From Streets to Stability: Ending the Criminalization of Homelessness Through Housing First and Structural Reform

Photo by Levi Meir Clancy on Unsplash

Haneen J. Alani
University of New Haven

Homelessness in the United States has reached a critical and alarming point. In 2023, more than 653,000 individuals were recorded as experiencing homelessness—a 12% increase from the previous year and the highest documented rate in the country (HUD, 2023). Including 127,707 older adults (ages 55+), who make up approximately 20% of the total homeless population, and 154,313 people experiencing chronic homelessness, which has more than doubled since 2016 (Heller, 2024). In addition, LGBTQIA+ youth have significantly increased, comprising 20-40% of the homeless youth despite being less than 10% of the general youth population in the country back in 2010 (USICH, 2010; 2025). These percentages call for comprehensive, population-specific interventions and policies rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

Multiple structural factors are driving this crisis, including the affordable housing shortfall (Desmond & Gershenson, 2016), systemic racial inequalities (Lynch, 2016), punitive zoning regimes (Cianciotto, 2020), and a lack of coordinated behavioral health services (Baxter et al., 2019). Federal efforts have long been undercut by reactive and fragmented local strategies and policies, with many municipalities defaulting to punitive responses such as anti-camping ordinances, criminalizing public survival behaviors (e.g., sleeping or resting), displacement sweeps (i.e., clean-ups), and exclusionary spatial/architectural designs (Cianciotto, 2020). These measures not only violate the Eighth Amendment protections but also displace, rather than resolve, homelessness, resulting in a prolonged exposure to systemic exclusion, trauma, and public expenditures (Gilmer et al., 2009; Izzo, 2022; Lynch, 2016). The recent Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson has intensified the stakes by legally permitting criminal sanctions against unhoused/homeless individuals even when no shelter alternatives exist, which deepens the moral and constitutional crisis concerning this population (Heller, 2024).

Housing First has emerged as a robustly evaluated and ethically grounded alternative to traditional shelter-based approaches. First implemented by Tsemberis in the 1990s and later endorsed in the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness’s (USICH) Opening Doors and Home, Together strategic plans (2010; 2015; 2018). It prioritizes immediate, unconditional access to permanent housing, integrated with voluntary, wrap-around support systems and services such as mental health, substance use, and employment or vocational training programs (Tsemberis, 2010; USICH, 2018; 2015). Numerous empirical studies have confirmed its effectiveness. For example, a CDC-commissioned meta-analysis reported that Housing First reduces homelessness by 88%, improves housing stability by over 40%, and significantly decreases mortality, hospitalization, and emergency service use among the homeless population (Gilmer et al., 2009; Henwood et al., 2015; Peng et al., 2020).  

However, despite the empirical validation and federal advocacy, the implementation of Housing First remains uneven and, to some extent, politically contested across different jurisdictions within the United States. For instance, the USICH Expanding the Toolbox (2020)report acknowledges that certain stakeholders view the model as overly rigid and/or under-resourced and call for flexibility and innovation alongside fidelity. At the same time, underinvestment in affordable housing, privatization of public space, and resistance to harm-reduction models continue to fracture and constrain the scalability of policies and initiatives arguing for the need of housing before services (Guimarães, 2021; Heller, 2024; Margier, 2023). This report responds to the tensions between different initiatives and policies to address or prevent homelessness in the United States by proposing a targeted, actionable framework for realignment. It advocates for policies with empirical success and moral clarity, using the Housing First approach to address the country’s increasing homelessness rates. Drawing from federal strategy, legal precedent, and empirical research, the report outlines coordinated reforms offering a blueprint for shifting from exclusion to prevention by laying the groundwork for a more socially just and sustainable response to homelessness.

 

Background and Context

It is critical to note that the alarming increase in homelessness rates in the United States cannot be explained by individual factors alone; it is the predictable outcome of structural forces that distribute vulnerability across race, gender, disability, and geography. Rather than stemming from discrete personal crises and/or personal choices, homelessness today emerges from compounded policy failures such as disinvestment in behavioral health infrastructure, bureaucratic fragmentation of care, and the commodification of housing (Guimarães, 2021; Heller, 2024; Margier, 2023). Evident in the experiences of military veterans, women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, seniors or aging populations, and people with disabilities, who often encounter multiple service systems that operate in silos and impose contradictory eligibility criteria which often leads these populations to experiencing what is referenced as chronic homelessness (Menih, 2020; Van Leeuwen, 2018).

