Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 56

Homeless Encampments

Sharon Chamard

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Homeless Encampments

Sharon Chamard

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

2007-CK-WX-K008 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office). 

The opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department 

of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services 

should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the 

author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references 

are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of 

June 2009. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, 

neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2009 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

January 2010

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 56

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific 

Guide Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how 

police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder 

problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the 

overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or 

handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the 

technical details about how to implement specific responses. The 

guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The 

guides will be most useful to officers who:

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods. The guides are not primers in problemoriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial 

decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to 

analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of 

a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 

to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 

problem they have already identified. (A companion series 

of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid 

in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend 

perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding to 

it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you 

design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your 

community. You should not blindly adopt the responses others 

have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to 

your local situation. What is true in one place may not be true 

elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Homeless Encampments

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business.

The guides describe responses that other police departments 

have used or that researchers have tested. While not all of these 

responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they 

should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you 

could do. You may think you cannot implement some of these 

responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many 

places, when police have discovered a more effective response, 

they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. (A companion series of 

Response Guides has been produced to help you understand how 

commonly-used police responses work on a variety of problems.) 

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is available 

to the police; for other problems, little is available. Accordingly, 

some guides in this series summarize existing research whereas 

other guides illustrate the need for more research on that 

particular problem. Regardless, research has not provided 

definitive answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. 

This will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not 

every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references listed 

at the end of each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they 

are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

• Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions 

to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of 

the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently 

implement them in partnership with other responsible private 

and public bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public utilities, 

community groups, and individual citizens. An effective 

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships 

with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

in making these partnerships work. Each guide identifies 

particular individuals or groups in the community with 

whom police might work to improve the overall response to 

that problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals 

that individuals and groups other than the police are in a 

stronger position to address problems and that police ought 

to shift some greater responsibility to them to do so. Response 

Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public 

Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that 

promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic 

use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively 

address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety 

issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides 

emphasize problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 

most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problemsolving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and 

discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices 

in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New 

Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, 

customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is 

apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. 

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful practices 

beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature 

and reported police practice, and each guide is anonymously peerreviewed by a line police officer, a police executive and a researcher 

prior to publication. The review process is independently managed by 

the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 
iv Homeless Encampments

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. 

This website offers free online access to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series,

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving 

Tools series, 

• special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism,

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing and 

related topics, 

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise,

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module, 

• online access to important police research and practices, and

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences and 

award programs. 
Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center 

for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott 

(Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate Director) and Graeme R. 

Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff and 

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing 

text, recommending research and offering suggestions on matters of 

format and style.

The project team that developed the guide series comprised 

Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), 

Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law 

School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm 

Weisel (North Carolina State University).

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on the 

guides' format and style in the early stages of the project.

Debra Cohen, Ph.D. oversaw the project for the COPS Office 

and research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice 

Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly 

edited this guide.

Acknowledgments v

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Homeless Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Philosophical Debate on Chronic Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What are Homeless Encampments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Who Lives in Homeless Encampments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Harms Caused by Homeless Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Impact on the Homeless Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Impact on the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Impact on the Larger Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Factors Contributing to Homeless Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Transients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Time and Location Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Public Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Demand on Police Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Current Responses to the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

General Principles for an Effective Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Specific Responses to Homeless Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Providing Alternatives to Homeless Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Changing the Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Restricting Access to Goods and Services 

That Promote Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Reducing Negative Impacts of “Routine Activities” of 

the Chronically Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Improving Police Interactions with Transients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Responses with Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Homeless Encampments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Contents vii

The Problem of Homeless Encampments 1

The Problem of Homeless Encampments

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide addresses homeless encampments, also known as 

transient camps. It begins by describing the problem and reviewing 

factors that contribute to it. It then identifies a series of questions 

to help you analyze your local problem. Finally, it reviews responses 

to the problem and what is known about them from evaluative 

research and police practice.

Homeless encampments are only one aspect of the larger set of 

problems related to homelessness, street life, and public disorder. 

This guide does not cover all aspects of homelessness, only those 

that pertain to the small proportion of homeless people who live 

in encampments. Throughout this guide, the term “transient” is 

often used to refer to this small group. Further, it addresses only 

the particular harms created by homeless encampments, not the 

issues commonly associated with homeless people. These related 

problems, each of which requires separate analysis, include:

• chronic public intoxication,

• panhandling,

• loitering,

• trespassing,

• shoplifting,

• drug dealing,

• mental illness, and

• disorder at day laborer sites.

A discussion of the broad economic and social conditions that give 

rise to homelessness and to homeless encampments is beyond the 

scope of this guide.
2 Homeless Encampments

The Philosophical Debate on Chronic 

Homelessness 

Dealing with homeless people living in encampments can be fraught 

with moral danger. Few people would argue that the police should 

do what they can to reduce burglary or car theft. Yet there are 

many strong and organized advocates of the chronically homeless. 

Some believe chronic homelessness is a lifestyle choice and, as such, 

should be protected by law. Others claim it is a consequence of 

socio-economic factors, such as high unemployment and the lack of 

affordable housing, or that the chronically homeless are victims of 

abusive childhoods, addiction, or mental illness. In any event, they 

oppose criminalizing what they perceive to be a status beyond a 

homeless person’s control. Still others object to the “criminalization 

of homelessness” because it violates fundamental constitutional 

rights, in particular those codified in the First, Fourth, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments. 

On the other hand, problems associated with transients and their 

encampments can often lead business owners and residents to 

demand the police use traditional, and perhaps somewhat punitive, 

law enforcement methods to solve them. 

It is important to be aware of the fundamental differences in 

people’s beliefs about chronic homelessness (put simply, the 

homeless are victims who need society’s help to recover versus the 

behaviors of homeless people drain public resources and damage the 

community) because how the problem is defined determines what 

is considered to be an “effective strategy.”§

§

See Harcourt (2005) for a 

fascinating discussion of the 

conflicts between owners of 

single room occupancy (SRO) 

hotels and real estate developers 

in Los Angeles’ skid row.
The Problem of Homeless Encampments 3

General Description of the Problem

What are Homeless Encampments? 

The term “homeless” refers to someone who is usually poor and 

frequently on the move from one temporary dwelling situation 

to another. Many slang words are used to describe such a person: 

transient, squatter, hobo, bum, vagrant, and vagabond. Homeless 

encampments take a variety of forms: tent cities; groups living 

under freeway overpasses; and groups sleeping in parks, in skid 

rows (urban areas with concentrations of poverty and dilapidated 

buildings), in subway tunnels, on sidewalks, etc. One person 

setting up shelter in such a location does not constitute an 

encampment. Studies show homeless encampments vary in size. 

Some, particularly those in the woods, can be fairly small with only 

a few campers. Those under freeway overpasses and in urban vacant 

lots and parks may be larger, with some reportedly having 100 or 

more people. Shelters in homeless encampments range from leantos made of cardboard, to tents, to more elaborate structures—in 

one case including French doors, a skylight, and a picture window.1 

Obviously, the more established the encampment, the better 

constructed the “housing” is likely to be. 

Myrtle Beach (South Carolina) Police Department.

Some encampments, particularly those in the woods, such as the one shown 

above, can be fairly small with only a few campers.
4 Homeless Encampments

§

The behavior in question is known 

as “sleeping rough” in the United 

Kingdom.

Who Lives in Homeless Encampments?

To understand who lives in homeless encampments§, it is useful 

to begin with the entire population of homeless people and whittle 

it down. 

