The Growing Criminalization of Homelessness: Enforcement, Legislation, and the Shift Toward Systemic Solutions

In recent years, the landscape of homelessness policy in the United States has shifted markedly. Instead of addressing root causes like affordable housing shortages and mental health support, many cities have relied heavily on ordinances, bans, and expanded police powers that criminalize homelessness and forcibly displace vulnerable populations from public spaces. This approach has often resulted in a cycle of displacement rather than resolution, with new developments highlighting both the scope of enforcement tactics and the emerging legislative landscape that threatens to deepen the crisis.

Escalating Enforcement Tactics and Displacement

Municipalities continue to deploy a variety of restrictive measures aimed at controlling visible homelessness. These include camping bans, move-on orders, and special enforcement zones. Cities justify these policies by citing concerns over public safety, sanitation, and urban aesthetics, yet critics argue they merely shift the problem elsewhere.

Recent examples underscore these trends:

• Portland’s Mayor questions the accuracy of local homelessness data. As highlighted in a recent video, Portland’s leadership is reassessing the reliability of its data, which influences policy decisions and resource distribution. Skepticism about the numbers complicates efforts to develop effective solutions.

• Homeless encampment sweeps and ADA Clearances have become a common occurrence. A notable instance involved crews enforcing ADA clearance laws 48 hours after homeless sweeps, often destroying belongings and displacing residents without providing adequate alternatives. A recent report titled "𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗘 𝗔𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗨𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗡" documented how crews swiftly re-enforced ADA standards following such sweeps, illustrating ongoing efforts to remove encampments regardless of residents’ needs.

• In Ogden, police-led initiatives have resulted in housing 50% more people in 2025. This positive development contrasts sharply with enforcement actions elsewhere, demonstrating that proactive, supportive approaches can be more effective than punitive measures.

• San Francisco’s crackdowns have forcibly removed approximately 10,000 unhoused residents from camps and public spaces. These actions often lead to displacement across regional borders, with individuals relocating to neighboring cities like Seattle and Portland, thereby shifting the burden rather than alleviating it.

Legislative Developments and Civil Liberties Concerns

The legislative environment continues to evolve, with new bills and ordinances raising alarms among advocates and civil rights groups.

• Senate Bill 285, now heading to Senator Braun’s desk, exemplifies efforts to criminalize behaviors associated with homelessness. Skeptics warn that such legislation could lead to increased arrests for activities like sleeping in public or loitering, further marginalizing homeless populations and potentially violating constitutional protections.

• At the state level, widespread camping or loitering bans are gaining traction, often broadening the scope of conduct that can be criminalized. These laws have been criticized for their potential to entrench homelessness rather than address its systemic roots.

Adding to concerns, Portland Mayor questions the accuracy of local homelessness data, suggesting that official figures may underestimate the scope of the crisis, which complicates policy responses and resource allocation.

Legal and Rights-Based Constraints

The judiciary has begun to place limits on enforcement tactics:

• A landmark court ruling in Los Angeles restricts cities from towing or dismantling RVs and encampments without due process, emphasizing civil liberties and human dignity. This decision underscores the importance of legal protections as a check against overreach.

• However, federal protections such as the HUD Disparate Impact Rule—designed to prevent discriminatory practices in housing and zoning—are under threat of rescission. Civil rights advocates warn that weakening these protections could permit discriminatory zoning and resource allocation, disproportionately impacting marginalized groups and those experiencing homelessness.

From Punitive to Preventive: Emerging Alternatives

Amid these enforcement-heavy strategies, some jurisdictions are pioneering more compassionate, systemic solutions:

• Prevention funding has increased, with Omaha awarding nearly $3 million to nonprofits to prevent youth homelessness and intervene early.

• Housing First initiatives—prioritizing permanent housing without preconditions—have demonstrated success. Utah’s model, for example, has seen positive outcomes in health, stability, and community integration.

• Co-Responder Programs pair police with mental health professionals, aiming to reduce arrests and connect individuals to care. North Carolina’s initiatives exemplify this approach, emphasizing support over punishment.

• Diversion Centers and Outreach Programs serve as immediate support hubs that prevent homelessness from worsening. These programs focus on human-centered care rather than displacement.

• Police-linked housing efforts, such as those in Ogden, have shown promising results, with increased housing placements and reduced reliance on punitive measures.

The Path Forward: Regional Coordination and Rights-Based Policies

The fragmented and displacement-focused strategies underscore the urgent need for cross-jurisdictional collaboration and rights-based approaches. Simply shifting the problem regionally does not resolve the underlying issues; instead, it exacerbates social fragmentation.

Key recommendations include:

• Investing in affordable housing and tenant protections, such as rent controls and stabilization programs, to prevent homelessness before it occurs.

• Expanding Housing First and mental health services, ensuring long-term stability rather than temporary relief.

• Implementing co-responder models that prioritize support and care over arrest and displacement.

• Strengthening legal protections that uphold human rights, prevent discriminatory zoning, and ensure due process.

Conclusion

The current trajectory reflects a complex tension between enforcement-driven policies and systemic, human-centered solutions. While recent developments reveal increased awareness and innovative programs, punitive measures continue to dominate many cities’ responses—displacing rather than resolving homelessness.

Progress hinges on a fundamental shift toward supportive, evidence-based policies that recognize homelessness as a systemic failure rooted in economic inequality and social neglect. Ensuring dignity, human rights, and long-term solutions requires sustained commitment, regional cooperation, and a reimagining of community responses—moving beyond displacement and criminalization toward a future where homelessness is addressed with compassion and systemic change.