By BRIAN BLACKWELL, COLIN CAPRARA, JANEY ROUNTREE, ROBERT SANTILLANO, DANA VANDERFORD, CLAIRE BATTIS

Homelessness continues to be a major problem in California, and new approaches to addressing it are urgently needed. This report brings to light an innovative predictive model for homelessness prevention that is showing promising results. The data reveals that this approach — being used for the first time in California and the United States — reaches individuals who are outside of the usual preventive safety net at critical junctures in their lives. Timing is everything — and the Homelessness Prevention Unit connects at-risk people to crucial services and support that could help them avoid homelessness. Consider the scope of the problem: more than 75,000 people experience homelessness in Los Angeles County on any given night in 2024. This represents a 9% increase since 2022 and a 43% increase since 2018. Clearly, long-term solutions to homelessness require not just housing people experiencing homelessness but also preventing homelessness before it occurs. A statewide survey in California revealed that most people experiencing homelessness believe that a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000 would have resolved their rapidly escalating financial crises and prevented them from experiencing homelessness. Existing homelessness prevention programs typically include one-time cash assistance ranging on average between $1,000 to $5,000 and short-term direct services such as legal assistance. Several studies have found this approach to be effective at reducing homelessness. Yet research also highlights how difficult it is to ensure that scarce prevention resources primarily reach people who will experience homelessness if they do not receive this help. In partnership with Los Angeles County, the California Policy Lab (CPL) is researching strategies to address this challenge, including developing a data-driven predictive model that can proactively identify people at highest risk of experiencing homelessness. In many prevention programs, participants self-identify as being at risk of homelessness and are then screened into programs based on eligibility criteria or surveys that ask questions about risk factors. CPL’s predictive model, however, analyzes de-identified data to proactively identify people at high risk of homelessness. Our research finds that people identified by the predictive model are not connected to typical prevention programs, indicating that both approaches are valuable and reach different people. To test whether this model could be used to better target prevention resources, in 2020, Los Angeles County created the Homelessness Prevention Unit (HPU) operating out of the Housing for Health division of the Department of Health Services (DHS) in close collaboration with the Chief Information Office (CIO) and Department of Mental Health (DMH). A County seed funding investment in the HPU made it possible to pilot an innovative approach to homelessness prevention that offers flexible cash assistance and tailored case management to individuals and families predicted by CPL’s model to be at the highest risk of experiencing homelessness. Because the HPU is located within the Los Angeles County health system, CPL’s model is focused on people who recently received DHS or DMH services and who are observed as stably housed in County administrative data. This group includes nearly 100,000 people over the course of a year (the “eligible population”). CPL uses the model to produce lists multiple times a year of people with the highest risk of homelessness. The lists are anonymized and rank-ordered from highest to lowest risk of homelessness. CPL sends the high-risk lists to the CIO, where County staff match each person’s anonymized record to a County medical record ID. The CIO then transfers the lists to the HPU so that they can identify names, addresses, and contact info of the patients listed. HPU staff then screen out some people on the risk lists that other data sources indicate are currently experiencing homelessness and are therefore ineligible. For eligible individuals, HPU staff attempt to contact them, and, if they are willing, enroll them in the intervention. The HPU serves between 400 to 600 people per year. The intervention includes rapidly delivered, flexible cash assistance, tailored case management, and referrals to other services, such as mental health care, workforce development, and legal services. This policy report provides an overview of: (1) CPL’s predictive model, including data sources and engineering; (2) the equity of the predictive model; (3) outreach and enrollment in the HPU; (4) the HPU’s design and service model; and (5) how CPL will evaluate the impact of the HPU program in a randomized control trial

Los Angeles: The California Policy Lab , 2024. 50p.

By Alexandra Flynn, Estair van Wagner, Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark

Encampments are a vivid illustration of the failure of governments in Canada to meet their human rights obligations to ensure everyone has access to adequate housing. The 2020-2022 point-in-time count showed a 20% increase in homelessness overall and an 88% increase in unsheltered homelessness from 2018. The right to housing is inherently linked with the fulfillment of other human rights and with basic human dignity. Thus, where the right to housing is violated, other human rights are often violated. Advocacy for the human rights of encampment residents then necessarily implicates a wider set of human rights. Legal advocacy is therefore a necessary part of a broader movement to realize human rights for all people. Canadian jurisprudence has centered on the right to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, interpreted as freedom from government actions such as encampment removals. However, the rights involved draw from other sources of laws, including Indigenous and international legal frameworks. In this report we focus on the existing case law and legal strategies. Our objective is to identify arguments used to date, as well as opportunities for future legal advocacy on the issue of encampments.