In addition, local jurisdictions frequently exacerbate this structural vulnerability by adopting enforcement-first responses, such as nuisance abatement laws, “move-along” orders, and private security regimes funded by Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) that prioritize urban aesthetics over accessibility (Guimarães, 2021; Margier, 2023). These responses often take the form of anti-camping and sit-lie ordinances, which criminalize resting or sleeping in public spaces; in addition to hostile architecture, such as bench dividers and anti-sleep spikes that render public spaces uninhabitable, and exclusionary zoning regulations that prevent affordable housing or shelters in high-opportunity and wealthy business districts (Carr, 2020; Cianciotto, 2020; Izzo, 2022). For example, in 2025, an ordinance in New Jersey was introduced allowing municipalities to fine up to $2000 or incarcerate individuals for up to 90 days for sleeping outdoors, further exemplifying the punitive turn in local homelessness policies (NJ S&H, ID 11871). Rather than reducing homelessness rates, these strategies result in the displacement of unsheltered individuals to surrounding areas, deepening barriers to stability, and the criminalization of poverty (Carr, 2020; Izzo, 2022; Margier, 2023).

In response to this carceral governance model, Housing First offers a human rights-based alternative that fundamentally reshapes how homelessness is understood and addressed (Lynch, 2005; Padgett et al., 2016). While widely cited in policy discourse, Housing First is often mischaracterized as rapid rehousing or placement without requirements. However, in practice, it is a multi-principle framework that was originally developed in the early 90s (Tsemberis, 2010) and later refined through multiple federal strategic plans starting in 2010, leading into the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020 (Padgett et al., 2016; USICH, 2010, 2015, 2018). The Housing First model is defined by six interconnected principles:

• Immediate access to permanent housing without prerequisites such as sobriety or treatment compliance.
• Consumer choice and self-determination, ensuring participants guide their decision-making processes about housing type and services.
• Recovery orientation, emphasizing harm reduction and participant-defined goals over treatment mandates.
• Individualized and person-driven support systems, tailored to intersecting needs, including trauma, disability, or reentry.
• Social and community integration, aimed at reducing isolation and building inclusive neighborhoods, especially for incarcerated individuals.
• Housing is a basic human right, not a behavioral conformity or a reward for participating in desired services/programs.

By centering housing as a foundational condition rather than a conditional benefit, the Housing First challenges a deeply entrenched logic of moral deservingness, emphasizing much of the United States’ homelessness responses (Padgett et al., 2016; Tsemberis, 2010). Specifically, where shelter-based systems often function as a triage and surveillance, Housing First emphasizes stability, dignity, and participant autonomy (Padgett et al., 2016; Tsemberis, 2010). Although debates over cost, accountability, and enforcement continue, this report situates Housing First not simply as a technique for housing placement but as a policy framework grounded in a fundamentally different approach that housing is not contingent on behavior or compliance, but constitutive to recovery, community, and public health.

 

Critique of Pre-existing Policies

Federal initiatives, such as HUD-VASH and the supportive services for veteran families (SSVF) programs, have achieved and demonstrated measurable success in stabilizing housing and improving health outcomes for chronically homeless populations, particularly veterans (Baxter et al., 2019; Byrne et al., 2014). Both programs reflect several core principles of the Housing First initiative, particularly rapid access to housing and integrated support services. However, they also illustrate the challenges of partial implementation. For instance, in many communities the participants have faced burdensome eligibility requirements or long waitlists, and supportive services being unevenly delivered or underfunded in certain geographical locations than others; which results in a ‘patchwork’ of progress that lacks the consistency needed for sustained impact (Baxter et al., 2019; Byrne et al., 2014).

In addition, USICH has further reinforced these efforts through interagency coordination and housing first guidance through Opening Doors, and Home, Together projects(USICH, 2015; 2018). However, despite having a toolbox or guidance in place, there were no formal enforcement mechanisms to ensure state and local compliance –this is where things begin to break down, or in some situations, have a reverse effect, addressing homelessness in these locations (Padgett et al., 2016). Byrne and Culhane (2015) emphasized that Housing First works best when it is implemented with fidelity, meaning its core principles are not diluted or changed, which often happens when political resistance and inconsistent funding at the local level start interfering with the versions implemented of the model (USICH, 2020).

Moreover, a growing challenge at the state level is preemption, where laws modeled after proposals from the Cicero Institute have given states the power to override local decisions and force the adoption of more punitive homelessness strategies such as encampment bans, mandatory treatment programs, and restrictions on harm reduction services (NAEH, 2024), which may become an obstacle to cities that want to take a more humane, socially just, and evidence-based approach to address homelessness. Meanwhile, at the municipal level, expanding Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and other quasi-public entities have reshaped how urban homelessness is governed and perceived (Carr, 2020; Margier, 2023).

