A Shift to Permanence: Solutions to Homelessness in DC
“Homeless people are not the problem. They are the result of the problem.” — Unknown
Washington, D.C., a city that represents the fierce strength and courage of the American people. A city that tells the rich, multi-faceted history of the United States. A city filled with people fighting for meaningful change across America. A city drawing in over 25 million people to marvel at the marble-lined streets. A city that is a vast economic hub on the East Coast. A city that celebrates the diversity of the American people. Despite being a city filled with so much, it is also a city riddled with flaws. The approach towards homelessness is one of the most prevalent and divisive issues in The District, with “solutions” and unattainable campaign promises that have failed this vibrant city. The creation of numerous homeless encampments and the subsequent harsh removal epitomizes the haphazard treatment of the homelessness crisis in not only DC, but across America. While the DC government is taking steps to end homelessness, their violent ejection of homeless encampments is an inhumane and temporary “fix”, so the government should adopt a long-term housing and job expansion program as it addresses the root cause of the problem to permanently solve the crisis.
Ejection, removal, clearing–the harsh reality of the “fix” that the DC government is using for the homelessness issue throughout the city. In September of 2021, there were approximately 119 encampments found in the district (Austermuhle). An encampment is a collection of residences (often tents) that are in public areas. While they may just appear to be tents that people live in under overpasses, they are places that human beings live, places that they consider their home, and oftentimes live there because it is their only option. The destruction of these abodes are a major part of addressing homelessness in DC. The government details the specifics of their plan to address homelessness on their site, describing the “Homeward DC” program. But, the only aspect of this plan emphasized is how they deal with encampments. They describe any encampment that presents a “health, security, or safety risk and/or interferes with community use of public space…District agencies conduct [a] cleanup” (Office of the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services). While there certainly is ambiguity in the specific language of this goal set out by the government of DC, specifically referring to the criterion for removal, such as what a health risk is or safety risk, it is clear that the goal is to remove encampments. This “plan” does not address any other elements to solving the homelessness crisis in DC, except for laying out this intention of removal. On the website, it even has a place to report encampments for removal. The goals of the DC government are clear, but the specific reasoning underlying these destructive actions are not.
Specifically, appealing aesthetics are the driving force behind the removal of homeless people from streets and parks, which is often done through the removal of encampments. There is a trend that is growing across America: the idea of a “‘homeless makeover’” (Speer). DC is no outlier to this trend. Generally, a community of tents in the middle of a sidewalk is not considered aesthetically pleasing, especially when juxtaposed to the historic, marble icons in DC, like the US Capitol or the Jefferson Monument. Especially when considering DC’s position as a tourist capital, the desire to “clean” the city of its tents is quite high in order to leave a more preferable impression on the people traveling thousands of miles away. It is clear that these sentiments about the “homeless makeover” are widespread. Over 75% of DC residents support shutting down encampments. Additionally, there was “wide support among D.C.’s wealthiest and poorest” (Swenson). Even across different wealth levels, there was a clear push for the removal of homeless encampments.
Despite being supported by many, the idea of a homeless makeover completely ignores the underlying factors of the problem: “homeless people build self-made housing from the undesired waste of capitalist society, homeless encampments themselves are framed as undesirable spaces” (Speers). Speers sums up the issue very clearly: even though the encampments may not be the most visually appealing elements in a city, we must not ignore the people that inhabit them and why they are living in them. People are creating encampments because–in many cases–our society failed them. They are on the streets as a result of addiction, exorbitant housing costs, or a poor job market. The people are there as a result of systematic problems. So, while 15 tents underneath an overpass may not look beautiful, the people living inside of them are human beings. The removal of encampments, specifically in DC’s plans, offers a plan as to where the people living inside these encampments will go. It criminalizes an action that people are forced to take. People must sleep somewhere, and our “capitalist society” is forcing them to sleep in these encampments. Pushing the people of encampments out to improve a city’s “aesthetics” before addressing the systemic causes of the problem is an unjustifiable, inhumane action to address this crisis.