It is important to realize that although people living in homeless 

encampments are homeless, most homeless people do not live in 

homeless encampments. The U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) classifies homeless people in two 

broad categories: sheltered and unsheltered. A “sheltered” homeless 

person lives in an emergency shelter or transitional housing. This 

includes domestic violence shelters; residential programs for 

homeless or runaway youth; or a hotel, motel or apartment paid 

for with a voucher provided by a governmental or private agency 

because the person is homeless. An unsheltered homeless person 

lives in “a place not meant for human habitation, such as cars, 

parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings, or on the street.”2 About 

44 percent of homeless people are unsheltered.3 Unsheltered 

homeless are usually single men, who, unlike homeless families, 

are less likely to live in emergency shelter, transitional housing, or 

permanent supportive housing.4

Another categorization of homelessness is whether the status is 

temporary (due to an eviction, prolonged unemployment, job 

layoff, or domestic violence) or chronic. The federal definition of 

chronically homeless is an “unaccompanied homeless individual 

with a disabling condition who has either been continuously 

homeless for a year or more or has had at least four episodes of 

homelessness in the past three years” (U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development , 2008b:15). About 18 percent of the 

total homeless population (unsheltered and sheltered in emergency 

shelter) is considered chronically homeless, and, of those, two-thirds 

are unsheltered. In other words, an estimated 12 percent of the 

United States’ homeless population, or close to 83,000 people, is 

unsheltered and chronically homeless.5
The Problem of Homeless Encampments 5

§

For a reasoned and practical discussion 

of the causes of homelessness and 

policies for solving the problem, see 

Jencks (1994).

This relatively small group of homeless people may end up in 

homeless encampments because they have exhausted all resources 

available to them or their conditions (e.g., drug use, alcoholism, 

criminal record) hinder them from using them (shelters, for 

example). Others may have chosen the lifestyle because it frees them 

from competing in a consumerist society, or because it is better 

than previous living arrangements.§6 However, most residents of 

homeless encampments say they would prefer to live in a more 

conventional way with their own room and a job.7

Compared with the general population, people in homeless 

encampments are more likely to be male, older, and a minority.8

A significant number of transients living in encampments are 

addicted to drugs or alcohol, and a sizable portion are also 

mentally ill (“dually diagnosed”).9

Panhandling is one way homeless encampment dwellers make 

money, but more work at odd short-term jobs, such as street 

vending and day labor. Collecting cans or bottles is also common. 

Relatively few receive public benefits. A very small number engage 

in prostitution.10 The relationship between crime and transients is 

discussed later in this guide. 
6 Homeless Encampments

Harms Caused by Homeless Encampments 

Problems associated with homeless encampments fall into three 

categories: impact on the homeless population, impact on the 

environment, and impact on the larger community.

Impact on the Homeless Population

Unhealthy encampment conditions. Conditions in homeless 

encampments can be dangerous to health. Garbage attracts rodents 

and other vermin. Food cannot be stored, and dishes cannot be 

washed properly, facilitating the spread of food-borne diseases. 

Depending on a camp’s location, some residents might use portable 

toilets or public facilities, but most are likely to use an outdoor 

location. Poor hygiene contributes to dental and skin problems.11

Other environmental hazards, such as batteries and fuels, are used 

for heating and cooking.12

Most people who live in homeless encampments lack health 

insurance, but they frequently have chronic physical and mental 

health conditions that require ongoing medical attention.13 Barriers 

to seeking routine medical care lead many to the emergency room for 

non-emergency care. There is some indication that tuberculosis and 

sexually-transmitted diseases are of special concern.14 Many transients 

living in encampments report addiction to drugs or alcohol.15

Victimization of the chronically homeless. Not much is known 

about victimization among this population because they are 

not included in large-scale household-based surveys, such as the 

National Crime Victimization Survey. Official data, such as the 

National Incident-Based Reporting System and the Uniform Crime 

Reports, typically do not include victims’ housing status. Further, 

specific information on victimization of chronically homeless 

people who live in homeless encampments is based on case studies 

of particular jurisdictions or is anecdotal.16
The Problem of Homeless Encampments 7

However, smaller studies paint a troubling picture. The chronically 

homeless report high rates of child and sexual abuse that occurred 

before they became homeless. Further, once homeless, the population 

continues to be victimized at a rate about twice that of the general 

population. Chronically homeless people are also more likely 

than the general population to be victims of crime against the 

person than property crime. These patterns are particularly true 

for chronically homeless women; one British study found that 

95 percent of chronically homeless women had been victimized 

compared with 75 percent of men.17

Chronically homeless people are victimized by the public and by 

their peers.18 Violence against the homeless committed by nonhomeless offenders appears to be increasing even while violent 

crimes are generally decreasing.19 Many of these incidents are 

beatings. Over the nine-year period from 1999 to 2007 in the 

United States, 217 homeless people were killed by those who were 

not homeless.20

Despite the notion that homeless encampments are safe havens 

for those living an otherwise rough or unconventional life, these 

camps can be venues for serious violent crime. In November 2008, 

five people in a Long Beach, California, encampment were shot 

to death21, and one man was fatally stabbed at a homeless camp 

in Tucson, Arizona.22 A homeless encampment in a wooded area 

off a freeway in Orlando, Florida, was the site of three homicides 

in the 10 months between October 2006 and August 2007.23

In Sacramento, California, in September 2008, two men were 

murdered within hours of each other in a “well-established homeless 

camp” near some light-rail tracks.24 Other research found that the 

incidence of victimization by strangers was lower for the homeless 

population (16 percent)25 than for the general population (which 

ranges from 28 percent to 89 percent depending on the type of 

violent crime).26
8 Homeless Encampments

Impact on the Environment

In addition to concerns about the hazardous materials mentioned 

above, which potentially harm both the transients and the 

surrounding environment, inadequate human waste disposal at large 

encampments along rivers can pose a hazard to the water supply 

of nearby communities.27 Another hazard linked to homeless 

encampments is fire. Residents of homeless encampments turn to 

wood stoves and camp fires for heat and cooking. If left unattended 

(typically by intoxicated transients), these fires can become out of 

control and burn down camp structures and injure people. Larger 

fires can spread to more populated areas and damage buildings 

and infrastructure. More significantly for the environment, these 

fires may kill animals and vegetation and destroy their habitats. 

Although most wildfires are started by people, there are no data on 

how many of those are started specifically by transients. 

Wilderness areas are further damaged through abusive camping 

practices, such as cutting down trees and leaving garbage on site. 

Impact on the Larger Community

Criminal activity by the chronically homeless. Numerous studies 

have pointed to a strong relationship between homelessness and 

criminality. Yet contrary to popular opinion, the typical chronically 

homeless person is not a hardened violent felon, but someone 

with a disproportionately high arrest rate for crimes such as public 

intoxication, petty theft, and trespassing.28 The longer someone 

is unsheltered and chronically homeless, the more involved he or 

she becomes in criminal behavior, largely due to the increased use 

of “non-institutionalized survival strategies,” such as panhandling, 

street peddling, and theft.29 Chronically homeless people who are 

mentally ill are arrested more than those who are not mentally ill.30

Many researchers have argued that the high rates of arrest and 

low-level offending by the chronically homeless are results of 

the “criminalization of homelessness.” Laws against lying down 

or sleeping in public, public excretion and urination, public 

intoxication, and the like, make it difficult for the street homeless 
The Problem of Homeless Encampments 9

to carry out routine behaviors in public places.31 Some police 

observers report that being homeless subjects people to more strict 

enforcement for activities that are dealt with more leniently if the 

person can show proof of address.32

Even if transients are not hard-core violent offenders, evidence from 

police case studies shows areas adjacent to transient encampments 

have higher levels of petty and serious crime unrelated to “routine 

behaviors,” such as drug dealing and usage, disturbance, theft, 

prowling, burglary, panhandling, fighting, vandalism, armed 

robbery, rape, and aggravated assault.33 Stolen property, weapons, 

and wanted felons have been found in homeless encampments.34

Threats to business viability. Urban homeless encampments have 

a more immediate impact on the nearby community because of 

proximity. Many chronically homeless behaviors, such as sleeping 

on the streets, panhandling, public excretion or urination, and 

public intoxication, are threatening or undesirable. In some urban 

settings, police rate transients and their behaviors as a bigger 

problem than drugs, car burglaries, public fighting, cruising, 

or noise.35 Entertainment districts are particularly vulnerable 

to transient behavior because of the availability of people with 

disposable income, park benches, unattended public restrooms, and 

lax enforcement of laws governing street behavior. The presence of 

transients creates an environment of lawlessness. During the day, 

transients sitting in front of businesses can scare away customers.36
10 Homeless Encampments