Given the context of colonial dispossession and the vast overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in the unhoused population we highlight the relationship between the right to housing and Indigenous rights, both from a colonial Canadian legal perspective and from an Indigenous legal perspective. While we point to opportunities to engage with legal tools within the Canadian colonial legal system where they may be strategic and useful, we acknowledge the limitations of these tools. Therefore, we also highlight opportunities to connect advocacy about encampments with Indigenous legal orders and jurisdiction, including work being done by groups engaged in or considering litigation or advocacy on encampments. While there is limited research on the role of Indigenous law in encampments at present, in our view, this is an urgent area of advocacy to find long-term, sustainable, and human rights-compliant solutions to homelessness.

This report starts from the recognition that encampment residents are rights-bearers and must be centered in discussions on how to move forward. While it does not include testimony from those with lived experience it is informed by the long history of advocacy inside and outside of courtrooms by people unhoused people themselves and in partnership. This is critical in the context of encampments: when unhoused people claim public or private space to meet their basic needs it is essential that we acknowledge and respect their dignity and agency. Encampment residents are experts in their own lives. As we explain, meaningful engagement is the foundation of any human rights-based response. This includes respecting the structures of decision making that emerge in encampments, the trusted advocacy relationships developed with those around them, and principles of fairness that guarantee particular rights.

This report has been drafted to help inform legal practitioners and advocates about the state of jurisprudence in Canada relevant to homeless encampments. It highlights some of the limitations of jurisprudence to date and points to opportunities for future legal advocacy, highlighting the need to integrate Indigenous legal traditions.

Part One provides a background on the meaning of a human rights approach and the regulation of encampments in Canada.

First, we detail the connections between the right to housing and encampments in the Canadian context. We define what we mean by adequate housing, where the progressive realization of the right to housing comes from under Canadian and Indigenous legal frameworks, and provide a three-part framework for considering the right to adequate housing.

Second, we outline the current system of regulation of encampments in Canada. We explore the regulation of encampments based on international and domestic laws, highlighting that jurisdictionally fractured set of rules each seek to govern encampment residents, exacerbating their vulnerability. In this section, we distinguish between constitutional protections, legislation and bylaws that protect encampment residents, and those that seek to displace them.

Part Two sets out advocacy and litigation strategies in relation to encampments.

Third, we outline advocacy efforts in relation to encampments. In this section we explain the many ways in which advocates are seeking change in local policy-making, law reform, and enforcement. These efforts may - but do not always - rely on court decisions, and legal challenges are but one tactic used to advance the interests of encampment residents.

Next, we set out the case law concerning encampments, explaining the different approaches that have been taken since the seminal case, Adams v Victoria, was decided in 2009 setting out the current framework used by the courts. We explain court decisions in relation to injunction applications mainly brought by municipalities, Charter arguments, judicial review applications, shelter standards, public private property distinctions, and challenging enforcement. These cases were all decided between Adams and 2022.

We conclude by summarizing the legal framework related to encampments, with the gaps and opportunities for realizing a right to housing for those experiencing the most profound violation of that right, homelessness.

Ottawa: Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2024. 56p.

May Contain Markup

Edited by Debra J. Rog

Complexity of Homelessness: Homelessness is a multifaceted issue involving various subgroups such as mentally ill individuals, families with children, and those with substance abuse problems. Understanding These complexities is crucial for effective interventions.

Mixed-Method Approaches: Estimating the number of homeless individuals requires mixed methods to produce reasonable estimates, as highlighted by David S. Cordray.

Evaluation Challenges: Evaluating programs for the homeless, such as those targeting substance abuse or mental health, involves significant methodological and practical challenges, including diverse evaluation designs and data collection issues.

Program Evaluations: The document reviews several large-scale national demonstration programs, emphasizing the importance of both individual and system-level evaluations to improve service delivery and policy implications.