Often funded by commercial property owners and operating with limited public accountability, BIDs tend to focus on “clean and safe” initiatives that rely on surveillance, private security, and hostile architecture to remove visibly homeless people from commercial areas (Guimarães, 2021; Margier, 2023). However, these practices do not address homelessness itself; it simply pushes these people elsewhere by reinforcing the logic of displacement and visibility control rather than stability and inclusion of who has access to these public spaces and who does not, which further reinforces social and spatial marginalization (Izzo, 2022; Young & Petty, 2018). Cianciotto (2020) demonstrated a solid example of this issue through the case study of Philadelphia’s LOVE Park, where public space regulations and aesthetic zoning laws often serve as covert tools of exclusion by designing out homeless individuals under the guise of beautification and urban renewal.

In summary, there is a growing disconnect between what the federal government says should happen and what is being applied on the ground. Therefore, even the most rigorous evidence-based strategies will fall short without stronger accountability, dedicated funding streams tied to fidelity benchmarks, and limits on private governance over public space. What is needed now is not more guidance, but structural alignment where enforceable standards support federal investments and cities are empowered, not preempted, to adopt long-term housing solutions over short-term control through exclusionary mechanisms (Margier, 2023).

 

Strategic Policy Options

Addressing homelessness at scale requires more than isolated program improvements; it demands a shift in how laws are written, how funding is distributed, and how public space is governed. The five strategies outlined below are designed to work together, where each strategy tackles a different dimension of the structural crisis contributing to homelessness: legal frameworks, funding logic, urban design, population-specific needs, and federal accountability. Together, these strategies form a coherent policy response grounded in the Housing First model and oriented toward human rights, cost efficiency, and long-term stability.

1. Repeal or Preempt Anti-Homeless Ordinances at the Federal and State Level

Across the country, local governments continue to enforce laws that criminalize basic survival behaviors such as sleeping in public parks, camping, and/or panhandling. These ordinances violate constitutional protections, as argued in Grants Pass v. Johnson, and push people deeper into crises by trapping them in cycles of arrest, citation, and displacement (Heller, 2024; Izzo, 2022). This strategy calls for coordinated legislative and judicial efforts at the federal and state levels to repeal or preempt such laws. States can pass preemption laws that protect the unhoused individuals, just as they currently pass ones that enable punishments. The goal is to replace criminal enforcement with public health and housing responses, aligning local ordinances with human rights, social justice standards, and existing federal guidance.

• Expand Housing First Program Funding with Enforced Fidelity Benchmarks

Housing First is only as effective as its implementation. Therefore, the outcomes will suffer when the model is funded but not followed accurately, or when providers add sobriety requirements, mandatory treatment, or restrictive eligibility rules (Byrne & Culhane, 2015; Padgett et al., 2016). However, this strategy proposes expanding federal and state funding, tying these investments to a clear fidelity benchmark: immediate housing access, voluntary support services, and recovery-oriented care, aligned with those published by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness projects (USICH, 2018). In addition, federal agencies should enforce standards through regular audits and reporting requirements to maintain consistent funding; which improves outcomes, builds trust, reduces emergency system costs, and ensures that public investment supports a lasting change addressing homelessness (Gilmer et al., 2009; Peng et al., 2020; Tsemberis, 2010).

• Eliminate Hostile Architecture and Curb Privatization of Public Space

Cities increasingly rely on hostile architectural designs such as bench dividers, anti-sleeping spikes, and boulders under bridges to exclude the unhoused population from public space. These physical deterrents convey that unhoused people are unwelcome, and their presence is treated as a threat to urban order and safety (Carr, 2020; Izzo, 2022). This strategy would prohibit investments in exclusionary design tactics and create guidelines that ensure ADA compliance, public accessibility, and spatial equity. It would also regulate the growing influence of the privatization of public spaces, which often operate as a ‘de facto’ enforcers of visibility control through private security and policy lobbying (Guimarães, 2021; Margier, 2023). Public space should serve the public, and that includes people experiencing homelessness.