Illegitimate use of public space. Regular citizens may not use 

public parks and other facilities because they fear the spaces are 

controlled by transients. Often the homeless are victimized at 

night, prompting them to sleep only during daylight hours in 

parks and other public places. Thus, the park may be laden with 

individuals sleeping on benches or in picnic shelters during the 

park’s busiest hours. This condition only exacerbates the conflict 

with legitimate park users. Further, due to the homeless taking 

over and sometimes vandalizing park barbeques, sinks, and faucets 

designed for regular park visitors to use, officials may remove these 

amenities thereby penalizing everyone. 37 In Madison, Wisconsin, 

a group of 30-40 men (not all of whom were homeless) took over 

a lakeside park shelter, moving in furniture and other personal 

belongings. They drank there during the day and slept there at 

night. Nearby residents reported car break-ins, firewood thefts, and 

attempted burglaries. Legitimate park users reported aggressive 

panhandling. Use of this park by permit-holders was considerably 

lower compared with other area parks.38

Cost to society. Because so many chronically homeless people 

have medical problems and substance abuse issues and frequently 

come in contact with the police and social service providers, they 

can be very costly to taxpayers. For example, a study following 15 

chronically homeless people in San Diego, California found that 

they cumulatively received more than $3 million worth of public 

services in just 18 months. Despite benefiting from $200,000 in 

taxpayer-provided services during this time, each was still homeless. 

Just as a small number of criminals commit most of the crime and 

a few addresses in a city account for most of the calls for service, 

studies have found that about 10 percent of all homeless people 

consume about half of the resources.39 In Madison, Wisconsin, for 

example, a study of “chronic nuisance” people in the downtown area 

found that two-thirds were homeless; however, only five percent of 

the downtown homeless population was defined by the police as 

being part of the “chronic nuisance” population.40
The Problem of Homeless Encampments 11

Factors Contributing to Homeless Encampments

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will 

help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good 

effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select 

appropriate responses. 

Encampments are usually located close to goods and services 

that transients need: food, alcohol, employment (or crime) 

opportunities, and shelter (in case of inclement weather). 

Services geared toward this population obviously contribute to a 

concentration of transients in certain areas. Although soup kitchens 

attract the chronically homeless, food pantries are less popular 

with transients because they often lack facilities to cook the items 

pantries distribute. Social service providers and day labor sites 

attract some transients.§ Liquor stores and drug markets attract 

others.41 Homes and businesses are targets for theft or burglary, but 

also for short-term work for those so inclined. 

Because many transients do not have their own vehicles, 

encampments, even in wooded areas, are likely to be located 

by pedestrian access points (such as trails), or close to public 

transportation facilities and railroad tracks. 

Transients look for overgrown brush to help hide their encampment 

from public view, providing privacy and the opportunity to 

establish the camp before it is discovered and dealt with by the 

authorities. 

People in homeless encampments benefit from food and clothing 

provided by church groups, missions, and social services agencies, 

but such charity is not always combined with efforts to facilitate 

transition from the streets.42 In some respects, this enables 

encampment residents to stay where they are. 

§

See Problem-Specific Guide No. 44, 

Disorder at Day Laborer Sites.

Understanding Your Local Problem 13

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized description 

of homeless encampments. You must combine the basic facts with 

a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing 

the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective 

response strategy. 

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have 

an interest in the homeless encampments problem and should 

be considered for the contribution they might make in gathering 

information about the problem and responding to it:

• Social services agencies. Government agencies and nongovernment organizations that serve homeless populations are 

obviously interested in improving living conditions for their 

clients, but they also are interested in reducing the level of 

resources consumed by relatively few chronically needy clients. 

They also have data that police may not have and expertise and 

resources to improve responses.

• Religious and charitable organizations serving the transient 

population. As with social services agencies, these groups are 

interested in improving transients’ lives. Their mission, however, 

may focus on meeting transients’ daily needs (food, clothing, 

and emergency shelter) and preclude involvement in strategies 

that will ultimately reduce the need to carry out this missionary 

work. These organizations can sometimes provide monetary 

support for programs, and their staff and congregations can be 

valuable sources of volunteers. Religious organizations also can 

help shape the moral content of public policy discussions about 

how to respond to transient encampments.
14 Homeless Encampments

• People living in homeless encampments. Transients themselves 

clearly have a strong interest in this problem. Although they 

may not prefer life in encampments, they still regard these places 

as their homes and expect that others will respect their privacy 

and personal belongings. Transients can be a valuable source 

of information about who lives in the encampments and the 

activities of other transients. 

• Residents living close to homeless encampments. These people 

suffer disproportionately from crimes committed by transients. 

Their interest may not extend beyond pushing the problem out of 

their immediate area. Nearby residents can provide information 

about individual transients and the nature of crime and disorder 

associated with transients in particular camps. 

• Businesses. Businesses are frequent targets of transients’ crimes 

and the social and physical disorder accompanying them. Because 

businesses’ viability can be adversely affected by transients in 

the area, business owners are motivated to support practical 

solutions. They can provide resources for programs once they 

discover they can effectively reduce the problems that impact 

their businesses.

• Community as a whole. Efforts to address homeless 

encampments and homelessness in general are often met 

with hostility from the public, perhaps because they resent 

public resources being spent on people seen as unproductive 

members of society, or because they think providing services will 

encourage more transients to move into the area. Many members 

of the community would rather push the problem out of their 

area than deal with it in a meaningful way. Depending on your 

response, citizens can provide volunteer or financial support. 

• Media. How your local media cover homeless encampments 

can influence the community’s perception of the issue. Stories 

about transients and interviews with representatives of homeless 

advocacy organizations can be quite compelling; however, if 

this is the only side of the issue the public hears, you may have 

trouble galvanizing support for problem-solving. Involving the 

media in early planning efforts can work to your advantage, 
Understanding Your Local Problem 15

especially if they can convey your message that solving this 

social problem will likely take much longer than expected and 

involve some false starts and failures. 

• Politicians. Elected officials have an interest in being responsive 

to citizens’ calls for tougher enforcement of laws concerning 

transients’ public behavior. At the same time, they can direct 

funding toward projects they think will address the issue. 

Involve them at the early planning stages to ensure their 

cooperation later when fiscal resources may be needed. 

• City officials. People who run the local government’s daily 

operations want to increase efficiency and would be receptive 

to strategies to reduce the demand for public resources from 

a small number of transients. If an encampment needs to be 

removed, city officials can provide personnel such as zoning 

and land use enforcement officers and parks and recreation 

staff. Human or social services offices can recommend nonprofit 

organizations to help identify the problem and create a 

successful strategy. Also, these local government offices may 

be involved in advocating for and coordinating the receipt of 

HUD (Community Development Block Grants, Emergency 

Shelter Grants and HOME Investment Trust funds) and state 

resources for addressing homelessness issues.

• County officials. County officials are concerned with 

ensuring a coordinated regional approach to homelessness 

issues. Counties also control state “pass through” resources. 

Although it may be tempting to move the problem from your 

jurisdictional boundaries, it is more responsible to create a 

strategy that does not impact neighboring communities.

• Police leadership. Given the controversy that typically 

surrounds interventions involving the chronically homeless, it 

is important to keep the chief and command staff advised of 

the details of the project and even to include them in planning. 

They may have insights to offer about the political realities in 

your jurisdiction and can provide a buffer between you and 

concerned advocates, media, and politicians. 
16 Homeless Encampments

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask in 

analyzing your particular problem of homeless encampments, even 

if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these 

and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set 

of responses. 

Transients

• How many people live in homeless encampments in your 

jurisdiction?

• What is known about them? Where did they live before the 

encampment? What are their gender, age, race or ethnicity, and 

employment histories? How many of them have chronic health 

issues, substance abuse problems, and/or mental illness? 

• What is known about the criminal victimization of transients 

living in encampments?

• What is known about the criminal behavior of transients living 

in encampments?

• How long have these individuals been living in encampments?

• Why do transients report living in encampments instead of 

other types of shelters?