Jossey-Bass, 1991, 94 pages

By Human Rights Watch

Adequate housing is an internationally protected human right. But the United States, which has been treating housing primarily as a commodity, is failing to protect this right for large numbers of people, with houselessness a pervasive problem. In the US city of Los Angeles, California, where the monetary value of property has risen to extreme heights while wages at the lower end of the economic spectrum have stagnated for decades, houselessness has exploded into public view. Policymakers addressing the issue publicly acknowledge the necessity of increased housing to solve houselessness, but their primary response on the ground has been criminalization of those without it. The criminalization of houselessness means treating people who live on the streets as criminals and directing resources towards arresting and citing them, institutionalizing them, removing them from visible public spaces, denying them basic services and sanitation, confiscating and destroying their property, and pressuring them into substandard shelter situations that share some characteristics with jails. Criminalization is expensive, but temporarily removes signs of houselessness and extreme poverty from the view of the housed public. Criminalization is ineffective because it punishes people for living in poverty while ignoring and even reaffirming the causes of that poverty embedded in the economic system and the incentives that drive housing development and underdevelopment. Criminalization is cruel. Criminalization effectively destroys lives and property based on race and economic class. It is a set of policies that prioritizes the needs and values of the wealthy, property owners, and business elites, at the expense of the rights of people living in poverty to an adequate standard of living. As a consequence of historical and present policies and practices that discriminate against Black and other BIPOC people, these groups receive the brunt of criminalization. Arrests and citations as the direct mode of criminalization have decreased substantially over the past several years in Los Angeles. But authorities use the threat of arrest to support the relentless taking and destruction of unhoused people’s property through sanitation “sweeps” and people’s removal from certain public spaces. Criminalization has simply taken a different primary form, though punitive criminal enforcement always looms.

Criminalization responds in destructive and ineffective ways to legitimize concerns about the impact of houselessness on individuals and their communities. Rather than improving conditions and leading towards a solution, criminalization diverts vast public resources into moving people from one place to another without addressing the underlying problem. In contrast to criminalization, housing solves houselessness. Policies that have proven effective include the development of affordable housing—with services for those who need them—preserving existing tenancies and providing government subsidies that help people maintain their housing. This report takes an in-depth look at houselessness in Los Angeles and at city policies towards unhoused people in recent years, with reference to historical practices. It looks at criminalization enforced by police and the sanitation department and explores how homeless services agencies and the interim housing and shelter systems sometimes support and cover for that criminalization. The report features the perspectives of people with lived experience on the streets and have directly experienced criminalization in all its forms. Human Rights Watch spoke to over 100 unhoused or formerly unhoused people, whose stories and insights inform every aspect of this report. The report features analysis of data obtained from various city agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Los Angeles Department of Sanitation (LASAN), Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and the Mayor’s office, that exposes the extent and futility of policies of criminalization. The report looks at the underlying causes of Los Angeles’ large scale houselessness, primarily the lack of affordable housing. It explains how racist policies over the decades have created a houselessness crisis in the Black community. The report also discusses the proven effectiveness of preserving and providing housing as a solution to houselessness, including examples of people who faced criminalization on the streets and whose lives have dramatically improved once housed. Finally, the report makes recommendations for policies that end criminalization and that move towards solving the crisis and realizing the international human right to housing in Los Angeles.

New York; HRW, 2024. 344p.

 By: Lauren Dunton,  Jill Khadduri,  Kimberly Burnett,  Nichole Fiore,  Will Yetvin 

