“`html

EXPERT Q&A

The recent executive action by President Trump to criminalize homelessness is an inappropriate strategy that diverts essential resources from individuals seeking permanent housing, as stated by an expert from the University of Michigan.

This initiative is not a matter of public safety, as asserted by the White House, but rather a measure that negatively impacts millions, particularly homeless children who may face difficulties in educational settings, indicated Jennifer Erb-Downward, director of housing stability programs and policy initiatives at U-M Poverty Solutions.

Critics contend that the executive order regarding homelessness criminalizes poverty. Is there any proof that punitive measures regarding homelessness are effective?

No evidence has been presented that suggests criminalizing sleeping in public areas effectively resolves homelessness. Policies that lawfully penalize homelessness merely hide unhoused individuals from sight by incarcerating them. This approach does not tackle the roots of homelessness and is, in fact, significantly more costly than investing in housing solutions and support services that research indicates foster long-term stability for unhoused individuals.

What alternative, research-backed strategies exist for reducing homelessness, and how do they stand in terms of costs and effectiveness compared to Trump’s executive order?

So far, the most successful, evidence-supported strategy to eradicate homelessness and foster long-term stability for unhoused individuals is the Housing First model. This approach offers housing unconditionally, without prerequisites of sobriety or mental health treatments, and then provides auxiliary services tailored to meet the specific ambitions and necessities of clients. Evidence shows that Housing First results in sustained housing stability and better equips individuals to confront addiction and mental and physical health issues contributing to their instability. The problem is not that Housing First lacks effectiveness or an evidence base; rather, it has never received sufficient funding to address the genuine need in the U.S. Ironically, the measures proposed in the executive order would prove to be pricier than full funding for a housing-first approach. Incarceration and enforced institutionalization are not only incredibly costly but also inhumane and ineffective in solving homelessness.

Can you elaborate on the financial implications of criminalizing street homelessness versus offering housing and support services?

Institutionalizing individuals is extraordinarily pricey and does not resolve the fundamental issue of providing them with a home. Unless we offer individuals an alternative to street living, they will likely return to homelessness immediately after exiting any institution. To provide a rough estimate, the annual average cost of incarceration per individual is $33,000. The average cost for inpatient mental health or substance use treatment at hospitals is $7,100 for just six days—and what happens upon discharge? In contrast, the estimated annual per-household cost for housing and services through the Housing First model ranges from approximately $8,500 to $20,000, depending on the level of assistance required. Hence, investing fully in housing and supportive services for unhoused individuals is substantially less costly annually.

How might cities respond legally or politically to homelessness? Are there examples of local or state governments resisting federal directives?

Currently, advocates for the rights and welfare of unhoused individuals are analyzing all legal aspects of the executive order. Legal challenges to the order are likely forthcoming. Specifically, the wording concerning enforced commitment into mental health and substance use treatment programs appears to contradict existing legal precedents that have secured the rights of individuals with disabilities to reside in the community with necessary support instead of being institutionalized. Regarding resistance at the state and local levels, the extent to which street homelessness is criminalized will ultimately depend on how willing individuals are to comply with and enact these directives. We have seen instances of such resistance in community reactions to federal immigration orders.

How would this initiative impact demographics experiencing homelessness that are often neglected in broader policy discussions?

A demographic frequently overlooked in policy considerations is homeless youth. Approximately 4.2 million youth and young adults face homelessness each year, many of whom are survivors of sexual and physical abuse, as well as human trafficking. Policies that penalize homelessness—like the current executive order—will place youth in more perilous circumstances, heightening their risk of exploitation. Arrests for simply sleeping outdoors may create criminal records for youth, worsening their existing difficulties in securing stable jobs and housing. Over time, these criminalization policies will hinder youth’s access to the support essential for overcoming homelessness.

An op-ed you authored emphasizes that the president’s proposed 2026 federal budget would remove designated funding for the federal program that guarantees educational protections and services for over 1.4 million homeless students. What are the consequences of lacking McKinney-Vento Act protections?

Without the safeguards that the McKinney-Vento Act offers, children facing homelessness will encounter significant barriers to participating in school. Documentation requirements, such as proof of residence, will hinder or obstruct students from enrolling in educational institutions. Children who experience mobility due to housing instability will be compelled to shift schools mid-year, and attendance rates will decline as children lose access to transportation support. Amid these escalating challenges, the absence of McKinney-Vento protections means these children will also lose the guidance of school liaisons who currently assist in connecting students and families with essential resources. The ultimate consequence of diminishing these protections will be that more children experiencing homelessness will be deprived of their educational rights, leading to a rise in students unable to complete high school. This underscores why upholding the McKinney-Vento Act is crucial; it ensures that childhood homelessness does not dictate the educational trajectory or future success of affected children.

“`