• Do the transients know about and use community social 

services, such as soup kitchens, drop-in centers, shelters, job 

training, and substance abuse treatment? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 17

Counting Transients

To find the number of “unsheltered homeless people” aggregated to 

your county or state level, look at the data compiled annually for HUD 

as part of the application for Continuum of Care grants. 2005-2008 

Population/Subpopulation reports, available at www.hudhre.info/index.

cfm?do=viewHomelessRpts, include the number of unsheltered homeless 

people in your area. This report does not give the exact number of 

people living in homeless encampments in municipalities. However, if 

this is your type of jurisdiction, it is still a good starting point to get a 

sense of the problem and the percentage of homeless people who are 

unsheltered in your area. This web site also lists HUD Continuum of Care

grant recipients—organizations you should contact for data on chronic 

homelessness in your community. 

There are three primary methods for counting unsheltered homeless people. 

Your community’s characteristics determine which is most appropriate. The 

first, called the “public places” method, is a direct count of people in a nonshelter location; e.g., walking through a homeless encampment and taking a 

head count. This works if you know where all the encampments are and can 

reliably count everyone residing there. The second method is to augment 

the counts in non-shelter locations with an interview component, helping to 

ensure the people counted were not counted twice and actually are homeless. 

Conducting interviews is recommended if you also want to get information 

about this population as part of your project’s scanning phase. You could 

learn what services the subjects use and what it would take for them to leave 

the chronically homeless lifestyle. The third method involves counting users 

of soup kitchens and other social services for the homeless. One advantage 

of this strategy is that it allows you to reach people who may not be living 

in known, public areas. A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People

(available at www.hudhre.info/documents/counting_unsheltered.pdf) 

discusses the pros and cons of each method and is an invaluable resource.43

For an example of a questionnaire used to count homeless people, look at 

the Texas Homeless Network’s point-in-time survey (www.thn.org/info/

static/files/2009_THN_PIT_Homeless_survey.pdf) and training guide 

for volunteers (www.thn.org/info/static/files/2009_THN_Instructions_

for_Homeless_Count-Survey.pdf). Most states conduct annual surveys 

to measure the size of their homeless population; here is an example of 

the questionnaire used in Colorado (www.colorado.gov/cich/documents/

Final_Statewide_Homeless_Survey.pdf). 
18 Homeless Encampments

Time and Location Patterns

• Are there seasonal patterns to homeless encampments? Are 

there more people in such places in the summer or the winter?

• Where are the encampments located? (You might use aerial 

surveillance and on-board infra-red, or night-vision goggles to 

identify camps and ingress/egress points.)

• How accessible or remote are the encampments? How visible 

are they from a distance?

• Who owns or has jurisdiction in the encampment areas for 

policing, landscaping, maintenance, etc.? Are the encampment 

sites publicly or privately owned?

• Why are the encampments located where they are? Are they 

close to food and water sources or transportation? Are they 

concealed? Do they provide shelter from weather?

Encampments

• How elaborate are the encampments? Are there shelters, 

cooking facilities, bathing facilities, potable and non-potable 

water sources, and security features?

• Are there health and safety concerns, such as unsafe fire 

situations and poor waste management?

• What is the allowable land use (according to municipal code) of 

the area where the encampment is located?

• Who else uses the area around the encampment? Do transients 

and “legitimate” users conflict over the user of this area?

Public Attitudes

• What are your community’s standards regarding street behavior? 

In entertainment districts, do people prefer things to be orderly 

or more exciting to attract people?

• How many citizen complaints do you receive about homeless 

encampments? What, precisely, is the nature of those 

complaints?
Understanding Your Local Problem 19

§

Many communities have created 

and adopted “Ten-Year Plans” as part 

of a federal government initiative to 

eliminate chronic homelessness. More 

information about ten-year plans 

(and a list of the more than 200 

communities that have one in place) 

is on the United States Interagency 

Council on Homelessness web site: 

www.usich.gov. 

Demand on Police Resources

• How many crimes are committed against people living in 

homeless encampments? What is the nature of these crimes? 

How serious are they?

• How many calls for service concerning encampment areas does 

your agency receive?

• How many calls for service concerning nuisance problems 

involving transients does your agency receive? How many 

of these calls are from businesses and residents close to 

encampments? 

• How many incidents involving disputes over public space does 

your agency handle?

• How much time and money does your agency spend dealing 

with problems associated with homeless encampments?

Current Responses to the Problem

• How has the homeless encampment problem in your 

jurisdiction been handled in the past? How is it handled now? 

Is the current response adequate and appropriate?

• What laws currently regulate homeless encampments? Are these 

laws adequate and/or constitutional? 

• What is being done now in your community to address chronic 

homelessness? Does your community have a long-range plan to 

end chronic homelessness?§

• How many contacts with chronically homeless people do 

members of your department make? What are the outcomes of 

these contacts?

• Does your department have any formal policies with 

shelters and social services agencies regarding referrals and 

transportation of chronically homeless people?

• What efforts have been made by social services providers to 

discourage transients from living in encampments? Have such 

efforts been successful?
20 Homeless Encampments

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your 

responses if they are not producing the intended results. You should 

take measures of your problem before you implement responses 

to determine the seriousness of your problem, and after you 

implement them to determine the effectiveness of your responses. 

Take all measures in both the target area and the surrounding area. 

(For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the 

companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.)

Following are potentially useful effectiveness measures of responses 

to homeless encampments:

• Reduced numbers of encampments and transients living in them

• Less crime in areas around the encampments

• Fewer or less serious crimes committed against transients living 

in encampments

• Fewer calls for police service to the encampment area 

• Fewer calls for police service for nuisance problems caused by 

transients

• Fewer calls for police service by businesses and residents 

concerning transients

• Fewer citizen complaints about transient behavior and 

encampments

• Fewer health and safety hazards associated with encampments

• Reduced number of conflicts between transients and others over 

use of public space

• Lower costs of police response dealing with homeless 

encampments

• Increased use of social services by transients

• Improved communication between the police and social 

services providers.
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 21

Responses to the Problem of Homeless 

Encampments

Analyzing your local problem should give you a better 

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have 

analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for 

measuring effectiveness, consider possible responses to address the 

problem.

The following responses, drawn from a variety of research studies 

and police reports, provide a foundation of ideas for addressing 

your problem. Several of these strategies may apply to your 

community’s problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to 

local circumstances and that you can justify each response based 

on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy involves 

implementing several different responses. Law enforcement 

responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the 

problem. Do not limit yourself to considering only what the police 

can do; give careful thought to others in your community who 

share responsibility for the problem and can help police better 

respond to it. The responsibility of responding, in some cases, 

may need to shift toward those who can implement more effective 

responses. (For more detailed information on shifting and sharing 

responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems).
22 Homeless Encampments

§

In Clearwater, a Neighborhood 

Advisory Committee was set up to 

monitor, advise, and provide volunteer 

services at a shelter established by the 

police department. Eventually the 

community dropped its resistance to the 

new shelter and became actively involved 

with it (Clearwater (Florida) Police 

Department, 2001).

§§The Fort Lauderdale Police 

Department’s two-hour departmentwide course “Homelessness 101” was 

developed by the Broward Coalition for 

Homeless (Fort Lauderdale (Florida) 

Police Department, 2002).

General Principles for an Effective Strategy

1. Enlisting community support to address the problem. 

Because of the intense public debate in many cities about how 

to deal with homelessness, it is a very good idea to involve 

homeless advocacy groups early in your planning process. 

Otherwise, you risk being derailed later by legal challenges. 

Other stakeholders, particularly those who may be making 

demands for police action, such as residents, business owners, 

politicians, and city officials should be involved in negotiating 

what is acceptable in public spaces.§ Dismantling homeless 

encampments or altering their environmental features to 

discourage living there can easily be perceived as cruel by 

some if they don’t understand how the overall effort will 

improve the lives of both transients and the larger community. 

Notwithstanding your efforts, it is unlikely that all will agree 

with the goal of eradicating homeless encampments. 

2. Educating the community about homelessness. Community 

members often don’t understand the factors that give rise to 

homelessness and the constitutional limits on police trying to 

manage problems associated with chronically homeless people 

on the streets. Better-informed citizens may be more receptive 

to fundraising efforts for programs and services for the 

homeless and may be less resistant to the placement of facilities 

for homeless people in their neighborhoods. 