• Implement Trauma-Informed, Gender-Specific Housing First Initiatives

It is critical to note that not all unhoused people face the same risks or have the same needs. For instance, women, LGBTQIA+, and survivors of violence are disproportionately vulnerable to sexual assault, trauma, and discrimination in traditional shelter systems (Menih, 2020; Van Leeuwen, 2018). Therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach leaves too many people out. This strategy calls for targeted investments in Housing First programs that are explicitly trauma-informed and gender responsive, meaning that staff should be trained in trauma care, spaces designed with privacy and safety in mind for those vulnerable populations, and services should be provided that address the unique pathways into and out of homelessness for these groups. As highlighted by Baxter et al. (2019), when programs are built around the realities of those they serve, they are more effective in the long term, people stay housed longer, engage more fully with the programs and services offered and are less likely to return to the crisis system or relapse back into homelessness (Collins et al., 2012; Heller, 2024).

• Establish a National Housing First Accountability and Monitoring Framework

It is critical to acknowledge that even the best models fail without oversight. Across the country, jurisdictions adopt the language of Housing First while quietly reintroducing preconditions or stripping away supportive services. Without a way to track fidelity and outcomes, it is impossible to know what is working or to hold anyone accountable when programs drift from the expected outcomes (USICH, 2020). This strategy proposes a federally coordinated accountability system that standardizes fidelity measures, facilitates cross-jurisdictional learning, and publicly reports on the progress of agencies and organizations that rely on government funding when implementing such models. Ensuring a transparent and regularly updated system tied directly to funding will help ensure that the model remains a measurable, enforceable policy standard with an observable impact (Padgett et al., 2016).

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Proposed Policy Modifications

1. Repeal Anti-Homeless Ordinances

• Pros: Repealing laws and regulations that punish the unhoused population for sleeping, sitting, or panhandling in public can protect their rights and reduce unnecessary arrests, which in turn decreases the criminalization of the homeless population. Izzo (2022) noted that criminalization has been shown to increase trauma, push individuals away from services, undermine long-term housing stability, and increase government and local expenditures. Therefore, removing these laws helps reframe homelessness as a public health and housing issue, not a crime, by redirecting police and judicial resources currently used to enforce these ordinances (Carr, 2020).

• Cons: Such legislative repeals require multi-level coordination and can face political backlash and jurisdictional pushback. Some local officials may fear that removing enforcement mechanisms will reduce their ability to manage visible homelessness in certain areas, despite evidence that these laws are ineffective and often result in displacing the unhoused population to surrounding areas (Cianciotto, 2020).

• Expand Housing First Funding

• Pros: Housing First has been empirically validated across multiple studies, a model and a strategy that, when implemented with fidelity, improves housing retention and lowers mortality (Henwood et al., 2013; Padgett et al., 2016; Tsemberis, 2010). It also demonstrates high-cost effectiveness through decreased hospital and incarceration rates (Gilmer et al., 2009). Also, tying federal and state funding to fidelity benchmarks would standardize implementation across jurisdictions, which builds public trust in the model by making success measurable and outcomes transparent.

• Cons: Expanding Housing First requires sustained funding and cross-agency coordination, both of which are politically and logistically complex to achieve. Keeping in mind that successful implementation depends on high fidelity, which is often inconsistent across jurisdictions, where monitoring fidelity requires a federal infrastructure that does not yet fully exist. (Byrne & Culhane, 2015). Jurisdictions may resist fidelity requirements if they conflict with existing service models or challenge moral expectations around sobriety, compliance, or ‘deservingness’ of aid.

• Prohibit Anti-Homeless Hostile Architecture

• Pros: Eliminating hostile designs such as anti-sleep spikes or under-bridge boulders would align public infrastructure with fundamental human rights and ADA accessibility principles, which aligns with inclusive urban planning principles and spatial justice (Guimarães, 2021; Izzo, 2022). In addition to reducing long-term costs related to sanitation, enforcement, and recurrent crisis responses, which are driven by the failure to provide safe and stable shelter and ensure public space is inclusive for all residents, including those without housing (Gilmer et al., 2009; Peng et al., 2020).

• Cons: Revising zoning codes and public space design policies requires city-level planning coordination and often meets resistance from commercial property stakeholders and BIDs (Guimarães, 2021; Margier, 2023). In addition, considering the historical support for defensible space (Newman, 1973), some municipalities may perceive hostile architecture as an effective deterrent mechanism that is necessary to protect public safety, making such reform politically fraught or rejected.

• Trauma-Informed, Gender-Specific Housing

• Pros: Addressing unmet needs of vulnerable populations, particularly women and LGBTQIA+ individuals, and addressing critical service gaps, increases safety and program retention rates (Menih, 2020; Van Leeuwen, 2018). It also aligns with trauma-informed, culturally competent programs that improve safety, service engagement that ensures public health equity, and long-term housing outcomes for these vulnerable populations (Baxter et al., 2019; Colling et al., 2012).