While improving the aesthetics of a city is not a solid reason behind the senseless removal of homeless encampments, it is important to delve into the concerns of public health relating to homeless encampments. A significant amount of research has been done to detect the potential negative effects that these encampments have on public health. Often, science has shown that there does seem to be some negative impact: “Most [encampments] lack sanitation facilities…This situation represents a breakdown of the sanitation interventions that can lead to the outbreak of vector-borne disease” (Wilson). Clearly, it is established that the spread of disease in homeless encampments is a concern. Public health, which is about protecting the wellness of the people in a community, is a top concern in many localities. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown people of the world the importance of public health more than ever. So, it is valid to have concerns about disease in encampments, especially when considering the conditions are scientifically proven to increase risk. But, once again, it is essential to recognize that the people in these encampments are usually not doing this voluntarily. They were put there as a result of a systemic failure. Experts in the field, Nicholas Olson and Bernadette Pauly, articulate that “the neoliberal notion that encampments exist because of individual shortcomings ignores how encampments are instead sites of public health deficiencies rooted in government policies related to lack of housing, sanitation, food storage, inadequate incomes, and other resources” (Olsen and Pauly). These two authors clearly highlight the issue by citing public health concerns: public health concerns often hold a significant amount of weight in decision making in societies, rightfully so. But, it is important to recognize that these people are not “creating” these public health hazards purposefully or willingingly. They are doing it as a result of not being able to find jobs, high housing costs, etc. Instead of forcing people out of the only place they can live, using public health reasons as rationale for doing so, governments must introduce policy to fix the issue at hand. If there were alternative housing and employment opportunities, the removal of homeless encampments using public health as a basis would be much more justified.
Nevertheless, we have been using a failing solution for decades: homeless shelters. In the eyes of policy makers, creating an indoor place for people to sleep is a proper solution to the homelessness crisis, allowing for the removal of these encampments. But, this is just not the case. The DC mayor’s plan for homelessness, as announced in 2016, is the creation of “eight new homeless shelters, one for every ward in DC” (Cortinth). DC’s plans to house the homeless population is akin to most major cities in the US. This brings up the question of why is the homelessness crisis still growing after using homeless shelters to fix it? The answer is that homeless shelters have been proven to not work: “The mayor’s solution is to bring the shelter rolls down by rehousing people more quickly…But it’s not clear that this will substantially reduce the shelter population in the long run” (Cortinth). At its core, homeless shelters are short-term, temporary shelters. They are made to take people off the streets quickly, but ignore making sure the residents of these shelters do not go on the streets. Additionally, in most shelters, they can’t stay in them for long. So, DC’s plan to eject people from the encampments and create more shelters in the District does not resolve the issue permanently.
It is disheartening that the fix that major American cities are using is not working. Besides being inhumane, violently ejecting people from the living situation that they have been subjected to and directing them to homeless shelters does nothing in the way of a permanent solution. It puts a band-aid on a deep scar without any further intervention. But, the good news is that there are global solutions in use that have shown tremendous success, specifically those in Scandinavian countries (Cendrowicz). The programs of these countries have reduced permanently homelessness in major cities to low amounts, all in a dignified, humane fashion. Most Scandinavian countries have found major success with their programs–and Finland’s program is one of the most widely cited.
What is Finland’s famed solution to the unsolvable problem? It is called Paavo. It was introduced in two phases, Paavo I and Paavo II. The first phase was focused on “[providing] at least 1,250 new flats and support residences for long-term homeless in the participating cities…This was to be done by replacing temporary beds with permanent residential premises and through housing consultancy and launching a national housing project supporting young people” (Cendrowicz). Nowhere in this program will you find any mention of homeless shelters. There is absolutely nothing that is temporary. By this I mean that all of the solutions that Finland utilized were permanent. They allowed the residents to stay there. Also, “support services,” like helping people get back into the workplace, contributed to the program’s success. Because of this program, the number of homeless people in Finland has dropped to less than seven thousand (Cendrowicz). This matters as the success of this program in Finland makes it clear that America should adopt comparable solutions focused on permanency to solve this seemingly unsolvable crisis once and for all.