3. Educating police officers about homelessness. Negative 

interactions between police officers and homeless people can 

be avoided through educational efforts to change police culture 

and attitudes toward homelessness. Inviting homeless advocacy 

groups to help design and offer the curriculum can be very 

useful in building positive inter-agency relationships.§ §

4. Helping with your community’s long-range homelessness 

plan. Police involvement in planning community-wide strategies 

to end homelessness is beneficial. Other people involved in 

planning need to hear what resources your department can bring 

to the table as well as any limits on your involvement. 
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 23

Specific Responses to Homeless Encampments

Providing Alternatives to Homeless 

Encampments

5. Promoting the “Housing First” model. This strategy for 

housing chronically homeless people puts them into their 

own permanent housing units first instead of first treating 

the underlying problems to make them “housing ready.” The 

housing is seen mainly as a place to live. Treatment comes later. 

An evaluation of this strategy in San Francisco, California 

found that the number of people living on the streets dropped 

by 41 percent in three years. More than 1,000 units of 

“permanent supportive housing” were established, and, of those 

who moved into such units, 95 percent remained housed.44 In 

New York City, placing chronically homeless people with severe 

mental illnesses into supportive housing led to significantly 

fewer visits to emergency rooms, psychiatric wards, shelters, and 

jail. About 95 percent of the cost of providing the supportive 

housing was made up for by reductions in public service 

expenditures.45 Other studies found that this approach results 

in more stable housing outcomes for participants (in terms 

of the percentage of participants still in housing after certain 

time frames) compared with standard care that begins with 

encouraging abstinence from alcohol and leads eventually to 

long-term housing.46

This strategy seems promising for those living in homeless 

encampments. Surveys of these populations find that a large 

majority (about 75 percent) list their most preferred shelter 

option as a place of their own, followed by encampments. Very 

few prefer government-run camps, and hardly any of the people 

surveyed wanted to live in a mission or shelter.47
24 Homeless Encampments

§

See www.mrsc.org/Subjects/

Housing/TentCity/TentCity.aspx for 

a comprehensive list of ordinances 

governing tent cities.

6. Lobbying for more resources for mental health and 

substance abuse. Given the strong relationship between 

residency in homeless encampments and dual diagnoses of 

addiction and mental illness, effective strategies to get people 

out of encampment life include long-term integrated treatment 

(i.e., treatment for both substance abuse and mental illness in 

the same program) and comprehensive case management.48

Many communities have groups actively working to increase 

state and local government funding of these services. 

7. Regulating structured camping facilities. This involves 

setting up an area where transients can encamp in relative 

safety, without the fear of violating laws and ordinances, and 

receive services as long as they follow facility rules. In Phoenix, 

Arizona, authorities established a campus for the unsheltered 

homeless that centralized their social services demands, 

including food, shelter, medical care, and employment 

services.49 Such facilities are likely to garner negative reactions 

from nearby residents and business owners who fear an influx 

of petty criminals and a drop in property values and quality of 

life. Involving them early in the planning process, as Clearwater, 

Florida, police did when they built a homeless shelter, can help 

reduce these NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) responses. 

Tent cities, if they are not properly run, can be problematic.§

Typical restrictions specified in municipal codes for jurisdictions 

that permit tent cities include: 

• requiring a meeting with the community before establishing 

the encampment

• limiting the encampment’s existence to a few months

• limiting the number of encampments that can operate in 

the jurisdiction at any one time

• limiting the number of times a location can be used for an 

encampment in a particular time period

• requiring a certain number of toilet and shower facilities

• restricting the use of heating and cooking devices
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 25

§

In San Diego, clearing brush along 

the side of an interstate resulted in 

a 100 percent reduction in calls-forservice, crime, out-of-service time for 

law enforcement, citations, arrests, and 

community complaints (San Diego 

(California) Police Department, 2003). 

In Anchorage, Alaska, a few homeless 

people lived in a small wooded strip 

between a residential area and a hightraffic roadway. After the low-lying brush 

was mysteriously cut back one weekend, 

the encampments disappeared. 

• specifying a minimum distance for the encampment from 

sensitive areas, such as schools, churches, playgrounds, and 

day care centers

• specifying a minimum distance from public transportation

• specifying the provision of social services to help homeless 

people out of their situations

• setting codes of conduct for residents.

Changing the Physical Environment 

8. Clear-cutting overgrown brush.§ Transients like encampments 

to be surrounded by overgrown vegetation, but this can make 

the camps difficult for police to enter safely, especially at night. 

Before clearing brush, first determine who owns the land. 

Multi-agency cooperation may be necessary on land owned by 

the park service, municipal parks and recreation departments, 

or transportation and highway departments. You may also need 

to consult a landscape architect about what kinds of plants 

should replace what is removed. If a lot of brush needs to be 

cleared, consider asking neighborhood residents to help out.

Clearing brush can be effective short term. However, unless 

there are other changes to the area that make it unattractive 

to transients, the encampment is likely to reappear when the 

brush grows back. It is also possible the encampment will move 

to another location. If the encampment is close to neighboring 

jurisdictions, it can be worthwhile to work with agencies in 

these jurisdictions to anticipate and prevent this displacement. 

9. Deploying water sprinklers. If the chronically homeless have 

set up camps in relatively small urban parks, setting water 

sprinklers to go off at various times can make sitting or lying on 

the grass less comfortable. Sprinklers on buildings can also be 

used to prevent people from sleeping on sidewalks.
26 Homeless Encampments

10. Encouraging private property owners to secure vacant lots 

and buildings. Fencing and other barriers can make spaces 

less desirable for encampments because of the increased effort 

needed to reach the camp. On the other hand, making it harder 

to get to the encampment means it is less likely to be detected 

by police on routine patrol, which may actually serve to make 

the site more attractive. 

11. Removing or altering street furniture. Dismantling park 

benches and the like, or installing spikes and other devices to 

discourage sitting or lying on flat, raised surfaces, can make 

places less attractive for idle transients. But this will affect the 

street homeless and the legitimate user of public space equally, 

as each will be denied a place to sit and rest. Better approaches 

involve encouraging property owners to modify surfaces in 

fairly benign ways or construct them so they do not promote 

long-term sitting. Examples include central armrests on 

benches, slanted surfaces at the bases of walls, prickly vegetation 

in planter boxes, and narrow or pointed treatments on tops of 

fences and ledges. However, some observers of public spaces 

argue that the way to lessen the impact of loitering homeless 

people is to construct even more desirable sitting environments 

to attract more legitimate users, thus decreasing the ratio of 

homeless to legitimate users.50

Restricting Access to Goods and Services That 

Promote Encampments

12. Restricting public feeding of transients. Health codes in 

many communities prohibit feeding people in public without 

appropriate permits and measures to ensure food safety. Zoning 

codes often specify what activities are allowable when providing 

services to homeless people. Religious groups have argued 

these prohibitions violate the freedom of religious expression 

under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act of 1993.51
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 27

Responding To Public Feedings In Anchorage, Alaska

Instead of first enforcing health or zoning codes, it can be more 

productive to first engage stakeholders in discussions. For example, 

community leaders in Anchorage, Alaska, raised concerns about 

the negative impact on its commercial center of large groups of 

chronically homeless people showing up throughout the day and late 

at night for feedings from the back of a van. A short-term working 

group was formed to address the issue. The main stakeholders were 

the community members, the state office of Faith-Based Initiatives, 

the municipal department of health and human services, and leaders 

in the faith community. After several meetings and hearing the 

neighborhood’s concerns, the faith leaders communicated to their 

congregations that this activity was unwelcome at that location. 

Congregants were encouraged to move to the grounds of a nearby 

soup kitchen that did not serve an evening meal. The majority of 

the food-givers relocated. One person refused to comply, arguing 

that she was doing “God’s work” and would not be stopped. The 

police contacted the property owner where the feedings occurred and 

secured a letter asking the police to enforce trespassing laws against 

the woman. This, coupled with the threat of citations for health code 

violations, finally brought an end to public feedings at that location.