• Cons: Establishing these specialized programs requires dedicated funding, staff training, and service integration across multiple sectors such as mental health, substance use, and domestic violence services, which require additional funding and resources. Smaller jurisdictions or rural areas may lack the infrastructure or workforce capacity to implement these models without federal guidance and support.

• National Accountability Framework

• Pros: Creating a consistent reporting tool and framework would help identify best practices and areas for improvement across jurisdictions. Establishing a standardized federal framework would ensure fidelity to Housing First principles by strengthening the implementation strategies and facilitating cross-site learning opportunities. In addition to increasing transparency for funders and the public by helping policymakers evaluate the impact and make evidence-informed decisions about resource allocation (Padgett et al., 2016).

• Cons: Maintaining such a framework requires upfront investment in multiple robust data systems, and multi-agency partnerships/coordination; which may face bureaucratic inertia, jurisdictional silos, political opposition; all of which are centralized standards that could limit participation or the effectiveness in some states.

Policy Recommendations

This report calls for a national realignment of homelessness policy centered on the Housing First framework, not simply as a programmatic model, but as a structural shift in how governments define, fund, and respond to homelessness. When implemented with fidelity, Housing First consistently produces stronger outcomes in housing retention, public cost savings, and quality of life for the unhoused populations (Padgett et al., 2016; Peng et al., 2020; Tsemberis, 2010). However, its success is contingent on more than just funding alone; it requires structural coordination, political will, and protection from dilution. With that in mind, this report recommends a dual-core strategy: (1) expanding Housing First funding across federal and state systems, and (2) tying all funding to enforced fidelity benchmarks, based on standards outlined by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness 2020 reports (USICH, 2018; 2020). Fidelity ensures that core principles such as immediate, unconditional access to housing and voluntary service participation are continuously upheld. Without these, programs may drift toward compliance-based models, which have been empirically proven to be less effective and more costly, let alone exacerbating the institutional impact on the criminalization of homelessness (Byrne & Culhane, 2015; Padgett et al., 2016).

This dual approach offers a realistic, evidence-informed national pathway while safeguarding program integrity. It also addresses ancillary reforms such as de-criminalizing homelessness, eliminating exclusionary design practices, and expanding trauma-informed services for vulnerable populations. Housing First is not just an intervention; it is a policy framework capable of transforming a reactive, fragmented system into one that is equitable, cost-effective, and evidence-driven. In addition, the proposed strategies form a holistic policy framework for the sustainable reduction of homelessness rates in the United States. Homelessness is not an unsolvable crisis; it is a policy choice, shaped by decades of fragmented governance, criminalization, and exclusionary design. This report outlines a concrete path grounded in the Housing First framework and supported by empirical and ethical imperatives. As cities and urban areas face more pressure to manage homelessness rates, now is the moment to replace temporary containment with long-term, socially just investment.

References

Baxter, A. J., Tweed, E. J., Katikireddi, S. V., & Thomson, H. (2019). Effects of Housing First approaches on health and well-being of adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 73(5), 379-387.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the effectiveness of Housing First interventions on the health and well-being of adults experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Synthesizing data from randomized controlled trials, they found compelling evidence that Housing First increases housing stability. However, the effects on health and substance use outcomes were mixed. The review emphasizes the need for high-fidelity program implementation and more robust longitudinal research to assess secondary health benefits. It is a foundational resource for evaluating evidence-based housing policies and supporting the inclusion of housing as a critical determinant of health outcomes and public policy discussions.

Byrne, T., & Culhane, D. P. (2015). Testing alternative definitions of chronic homelessness. Psychiatric Services, 66(9), 996-999.

This study rigorously examines how different definitions of “chronic homelessness” affect identifying service-eligible individuals. Using administrative data from multiple Continuum of Care (CoC) programs, they assessed how varying time thresholds and disability requirements alter population estimates. Their findings reveal that broader definitional criteria significantly increase the account of chronically homeless individuals, raising the implications for policy targeting, program funding, and resource allocation. The article supports the need for clear, operationally feasible strategies in federal policy, highlighting how such shifts can influence system planning and evaluation relevant to program fidelity standards.

Cianciotto, L. M. (2020). Public Space, Common Space, and the Spaces In–Between: a case study of Philadelphia’s LOVE park. City & Community, 19(3), 676-703.