Denmark is another country with a comprehensive strategy. The government’s main actions are “strengthening the services available to the homeless people by providing additional financial resources” Some of these services include more housing for homeless people, as well as “better monitoring of initiatives throughout the homelessness prevention process” (Cendrowicz). The creation of permanent housing is similar to Finland’s program, but they slightly differ in how it approaches homeless prevention programs. They closely monitor these programs, adjusting them as the conditions change. By doing this, they adapt to a changing situation and are able to prevent homelessness on an even greater scale. This program has also had tremendous success–reducing the number of homeless people in Denmark significantly.
While there are certainly slight differences among these programs, there is one central commonality. The programs completely move away from any short-term solution, and are only focused on permanent solutions. These permanent solutions mainly include creating new housing, but also include programs to help people get jobs or the monitoring of prevention programs. Their adaptability is also noteworthy. Finland’s program was broken up into two phases, with each approach differing as the conditions changed. Denmark’s prevention program is all about monitoring the conditions to ensure the greatest success. This is a stark contrast to the homogeneous system in the US, where violently removing people from homeless encampments and throwing them into homeless shelters is the only solution used across almost every city that has been used for decades. On the contrary, there is no adaptability in the programs of the US. It is important to use the successful programs of these Scandinavian countries as a roadmap for cities like D.C., as our unvaried approach to this issue has been a shortcoming. Because the mayoral office currently implements programs relating to homelessness, they would be able to do the same with this program.
Other American cities are already working to adopt this approach focused on permanency. The Homeless Union of Greensboro (HUG) is a group fighting for the better treatment of homeless people and a long-term solution to this crisis in Greensboro, North Carolina. HUG is “focusing on long-term solutions like finding permanent affordable housing, respecting the dignity and rights of people experiencing homelessness, and accountability to the people directly affected by poverty and homelessness in the community” (Craven et al.). This demonstrates that there are already groups in the US that are lobbying for these long-term solutions in cities. Like the programs of Scandinavian countries, HUG is lobbying the government to create permanent housing for homeless people. But, they also go beyond housing, adapting it to the conditions in the US. The violent removal of homeless encampments is not something that only exists in DC, but across the US. So, this program is working towards stopping that violent treatment and stopping the criminalization of something that people are subjected to. While these changes have not been fully implemented in Greensboro, it is important because groups like HUG are starting to create dialogue on the topic. They are challenging the long-standing beliefs that the removal of encampments and creation of shelters is the solution, when it is not. The first step to a solution is awareness.
Washington, D.C’s is a city extraordinarily close to many, leaving a positive impact on millions of people, but it is also a city that has neglected a group. A city with systemic problems that force people to live on the streets, then violently remove them from the streets, directing them to shelters where after a few months they have to go back on the streets. This is a cyclic, destructive pattern that has been going on for decades. It is an inhumane and brief solution. But, there is a fix–Scandinavian countries, like Finland and Denmark, have housing, employment, and prevention solutions that are solely focused on long-term success, abandoning any short-term solutions. This approach has had unmatched success. Analyzing these programs makes it clear that we must bring long-term-based solutions to DC, adapting them to the conditions in the city. The only way to make this work is advocacy. Contact the mayor’s office, contact council members, protest, and raise awareness. Get loud, DC, that is the way to end this repetitious, inhumane crisis.
Works Cited
https://dmhhs.dc.gov/page/encampments
https://dcist.com/story/21/09/16/dc-housing-homeless-encampments-foggy-bottom-noma/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/02/24/dc-poll-housing-homeless-bowser/
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4zg3k0p2
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.17269/s41997-021-00581-w.pdf
https://www.aei.org/articles/every-ward-in-d-c-is-getting-a-homeless-shelter-why-thats-a-good-thing/