13. Diverting donations from the public. Well-intentioned 

people who leave donations of food and clothing at 

encampment sites may not realize that their actions may 

do more to enable transients than help them out of their 

chronically homeless lifestyle. Public education can encourage 

citizens to direct their charitable energies toward programs and 

services that reduce the need for homeless encampments rather 

than supporting them.
28 Homeless Encampments

§

An architect in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 

troubled by the strong smell of urine in 

doorways by his business, teamed up 

with the local Business Improvement 

Zone (BIZ) to install two portable 

toilets. Police and BIZ employees 

checked the toilets regularly to ensure 

they were not being used for criminal 

activity. Despite a reported reduction 

in urine odors, the city ordered their 

removal and declined to issue a permit 

(CBC News, 2008).

Reducing Negative Impacts of “Routine Activities” 

of the Chronically Homeless

14. Installing more public toilets. If your community has a 

problem with homeless people excreting and urinating in public, 

it may be because there is no place else for them to go. Seattle put 

in more public toilets, automated stand-alone units with doors 

that open after 10 minutes, seats that retract for cleaning, and 

a system to hose down the floors. However, some community 

members thought the toilets were havens for drug dealers and 

prostitutes. There were also some mechanical failures.52 Because 

some members of the public might object to the high price 

of automated toilets, it may be better to start with portable 

toilets.§ In Fresno, California, and Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

several portable toilets were recently installed next to homeless 

encampments, although not without opposition from those 

who argued that this would legitimize the encampments. Health 

and sanitation concerns were deemed more important. Another 

approach to dealing with citizens’ concerns about the cost of 

public toilets is to contract with companies that can provide 

public toilets in addition to other street “furniture” (such as litter 

receptacles, bus shelters, newsstands, and benches). Revenue 

is generated by placing advertising on the street furniture and 

charging people a small fee to use the toilets (which have cleaning 

systems and automatic doors to prevent long stays). These 

arrangements can make money for local government—New York 

City expects to bring in $1 billion over 20 years.53

15. Opening a day resource center. These are “one-stop shops” 

where the chronically homeless can access services, use bathing 

facilities, and receive health care, food, etc.54 People who reside 

in urban encampments are likely to benefit, and, at the very 

least, will be off the streets and out of public view for much of 

the day. Encampment dwellers who work during the day do 

not need the “drop-in” component of a day resource center, but 

could more efficiently access services. Opponents think this will 

just bring in more people, so providers of these facilities should 

strongly consider connecting the receipt of services to some sort 

of programming to transition people from homelessness.55
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 29

In Fontana, California, the police worked with local churches 

and other service providers to create TEN-4 (Transient 

Enrichment Network for Fontana), a processing center that 

provides a hot shower, clean clothes, food, and assistance 

finding housing, employment, or placement in a long-term 

substance abuse treatment program. The facility is in a strip 

mall in an area of the city with a long-standing homelessness 

problem. If someone brought to the TEN-4 facility did not 

enter the program, he or she was given a ride away from the 

area. This helped alleviate business owners’ concerns that the 

area around the center would be overrun by homeless people 

who were “dropped off ” there. Also, homeless people who did 

not enter the program were not given any food or clothing, and 

were not allowed to use any restroom or shower facilities. These 

measures satisfied the business owners, who soon became strong 

supporters of TEN-4.56

16. Working with land use enforcement officers. Most 

jurisdictions have land use codes that can prohibit homeless 

encampments on private property. They include restrictions or 

specifications on the type of ancillary dwelling units permitted 

on property and regulations against camping. Squatting in 

buildings is generally prohibited through codes setting safety 

standards for occupancy of structures. 

17. Cleaning up camp sites. Removal of trash and debris from 

homeless encampments can improve the unsanitary conditions 

there. However, without taking steps to permanently remove 

the inhabitants, this response is unlikely to result in long-term 

change to the encampment.
30 Homeless Encampments

18. Shutting down homeless encampments. This response takes 

cleaning up camp sites much further and includes strategies to 

permanently remove the transients and discourage their return. 

The procedure for shutting down homeless encampments is 

multi-staged. Most successful plans include these elements, 

generally in this order:57

• Visit the encampment to determine 1) how many people 

live there and if they have any special needs; 2) if there 

are any environmental hazards that need to be handled by 

trained personnel; and 3) the proper deployment of police 

officers and others to adequately carry out the plan.

• Determine which law enforcement agencies have 

jurisdiction in the encampment area. If there is more 

than one, as is often the case in wilderness areas where 

state or federal agencies may have jurisdiction, establish a 

Memorandum-of-Understanding (MOU) that specifies 

which agency will be responsible for law enforcement, 

safety, and environmental protection, and who will do what 

while the response is being implemented.

• Find out who owns the property in question. The laws 

pertaining to legality of encampments vary depending on 

whether the land is privately or publicly owned. 

Anchorage Responsible Beverage Retailers 

Association (ARBRA)

This notice is placed at encampments after 

they have been cleaned by volunteers.
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 31

• Become familiar with your jurisdiction’s laws regarding 

removal of personal property and people from transient 

encampments. 

• Meet with representatives from homeless advocacy groups 

to advise them of your plan and why you are doing it. Data 

collected during the scanning phase of your project will be 

useful here. Consider inviting these groups to come along on 

your subsequent contacts with transients at the encampment.

• Arrange alternate shelter for all the transients before you 

begin to remove them from the encampment. This is an 

important step to avoid legal challenges on the basis of the 

unconstitutionality of punishing someone for carrying out 

a “physiological need”—sleeping.

• Provide all transients with a written notice advising them 

1) they are violating the law by camping in the park, under 

the freeway overpass, etc; 2) they are subject to further law 

enforcement if they remain in the area; 3) of the location 

of the alternate shelter arranged specifically for them; and 

4) by which date they must vacate the area.

• After the date of vacation passes, return to the encampment 

and issue citations to those still there. Tell them the date 

by which they must vacate and that they will be subject to 

arrest and seizure of property if they do not leave by then.

• After the second notice passes, arrest any remaining 

transients and store their belongings. Ask other agencies 

or government departments to assist you in removing 

this property. Be careful about potential constitutional 

violations regarding searches of property. 

• Establish another MOU detailing who will be responsible 

for ensuring the encampment is not rebuilt. Consider having 

each agency contribute some resources for regular patrols 

of the affected areas, and ensure you have the capacity to 

immediately clean up an area if it begins to reestablish itself. 

• Cut back any excessive foliage that hides the encampment area. 

• Post signage in the former encampment indicating that 

camping is not permitted in the area. 
32 Homeless Encampments

§

See http://file.burbankca.gov/

cityclerk/agendas/ag_council/2007/

ag032007_Minutes.html for a good 

discussion about the legal implications 

of different methods of controlling 

abandoned shopping carts. 

19. Retrieving shopping carts. Some transients store their 

personal belongings in shopping carts, making it relatively 

easy for them to move from place to place. Often what is 

transported in the carts is not food or other grocery items but 

debris, soiled clothing, or animals. If a cart is returned to the 

store, its use by shoppers may constitute a health hazard. 

Stores in areas populated by transients may be especially 

vulnerable to cart theft because many of their customers are 

pedestrians and cannot transport their goods home without 

a shopping cart. Further, these stores may lack the resources 

to install security devices on the carts or to allocate staff and 

a vehicle to patrol the neighborhood to pick up stray carts. 

Some cities, such as Phoenix, Arizona, allocate government 

funding to hire shopping cart pickup vendors to work in areas 

particularly afflicted by discarded carts.58 Other cities have 

ordinances that require stores to contract with vendors whose 

business is retrieving abandoned shopping carts,59 or to develop 

a plan to contain their carts on their property. This ordinance 

is widespread in California, where state law places numerous 

restrictions on the capacity of local governments to quickly 

retrieve abandoned shopping carts.§

Anchorage Responsible Beverage Retailers Association 

(ARBRA)

Example of signage posted in a former encampment.
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 33

§

For examples of policies, see the Fort 

Lauderdale (Florida) Police Department 

(http://ci.ftlaud.fl.us/POLICE/

homeless4.html) and the Cincinnati 

(Ohio) Police Department (www.

cincinnati-oh.gov/police/downloads/

police_pdf7158.pdf).