This article introduces the concept of “common space” and” anti-common public space” through a detailed case study of Philadelphia’s LOVE Park. The author differentiates public space, governed by universal norms and authority, from common space, which is shaped by specific communities through shared practices and mutual governance. The study traces how LOVE Park shifted from a vibrant “public common space” shared by stakeholders, unhoused individuals, and locals to a sanitized, corporatized space designed to limit spontaneous cues. This analysis contributes to the debates on urban exclusion, spatial justice, and the role of indirect criminalization and exclusion of the homeless population through architectural or design strategies in shaping who belongs in the city.

Collins, S. E., Malone, D. K., & Larimer, M. E. (2012). Motivation to change and treatment attendance as predictors of alcohol-use outcomes among project-based Housing First residents. Addictive behaviors, 37(8), 931-939.

This longitudinal study assesses motivation to change (MTC) and treatment attendance. Predict alcohol use outcomes among chronically homeless individuals residing in a project-based Housing First program. Results show that intrinsic motivation, specifically recognition of drinking problems, and taking active steps toward change were more consistently associated with reductions in alcohol use than formal treatment attendance. These findings challenge the abstinence-based models, emphasizing the client-driven change’s critical role in Housing First interventions.

Desmond, M., & Gershenson, C. (2016). Housing and employment insecurity among the working poor. Social problems, 63(1), 46-67.

This study investigates the causal relationship between involuntary housing loss (e.g., eviction, foreclosure) and subsequent job loss among low-income renters. Using novel survey data and propensity score matching, the authors find that forced displacement increases the likelihood of job loss by 11 to 22%. They argue that housing instability disrupts workers’ ability to perform job duties due to stress, relocation, logistics, and instability, reinforcing poverty cycles. The authors introduced the concept of “double precarity” as a framework, highlighting the interdependence of employment and housing security.

Gilmer, T. P., Manning, W. G., & Ettner, S. L. (2009). A cost analysis of San Diego County’s REACH program for homeless persons. Psychiatric Services, 60(4), 445-450.

A quasi-experimental study evaluating the REACH program, a Housing First initiative serving homeless individuals with serious mental health issues in San Diego County. The researchers used propensity score matching and a difference-in-difference design to assess pre- and post-intervention service utilization and costs. The findings show that although outpatient and case management costs increase, these were offset by significant reductions in inpatient, emergency, and criminal justice system service costs. The study concludes that the program’s total service cost over two years was marginal, supporting Housing First as a fiscally viable intervention with substantial systemic benefits.

Guimarães, P. (2021). Business improvement districts: A systematic review of an urban governance model towards city center revitalization. Land, 10(9), 922.

This systematic review analyzes 141 scholarly publications to map the primary research themes associated with BIDs, including urban governance, policy transfer, implementation typologies, and operational activities. Guimarães critiques the neoliberal underpinning of BIDs, noting their evolution from retail-led revitalization strategies to complex governance instruments entangled with privatization, accountability, and socio-spatial exclusion. The article highlights the adaptive flexibility of BIDs and the potential to reinforce urban inequalities, depending on local context and stakeholder influence. It provides an authoritative synthesis for global researchers and policymakers seeking a holistic understanding of BID models.

Heller, T. A. (2024). Homelessness in the U.S.: Why the Supreme Court’s Ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Allowing the Criminalization of Homelessness Is Both Cruel and Counter-Productive. Pravnik, 79, 735.

This article analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which upheld the legality of punishing unsheltered individuals for sleeping in public; Heller labels the ruling as “cruel and counterproductive,” framing it as not just an ineffective policy, but as a moral failure. The author critiques the decision from a constitutional (undermining the Eighth Amendment protections) and public policy standpoint, arguing that it deepens systemic harm and contradicts empirical research on effective homelessness responses. Heller supports arguments regarding the criminalization of poverty being both unethical and ineffective in addressing long-term homelessness.

Henwood, B. F., Katz, M. L., & Gilmer, T. P. (2015). Aging in place within permanent supportive housing. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 30(1), 80-87.

This study explores how older adults living in permanent supportive housing navigate aging-related challenges while maintaining housing stability. Through interviews and service data analysis, the researchers found that although permanent supportive housing successfully prevents homelessness among aging individuals, residents often experience unmet health and mobility needs. The article emphasizes the necessity for adapting the model with integrated aging and healthcare services to ensure continued well-being and housing retention for the evolving needs of this vulnerable population.

Izzo, V. N. (2022). Law and hostile design in the city: Imposing decorum and visibility regimes in the urban environment. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 12(3), 522-539.