The number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, defined in this report as living in a place not meant for human habitation, has grown to more than 200,000 in recent years. That increase is driven by individuals who are not experiencing chronic homelessness. While not all individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness reside in encampments, encampments have become emblematic of the rise in unsheltered homelessness. In particular, the number of unsheltered homeless individuals has increased since 2016. The problem is most acute in major cities, on the west coast, and in markets that have seen major spikes in housing prices. Even cities with declining unsheltered populations face pressure to address visible encampments in their communities. Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Costs was launched as a joint effort between The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Office of Policy Development and Research and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This study is intended to help policymakers and practitioners understand the nature of encampments, strategies for responding to encampments, and the costs associated with those approaches. The study offers a literature review, summaries of the four study sites, and a comprehensive final report documenting the full scope of the costs associated with the responses to encampments in the included communities. Underscored throughout the report is an understanding that a complex set of factors around housing precarity have contributed to the growth of encampments. Unsheltered homelessness is the tragic result of the country’s affordable housing crisis that stems from a combination of increasing rates of deep poverty and a lack of deeply affordable housing. Due to the impacts of structural racism, the affordable housing crisis is especially dire for Blacks and Latinos who are overrepresented among the homeless population. Within the homelessness system, shortcomings in emergency shelter policies and practices, a sense of community and safety within encampments, and a desire for autonomy and privacy contribute to some people’s preferences for encampments over shelters. The report shows that the four study sites have coalesced around a strategy that involves clearance (removing structures and belongings from encampments) and closure (requiring that people leave encampments) with support (resource-intensive outreach to connect residents with services and to ensure every resident has a place to go upon closure). Although this is the dominant strategy, outreach workers in at least one city highlight that this strategy exacerbates the challenges of moving residents to shelters or permanent housing, which research shows is the most cost-effective and humane strategy, long-term. The report also indicates that responding to encampments is resource-intensive for local governments, costing cities between $1,672 and $6,208 per unsheltered individual per year and requiring coordination across government and non-governmental actors. Since HUD funding is largely not being used for encampment related activities, city governments cover the vast majority of these costs out of their own budgets. This study was conducted before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has likely worsened homelessness rates, while simultaneously increasing the urgency for finding safe housing for residents of encampments. At the same time, many homeless shelters have reduced capacity to abide by social distancing protocols, limiting options for those experiencing homelessness and potentially forcing more people into unsheltered homelessness and encampments. Future research on the characteristics and costs of encampments should integrate the perspectives of people with lived experiences in encampments. Research should also examine the racial inequities between those who live in encampments, how encampment residents are treated under the law, and who receives supports to enter shelters or housing. Finally, future research should seek to incorporate a fuller accounting of the cost to cities, including additional municipal costs (for example, from police, fire, and health departments), and the costs associated with residents’ trauma when faced with clearance and closure of encampments. This fuller accounting of the costs of encampments should also be compared to the cost of employing a Housing First approach to residents of encampments. Overall, this report reveals that communities need more resources and guidance for addressing encampments through a focus on outreach, engagement, and connection to housing with services. Suggested solutions in the report include expanding the capacity to place people experiencing homelessness into shelters and permanent housing. This suggestion aligns with the Administration’s belief in a Housing First approach that invests in homelessness prevention, rental assistance, supportive housing, and services to ensure stable housing acts as a platform for people to access employment, seek medical care, obtain care for behavioral health conditions like mental illness or addiction, and support children. This study provides useful information to help the field better understand a growing yet under-researched segment of the homeless population—information that we will incorporate into this Administration’s holistic vision for reducing homelessness.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2020. 78p.

By The International Drug Policy Consortium

The signing organisations (the International Drug Policy Consortium, Amnesty International, the Global Alliance against Traffic in Women, the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the Women and Harm Reduction International Network) welcome the initiative to prepare a report on the decriminalisation of poverty and homelessness, to be presented at the 56th session of the Human Rights Council in June-July 2024. We also welcome the background paper shared by consultation.

In order to ensure that the report creates effective and consistent standards for the decriminalisation of poverty and homelessness, we strongly encourage the Special Rapporteurs to include in the conclusions section explicit recommendations for the decriminalisation of drug use and possession of personal use, and of sex work, as the criminalisation of both activities is a major driver of contact between law enforcement and people living in poverty in public spaces, is discriminatory, and has harmful effects on the enjoyment of a broad range of human rights. This informal paper provides a number of key arguments supporting that inclusion.

London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2024. 9p.

By W. David Bradford and Felipe Lozano-Rojas

Alcohol and drug overdoses have multiple complex causes. In this article we contribute to the literature that links homelessness, the most extreme form of housing disruption, to accidental SUD-related poisonings. Using plausibly exogenous variation from a state’s landlord-tenant policies that influence evictions, we estimated the causal impact of homelessness on SUD-related mortality. We found large effects of homelessness on SUD-related poisonings (for example, a 10 percent increase in homelessness led to a 3.2 percent increase in opioid poisonings in metropolitan areas). Our findings indicate that reducing local homelessness rates from the seventy-fifth to the fiftieth percentile levels could have saved more than 1,900 lives from opioid overdoses across all metropolitan localities in the final year of our study data. We conclude that strengthening the social safety net in terms of housing security could help curb the ongoing SUD-related poisoning epidemic in the US.

Health Affairs V. 43(2): February 2024