Improving Police Interactions with Transients

20. Developing a departmental policy. About a quarter of sheriffs’ 

offices and local police departments have written policies for 

contacts with homeless people.60 A policy should include 

procedures for casual contacts and arrests, as well as details 

about how give notice to illegal campers and deal with the 

property of homeless people.§ The use of appropriate recordkeeping tools (to support efforts to assess the effectiveness of 

your intervention) could also be mandated by policy. 

21. Creating a specialized unit. Police departments in many 

cities, such as Santa Monica and San Diego, California, 

Pinellas Park and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, New York City, 

and Albuquerque, New Mexico, have established units to deal 

specifically with homeless people. There are different types 

of these units. In one variation, police accompany outreach 

workers on patrols through areas frequented by homeless 

people. Contacted homeless people are referred or transported 

to services. In Fort Lauderdale, police officers on the Homeless 

Outreach Team learned that wearing a uniform and driving a 

marked patrol car actually made it easier to contact homeless 

people. Being approached by someone in plain clothes and an 

unmarked car made the homeless fearful.61 Another variation 

is based less on patrol and more on crisis intervention. An 

example is the Homeless Outreach Team in San Diego, where 

in addition to homeless outreach efforts, police officers partner 

with mental health clinicians in a Psychiatric Emergency 

Response Team.62 A third variation is exemplified by the 

Homeless Liaison Program (HLP) in Santa Monica. There, 

a specially trained unit of about six police officers reaches 

out to transients and refers them to services. The HLP Team 

established contacts with short-term and long-term housing 

providers, job placement services, and treatment programs for 

mental illness and substance abuse disorders.63
34 Homeless Encampments

§

See, for example, Pottinger v. City of 

Miami, Johnson v. City of Dallas, and 

Jones v. City of Los Angeles.

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

22. Enforcing “sidewalk behavior” ordinances. “Sidewalk 

behavior” ordinances prohibit behaviors on public sidewalks. 

Examples of these prohibited behaviors include lying or sitting 

on the sidewalk, or on any object placed on the sidewalk; 

impeding or obstructing the passage of pedestrians by getting 

in their way or putting obstacles on the sidewalk; leaving 

belongings unattended on sidewalks; and soliciting.64 There 

have been successful class-action legal challenges§ to arrests of 

homeless people for sleeping in public places and carrying out 

other “life-sustaining functions.”65 The courts’ decision rules 

have generally been: 

1) Are the plaintiffs involuntarily homeless? If your 

community does not have enough shelter beds to house 

all the homeless people, a court is likely to rule, based 

on precedent, that homelessness is not a choice and thus 

involuntary. 

2) Do the plaintiffs have access to non-public spaces to carry 

out the punished activities? If your community lacks 

bathing and toilet facilities for the homeless, enforcement 

of laws prohibiting these activities could run into legal 

challenges.

3) Are the activities for which the plaintiff is being punished 

involuntary? Courts have tended to rule that sleeping and 

excretion are involuntary. 

Beyond the legal impediments to enforcing these ordinances, it is 

likely that some offenders might welcome being arrested for these 

sorts of activities. It gives them a chance to be off the street for a 

short period of time in a place where they can eat, get warm, and 

clean up. Before long, they will be back in the same area doing the 

very things for which they were arrested.66
Responses to the Problem of Homeless Encampments 35

§

American ethnographic studies 

and small-scale surveys of people 

living on the street or in transient 

encampments show that about 20–30 

percent engage in panhandling. This 

percentage was considerably higher in 

a Scottish study however (Fitzpatrick 

and Kennedy, 2000).

§§See Problem-Specific Guide No. 13, 

Panhandling for more information.

§§§See Response Guide No. 1, The 

Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns for more information.

23. Enforcing ordinances against panhandling. Only a small 

percentage of chronically homeless people are panhandlers.§67

Therefore, cracking down on panhandlers is not likely to have a 

significant impact on transient encampments. Furthermore, the 

legal impediments to successful enforcement of anti-begging 

laws are great.§§

24. Doing “bum” sweeps. One common strategy is the “bum 

sweep,” where police temporarily concentrate resources in a 

troubled area and arrest a lot of homeless people for minor 

offenses or on outstanding warrants. Sweeps can clean up 

an area very quickly, but they are not generally effective for 

a number of reasons. First, they can create an adversarial 

relationship between this group and the police, and, second, 

they can encourage unproductive interaction with homeless 

advocates.68 Finally, there is no evidence that sweeps have any 

long-term effect. As an isolated response, crackdowns against 

the street homeless are not advised. However, there is evidence 

from studies of crackdowns on serious crime (mostly drug 

markets) that they can be effective if done in conjunction with 

other strategies.§§§69

25. Creating safe zones. These areas, wherein homeless people can 

live without fear of arrest for carrying out the routine behaviors 

of daily life, typically combine temporary shelter with services 

such as medical care, meals, and employment assistance. 

Homeless encampment residents prefer these to shelters.70 In 

practice though, safe zones are not effective. Their location 

in industrial parts of cities makes community opposition 

unlikely, but also isolates inhabitants from the services and 

employment opportunities that might help them transition out 

of chronic homelessness. It is also possible that this isolation 

might actually increase the divide between safe zone residents 

and “housed” people.71 The city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 

was compelled by court order to establish a safe zone—four 

tents in a downtown parking lot. It had feedings, showers, and 

restrooms, and ended up attracting new homeless people to the 

city. The safe zone became rife with crime. Overall, the effort 

proved not to be cost-effective.72
36 Homeless Encampments

26. Increasing the capacity of local shelters. It is not always true 

that people reside in transient encampments due to lack of 

shelter space. Campers resist going to shelters for a variety of 

reasons. Some shelters cost too much, prohibit alcohol use, 

couple shelter with religious outreach, or refuse admittance 

to those with certain types of criminal histories (sex offenders 

in particular). Those who are denied entry once are not likely 

to try again. Relaxing these rules might make shelters more 

palatable to this group of chronically homeless people. On the 

other hand, allowing anyone into shelters would lead others to 

avoid them for personal safety reasons. Finding a balance can 

be difficult.73

In two studies of homeless encampment residents, only 25-41 

percent said they would go willingly to shelters. If forced to leave 

their encampment, a larger percentage said they would just find a 

more secluded place to live, and others said they would continue 

to stay at their encampment, even if it meant risking arrest.74
Appendix 37

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Homeless Encampments

The table below summarizes the responses to homeless encampments, the mechanisms by which they 

are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors you 

should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to 

local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, 

an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses 

alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

General Principles for an Effective Strategy

1 22 Enlisting 

community 

support to 

address the 

problem

Involving 

stakeholders early on 

increases likelihood 

of support for 

responses and 

reduces risk of 

lawsuits 

... there is consensus 

about how to define 

the problem and the 

possible solutions

Some advocacy groups are 

unreceptive to other views 

and may attempt to derail 

your efforts

2 22 Educating the 

community 

about 

homelessness

Makes people’s 

expectations of what 

police can do more 

realistic; reduces 

“NIMBY” response

... there is a tradition 

of civic engagement 

in the community

Some citizens may resist 

learning about the causes of 

and effective responses to 

chronic homelessness if these 

ideas are contrary to their 

moral values 

3 22 Educating 

police 

officers about 

homelessness

Improves interaction 

between police 

officers and 

homeless people 

... the training 

leads to changes in 

attitudes and beliefs 

about the chronically 

homeless 

Some officers resent 

“sensitivity” training

4 22 Helping 

with your 

community’s 

long-range 

homelessness 

plan

Ensures that 

police interests are 

included in the plan

... stakeholders 

involved in the plan 

are receptive to input 

from police

Some stakeholders are hostile 

to the police and do not view 

them as allies 
38 Homeless Encampments

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Specific Responses to Homeless Encampments

