily a deliberate act of resistance but rather a number of circumstances that make people hesitant.
For example, writing on Invisible People, Kayla Robbins argues, “Unhoused people are not service resistant. Most people would not choose to sleep outside on the streets if they had a better alternative. The services offered are just not meeting the right needs.”
There are all sorts of factors leading to this: lack of privacy, dehumanization, lack of disability accommodations, rules that would exclude people working jobs with non-standard hours, pets, or couples or families that don’t want to be split up.
They found, “Previous negative experiences in shelters, such as poor conditions, lack of security, or disrespectful treatment, can lead to distrust and reluctance to return.”
In the peer reviewed article in Science Direct, a multi-author survey finds that barriers to housing and other services stem from bureaucratic policies.
They conclude: “While homelessness is ultimately the result of a severe and chronic shortage of affordable housing, creating accessible, safe, pet-friendly shelter and safe haven options and instituting a smoother, more transparent process for moving from the streets could substantially reduce street homelessness.”
What can be done? We start with a personalized approach.
“Outreach workers need to build trust by taking the time to understand each individual’s unique needs and concerns, offering flexible options, and respecting their autonomy,” one study suggested.
This is the importance of having a Social Services Department, a homeless coordinator, and people on the ground that can build trust and develop relationships and attempt to meet the needs of the folks on the street.
Advocates also recommend Housing First Models that provide housing first, and supportive services once they are stably housed.
In short, we need a system of permanent supportive housing—which ironically is less costly than enforcement/incarceration-based approaches.
Finally, we need to address systemic issues that address the root causes of homelessness, such as affordable housing availability and access to mental health services.
That is probably the most critical component here.
On Monday, for instance, we noted that there has been success with these kinds of approaches elsewhere.
Houston, Texas, in Harris County, for instance, “provided more than 25,000 homeless people with apartments and houses between 2011 and 2022, they saw a 64% reduction of homelessness during the same time period.”
Imagine if we were able to reduce the number of homeless people in Davis by 64%—that would reduce the number of homeless in Davis from 160 down to about 60 or so. That would free up a lot of resources to focus on those 60 people, and it would make problems of encampments and nuisance and petty crimes much reduced.
Suddenly, we would have the resources to be able to deal with some of the more intractable cases. But we are not going to incarcerate ourselves out of this problem—we need to start reducing the number of people who need services first, provide housing and support for them, and then begin to chip away at the more difficult problems.
You talk the talk but you don’t walk the walk because you don’t support building housing in Davis.
Ron G
That’s an incorrect characterization. Many of us support building housing that will not exacerbate the problems created by a lack of forethought and coordination in developing the current proposals. Developers do not have the community’s best interests in mind–they are focused on their own bottom lines. Redirecting those proposals is not “opposing” housing.
This highlights a key issue–it’s not just “irrationality” that’s creating this problem. The services are not being offered unconditionally (some require sobriety as a prerequisite). We also cannot continue to search for “perfect, all encompassing” solution because the situation is a common symptom across many causes. We need to be compassionate and patient as we address this problem.