,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Given the Durkan administration's "new policy" ramping up sweeps when an encampment is a hazard or obstruction (allowing the city to ignore notice and support), it's time for a rant about sweeps.
ISSUE 1 is the vagueness of the terms “obstruction” and “hazard.” These terms were intended as basic guideposts to ensure that sweeps were reserved for the most extreme cases, and in these extreme cases, notice and service offers were still important.
But this new policy intentionally exploits the vagueness of these terms. Arguably, any unauthorized encampment could B considered an obstruction/hazard. So no unauthorized encampment will B entitled 2 basic notice, due process, or other civil & constitutional rights protections.
ISSUE 2 is the lack of evidence that sweeps do anything to make homelessness better. Even the navigation team's own numbers show that very few encampment residents they repeatedly engage with actually develop trust with the officers.
Still, acceptance rates for services are very low (this low rate is connected to encampment residents’ learned experience that such offers are meaningless- see ISSUE 3).
But to the extent that any residents do develop some fragile trust with the officers, imagine how difficult that trust would be to maintain when you are being forcibly removed by the same officers with no plan for a safe and legal place for you to go.
Evidence overwhelmingly suggests sweeps are extremely expensive exercises in futility. Sweeps impose extraordinary emotional, psychological, and logistical costs on already vulnerable ppl.
The destruction of property and disruption of fragile communities often leaves ppl more likely to remain homeless. As long as sweeps do not get paired with an exit strategy that places people in stable housing, sweeps will continue to be a costly rotating door.
And guess what- after spending tens of millions of dollars a year on sweeps- they still don’t solve homelessness!
ISSUE 3 is around the banner of “offering services or treatment” to unsheltered people. These offers are most often smoke and mirrors.
First, just bc someone offers an unsheltered person services does not mean there's capacity for that unsheltered person. Typically, even in best case scenarios, there is a long wait list for services. (We overstress and underfund services, so that shouldn’t be a big surprise).
Even if there is capacity, there is no guarantee that unsheltered person is eligible to receive that service. Even if eligibility is not a problem — there needs to be reliable transportation to this service.
Even if there is capacity, there is no waitlist, there's no problem with eligibility or transportation, we still have to grapple with the reality that services— when not paired with stable housing — are not likely to succeed.
Successful services require sustained and regular participation. Ppl who are unsheltered are not in a position to get to services on a regular basis (in part because we sweep them around all the time).
Even if they could engage regularly, so long as they remain unsheltered, they return from each service back to the streets: a major source of the trauma that is causing the need for services in the first place.
A student of mine compares this process to trying to treat a burn victim who is still on fire. For services to be successful, they should be paired with stable housing.
Lots more 2 say, but bottom line? SWEEPS are a crap approach. We all want to end unsheltered homelessness. But sweeps sure as hell not the way to do it.
