Sweeps and criminalisation and lawsuits are not the answer; a sanctioned encampment is.
In the absence of an approach towards sanctioned encampments, the City of Berkeley continues the policy of encampment abatement, traumatizing a population which needs all the services the city can provide.
The goal of encampment policy should not be to make poverty less visible. The goal should be to reduce harm, protect public health, respect human dignity, keep neighbourhoods safe, and move people into stable housing. Berkeley “sweeps” encampments because they are trying to manage public health and safety problems — but too often they do it because of pressure from housed residents and businesses, visibility, and the conditions which have been allowed to exist in and around encampments.
More often than not, basic human needs in encampments like toilets, clean water, shoes, consistent garbage pickup, and cleaning the streets are not available. Over a short time garbage gets piled up, public urination and defecation become an issue, people relapse without support, and mental health deteriorates. But the availability of on-demand services for Behavioral Health, improved outreach by our Community Based Organizations, and public health to services on site, accessible spaces, and safety of possessions could very quickly change the conditions in an encampment.
In Berkeley the housed community has a clear understanding that people living in encampments are our neighbors and fellow community members. Residents also know that homelessness is primarily a failure of housing affordability, income stability, behavioural health care, and public systems after years of failures of enforcement. Enforcement alone does not end homelessness and often moves people from one unsafe location to another without solving the underlying problem.
Berkeley’s own Homeless Response Team assesses encampments based on factors including fire, health, and environmental hazards, obstruction of public rights-of-way, interference with businesses and residences, shelter availability, and legal issues, but without providing essential services that would mitigate these issues.
The City of Berkeley’s 2nd & Cedar Encampment Resolution/RV Buyback Program showed that participation improves when residents are offered low-barrier shelter, asset protection, flexibility for partners/pets/family, case management, and pathways to permanent housing; and in addition, when the City provides increased outreach, reasonable efforts to offer shelter, services, and proper storage of belongings when encampments are closed down.
Recent court rulings make clear that cities must respect due process, disability rights, personal property rights, and the survival needs of unhoused residents when addressing encampments.
The City of Berkeley needs to review all its local ordinances and State and Federal laws, and then Berkeley must consider revamping its approach to encampments and adopt the following principles and take the following actions:
No encampment resolution should be considered successful unless people are offered a realistic alternative that is safer than the place they are being asked to leave.
- Written notice in plain language and multiple languages where needed.
- Direct outreach by trained staff and service providers.
- Assessment of disability needs and reasonable accommodations.
- Offers of shelter, safe parking, motel placement, respite care, or other appropriate alternatives.
- A clear plan for pets, partners, families, medications, documents, mobility devices, and essential belongings.
- Storage and retrieval of personal property.
- Public documentation of the reason for the closure.
Create Safe Alternatives.: A Sanctioned Encampment.
A sanctioned encampment must exist within the HUD Continuum of Care and be added to the Continuum as a resource. The City shall identify appropriate sites for sanctioned encampments, create a “task force” of all key stake holders who review that reasons why anyone is being asked to leave. CAN THE TASK FORCE HAVE A WIDER ROLE THAN JUST VETTING EXPULSIONS?
Fund alternatives to unmanaged encampments, including a sanctioned encampment which would save the city money which it spends on sweeps and the inappropriate use of police.
- Safe RV and vehicle parking
- Indoor/outdoor sanctioned respite sites
- Hygiene stations, bathrooms, showers, trash service, and sharps disposal
- Non-congregate shelter rooms
- Navigation centers with case management
- Mental health and substance-use outreach
- Rapid exits into permanent supportive and affordable housing
The goal shall be to reduce harm, protect public health, respect human dignity, keep neighborhoods safe, and move people into stable housing. The City must reject both neglect and cruelty; we will not abandon people to unsafe encampments, and we will not pretend that displacement is a real solution to homelessness.
Asset Protection and RV Buyback Options
This model has had some success. For residents living in RVs or vehicles, the City shall explore a voluntary buyback or repair-and-transition program modeled on the 2nd & Cedar effort, so people are not forced to abandon their only major asset without compensation or support.
Transparency and Accountability
The City shall publish regular reports showing the number of:
- The City shall publish regular reports showing the number of:
And the number of people:
- Contacted by City staff
- Offered shelter or housing
- Accepting services
- Moved into shelter
- Moved into permanent housing
- Displaced without placement
Also:
- Property stored and retrieved
- Complaints, disability accommodations, and outcomes
- Cost per intervention and funding sources.
- Property stored and retrieved
- Complaints, disability accommodations, and outcomes
- Cost per intervention and funding sources.