This article investigates how law and urban design intersect through the practice of hostile architecture, focusing on Italian legal frameworks and the normative concept of “decorum.” The researcher conceptualizes hostile design as a legal and material strategy that enforces visibility regimes, restricts public access, and marginalizes socially excluded populations. Drawing on theories of spatial justice, legal geography, and urban normativity, the researcher argues that hostile design collaborates with municipal legal codes to subtly enforce exclusion without direct legal punishment. The study offers a social and legal critique of how public space is increasingly shaped by aesthetic governance and legal normalizing technologies.

Lynch, P. (2005). Homelessness, human rights and social inclusion. Alternative Law Journal, 30(3), 116-119.

The author explores the reciprocal relationship between homelessness and social exclusion through the lens of international human rights law. He argues that homelessness is both A cause and a consequence of exclusion and calls for policies grounded in the principle of non-discrimination and participation. The article emphasizes that effective homelessness interventions must respect, protect, and fulfill fundamental rights, including the right to housing, health care services, and political participation under instruments such as the ICCPR and ICESCR. The author emphasizes that legislative reform and inclusive governance structures are essential to address structural inequalities and promote genuine social inclusion.

Margier, A. (2023). The involvement of business elites in the management of homelessness: Towards a privatization of service provision for homeless people. Urban Affairs Review, 59(3), 668-691.

The author examines how business elites increasingly shape homelessness policies through the direct funding and management of homeless services, using Portland, Oregon, as a case study. He argued that “private actors” promote outreach programs and shelter initiatives, not simply for philanthropic motives but to simultaneously remove visible homelessness from public spaces and protect commercial interests. This article critiques the” forced march” of cooperation between public authorities and business elites and frames it as a privatization of social services that bypasses public accountability, not only reinforcing neoliberal urban governance structures but also “appearing” compassionate.

Menih, H. (2020). ‘Come Night-time, It’s a War Zone’: Women’s Experiences of Homelessness, Risk and Public Space. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(5), 1136-1154.

Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in Brisbane, the author critically examines how gender fundamentally structures the risks faced by women experiencing homelessness. The study reveals that women’s survival strategies –maintaining invisibility, nocturnal mobility, and spatial withdrawal—are responses to pervasive threats of violence in public spaces. The challenge is chronological narratives that frame homelessness as gender- neutral, arguing instead that public spaces reproduce gendered hierarchies of vulnerability and exclusion. This article advances A feminist criminological theory by exposing how urban governance and spatial dynamics intersect to criminalize and endanger unhoused women, calling for structural reforms that address spatialized gender inequalities.

National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH). (2024). Emerging Strategies to Combat State-Level Punitive Bills. Washington, DC.

This policy brief outlines how legislation inspired by organizations like the Cesaro Institute encourages carceral and compliance-based measures such as encampment bans, law enforcement-centered outreach, and shelter mandates. These measures are explicitly criticized for diverting attention and funding away from permanent housing solutions, particularly those aligned with the Housing First model, and shifting the resources toward more punitive and shelter-based models.

Newman, O. (1973). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Collier Books.

Foundational book that introduced the concept of defensible space, arguing that the built environment, such as layout, visibility, and territorial markers, can be manipulated to reduce crime and increase surveillance. Although it has been widely influential in environmental design in multiple policing strategies, Newman’s theory has since been critiqued for its role in justifying different exclusionary urban planning, such as hostile architecture and anti-homeless designs.

Padgett, D., Henwood, B. F., & Tsemberis, S. J. (2016). Housing First: Ending homelessness, transforming systems, and changing lives. Oxford University Press.

This seminal work chronicles the development and implementation of the Housing First model as a transformative response to chronic homelessness. Grounded in harm reduction, consumer choice, and permanent scatter site housing, the authors emphasize the need to diverge from traditional compliance-based approaches that required “housing readiness” toward more housing stability initiatives. Drawing on qualitative case studies and national data, the authors demonstrate Housing First’s impact on housing retention, cost saving, and quality of life for individuals with chronic homelessness and co-occurring disorders. The authors frame Housing First not only as a programmatic innovation but as a paradigm shift towards social justice and human rights in homelessness policy.

Peng, Y., Hahn, R. A., Finnie, R. K., Cobb, J., Williams, S. P., Fielding, J. E., … & Fullilove, M. T. (2020). Permanent supportive housing with Housing First to reduce homelessness and promote health among homeless populations with disability: a community guide systematic review. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 26(5), 404-411.

Commissioned by the CDC, this meta-analysis consolidated evaluation data from diverse jurisdictions to assess Housing First’s model effectiveness compared to traditional treatment first or usual care approaches for homeless individuals with disabilities. Across 26 studies in the U.S. and Canada, Housing First programs reduce homelessness by 88%, improve housing stability by 41 to 54%, and significantly lower emergency department visits, hospitalization, and mortality, especially among HIV-positive clients. This review supports Housing First as a robust, evidence-based intervention that integrates permanent housing with supportive services, demonstrating substantial benefits across housing, health, and cost-related outcomes, more importantly for vulnerable populations.

Tsemberis, S. (2010). Housing First: ending homelessness, promoting recovery, and reducing costs. In I. Gould, Ellen & B. O’Flaherty (Eds.), How to house the homeless, (pp. 37-56).

In this chapter, the author outlines the core principles and empirical success of the Housing First model, contrasting it with traditional treatment-first approaches that condition housing on sobriety and service compliance. Drawing on data from randomized controlled trials and program evaluations, the author demonstrates that Housing First achieves higher housing retention rates, promotes psychiatric and substance use recovery, and reduces public system costs. The chapter frames Housing First as an ethical and cost-effective strategy for addressing chronic homelessness, emphasizing the importance of consumer choice, harm reduction, and permanent supportive housing as systemic reforms.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2023). The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1—Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness.html

A federal report that represents the national data from January 2023 point in time count documenting a 12% increase in homelessness over the previous year and identifying the actual percentage of individuals experiencing homelessness in the United States, which, as recorded, has been the highest since national tracking began. It includes demographic breakdowns such as age, veteran status, chronic homelessness, and other SES variables, and highlights structural disparities across these groups.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2010). Opening doors: Federal strategy plan to prevent and end homelessness. U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.

This Federal plan marked the first comprehensive national strategy to prevent and end homelessness, introducing a Housing First framework and promoting interagency coordination. It emphasized data-driven policies and initiatives and acknowledged homelessness as a complex structural issue.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2015). Opening doors: Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness (Amended 2015). U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. https://usich.gov/federal-strategic-plan/overview

This is the updated version of Opening Doors, which integrates lessons learned since 2010 and adds stronger equity language around youth, families, and LGBTQ+ populations. It reinforced Housing First as the federal model and addressed the need for system-wide alignment.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2018). Home, Together: The federal Strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. https://usich.gov/federal-strategic-plan/overview

Home, Together is another update to the federal strategy focusing on measurable outcomes, equity, and systemic partnerships. It called for expanded Housing First implementation and improved prevention strategies.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2020). Expanding the toolbox: The whole-of-government response to homelessness. U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. https://usich.gov/federal-strategic-plan/overview

This report critically reflects on perceived rigidity in Housing First models, calling for greater flexibility and local control while affirming federal priorities.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2024). Opening Doors: Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Washington, DC.

This serves as a national policy blueprint for interagency homelessness coordination; it outlines fidelity criteria for Housing First implemented models, recommends federal-state integration, and emphasizes prevention and equity.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). (2025). All-in: The federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.

This is the most recent federal strategic plan, with updated goals and interagency commitments for reducing homelessness through prevention, housing equity, and scaling. Proving models. It explicitly calls for aligning federal investments with outcomes and equity.

Van Leeuwen, B. (2018). To the edge of the urban landscape: Homelessness and the politics of care. Political Theory, 46(4), 586-610.

This article offers a philosophical critique of prevailing liberal and pluralist theories of homelessness, arguing that neither adequately addresses the structural and relational dimensions of extreme urban marginality. The author advocates for a “care ethics” approach that centers on relational dependency, individualized needs, and the moral imperative to provide dignified housing services and community reintegration. The author also critically warns against normalizing discourses and coercive institutional responses; however, he defends qualified interventions when rooted in empathy, respect, and a commitment to relational autonomy. Taking on this care-centered lens reframes homelessness not as a lifestyle, identity, or choice but as a moral failure of liberal democracies to meet basic human needs through justice-oriented housing policies.

Young, A., & Petty, J. (2019). On visible homelessness and the micro-aesthetics of public space. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 52(4), 444-461.

Drawing on visual ethnography and criminological theories, this article examines how municipalities regulate homelessness through micro-aesthetic controls. The authors investigate how homelessness is regulated through criminal law, aesthetic governance, public space, and different privatization strategies, particularly in Melbourne. They introduced the concept of “municipal micro aesthetics,” demonstrating how cities increasingly control visibly homeless individuals’ appearance, posture, and possessions. Through field observations and interviews, the study reveals how urban police visibility itself by prioritizing public decorum over human rights and legitimizes displacement through spatial and behavioral norms. Their work is foundational for understanding the non-criminal yet punitive mechanisms through which cities and urban areas manage and exclude the homeless population.