Providing Alternatives to Homeless Encampments

5 23 Promoting the 

“Housing First” 

model

Puts hard-to-place 

chronically homeless 

people into housing 

immediately 

... the infrastructure 

exists in your 

community

Finding locations for these 

housing facilities can be 

difficult in some communities 

6 24 Lobbying for 

more resources 

for mental 

health and 

substance abuse 

treatment

Increases treatment 

options for those 

who need them

...this treatment 

is provided in 

conjunction with 

housing

Citizens resent paying taxes 

to help people with substance 

abuse problems and mental 

illness

7 24 Regulating 

structured 

camping 

facilities

Creates an area for 

transients to camp 

safely

... a suitable location 

can be found that 

meets community 

needs

The facility may be located 

on undesirable land far from 

services transients need

Changing the Physical Environment

8 25 Clear-cutting 

of overgrown 

brush

Removes privacy 

for transients 

and barriers to 

encampment 

detection; assists 

natural surveillance

... vegetation is not 

allowed to grow back 

to previous levels

Clearing only small areas at a 

time may displace transients 

to nearby spots to set up new 

encampments

9 25 Deploying 

water sprinklers

Makes the 

encampment area 

wet and the ground 

less desirable to sit 

or lie on 

...sprinklers are set 

to go off at random 

times to increase 

unpredictability

Legitimate users of the 

space, such as picnickers and 

sunbathers, may be annoyed

10 26 Encouraging 

private 

property 

owners to 

secure vacant 

lots and 

buildings

Access to potential 

sites for transient 

encampments is 

blocked

...measures used to 

secure the space are 

checked regularly to 

ensure they have not 

been compromised

If encampments are 

established in areas with 

limited access, it will be 

harder for the police to find 

them
Appendix 39

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

11 26 Removing or 

altering street 

furniture

Reduces the 

number of places to 

comfortably sit or lie 

down in public

...alterations will not 

cause physical injury

Legitimate users may object 

to the loss of streetscape 

amenities

Restricting Access to Goods and Services that Promote Encampments 

12 26 Restricting 

public feeding 

of transients

Prevents gathering 

of transients

... the health 

department provides 

support

Food providers may view 

restrictions as harsh and 

uncaring 

13 27 Diverting 

donations from 

the public

Reduces funds 

available to support 

encampment 

lifestyle

... there is a 

mechanism to 

permanently block 

drop-off sites near 

encampments 

Some people will think 

the response is harsh and 

uncaring

Reducing Negative Impacts of “Routine Activities” of the Chronically Homeless

14 28 Installing more 

public toilets

Facilitates 

compliance with 

community 

standards on 

personal hygiene

... low-cost models are 

used at the beginning 

Toilets can become havens for 

criminals

15 28 Opening a day 

resource center

Puts transients in 

direct contact with 

service providers in 

one location

... use of facility 

amenities is tied 

in with program 

participation

Nearby residents and 

businesses may work to block 

location of the facility in their 

neighborhood

16 29 Working 

with land use 

enforcement 

officers

Sets rules about 

what activities and 

uses are permitted; 

encourages place 

management by 

property owner

... transients are 

encamped on private 

property

Fining property owners 

may not directly affect the 

transients encamped on the 

property

17 29 Cleaning up 

camp sites

Denies benefits of 

encampment by 

removing personal 

property and 

amenities

... done in 

conjunction with 

legal measures to 

remove transients

This may not work if 

measures are not taken to 

prevent the reestablishment 

of the encampment
40 Homeless Encampments

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

18 30 Shutting down 

homeless 

encampments

Long-term denial 

of benefits for 

transients by 

removing their 

personal property 

... there is extensive 

planning before 

the intervention 

and multi-agency 

cooperation for 

implementation and 

follow-up

Displacement of transients 

to other encampments is 

likely unless they are provided 

with more desirable shelter 

alternatives

19 32 Retrieving 

shopping carts

Removes facilitator 

of transient lifestyle

... there is an 

ordinance in 

place making 

stores responsible 

for retrieval or 

containment of carts

Local grocery stores may lack 

resources to prevent theft of 

carts or collect them regularly

Improving Police Interactions With Transients

20 33 Developing a 

departmental 

policy 

Sets standards 

for contacts with 

homeless people

...the policies and 

procedures support 

the departmental 

mission and values of 

the department and 

the community

Homeless advocates may 

scrutinize the policy and its 

implementation 

21 33 Creating a 

specialized unit

Ensures rapid 

identification of 

homeless people in 

need of help 

... police work 

together with social 

service providers to 

access services for 

homeless

Homeless advocates may 

view police involvement 

unfavorably

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

22 34 Enforcing 

“sidewalk 

behavior” 

ordinances

Restores orderliness 

to public spaces 

and discourages 

unwanted behaviors

... ordinances can be 

written so they do not 

violate constitutional 

protections

In addition to potential legal 

challenges, these ordinances 

can reinforce undesired 

activity by rewarding the 

offender with a warm bed and 

food 
Appendix 41

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

23 35 Enforcing 

ordinances 

against 

panhandling

Increases the 

effort required by 

panhandlers to make 

money 

... there is a large 

overlap between 

panhandlers and 

transients in your 

community; 

ordinances 

Most people who live in 

transient encampments are 

not panhandlers

do not violate 

constitutionally 

protected freedoms 

24 35 Doing “bum” 

sweeps

Temporarily 

removes transients 

from public spaces

... if done in 

conjunction with 

other strategies

In addition to creating an 

adversarial relationship 

with the homeless and 

their advocates, there is no 

evidence that it works

25 35 Creating safe 

zones

Isolates transients 

in an area where 

... services to 

transition out of 

Industrial zone locations cut 

off transients from needed 

their behaviors will 

disturb fewer people 

chronic homelessness 

are accessible in the 

safe zone

services; increased services 

may attract new homeless 

people to the area

26 36 Increasing the 

capacity of 

local shelters

Provides alternatives 

to encampment 

living

... there is an actual 

demand for shelter 

services among the 

transient population 

Transients find shelters less 

desirable than encampments, 

and some transients would be 

denied entry to shelters

Endnotes 43

Endnotes

1	 Nicol (2001).

2	 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008a).

3	 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008b).

4	 U.S. Conference of Mayors (2008).

5	 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008b).

6	 Amster (2003); Cousineau (1993).

7	 Cousineau (1993).

8	 Cousineau (1993); Erlenbusch, Marr, and White (2001).

9	 Cousineau (1993); Tempe, Arizona, Homeless Task Force 

(2000); San Diego (California) Police Department (1999); 

Swope (2005); Lawson, S. (2002); Aubry, Klodawsky, Hay, and 

Birnie (2003).

10	Cousineau (1993); Erlenbusch, Marr, and White (2001), Tempe, 

Arizona, Homeless Task Force (2000).

11	Cousineau (1993).

12	Newport Beach (California) Police Department (2000); Reno 

(Nevada) Police Department (1998).

13	Tempe, Arizona, Homeless Task Force (2000); Harcourt (2005).

14	Allen, Lehman, Green, Lindegren, Onorato, and Forrester 

(1994); National Coalition for the Homeless (2008b); Zerger 

(2002). 

15	Cousineau (1993); Tempe, Arizona, Homeless Task Force 

(2000); Harcourt (2005).

16	Constable (2008).

17	Ballintyne (1999).

18	Newburn and Rock (2005).

19	National Coalition for the Homeless (2008a).

20	National Coalition for the Homeless (2008a).

21	Sahagun and Bloomekatz (2008).
44 Homeless Encampments

22	Huichochea (2008).

23	Pacheco (2007).

24	Minugh (2008).

25	Mallory (2002).

26	Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008).

27	Reno (Nevada) Police Department (1998); San Diego 

(California) Police Department (1995).

28	Fischer (1998); Snow, Baker, and Anderson (1989).

29	Snow, Baker, and Anderson (1989).

30	Snow, Baker, and Anderson (1989).

31	Snow, Baker, and Anderson (1989); Foscarinis (1996); Foscarinis, 

Cunningham-Bowers, and Brown (1999), Simon (1995).

32	Snow, Baker, and Anderson (1989).

33	Newport Beach (California) Police Department (2000); San 

Diego (California) Police Department (1995, 1999, 2003); 

San Diego (California) Police Department, Northern Division 

(2001); Reno (Nevada) Police Department (1998); Fontana 

(California) Police Department (1998).

34	Newport Beach (California) Police Department (2000).

35	Berkley and Thayer (2000).

36	Berkley and Thayer (2000).

37	Newport Beach (California) Police Department (2000); Reno 

(Nevada) Police Department (1998).

38	Balles (2008); Siemers (2008).

39	Swope (2005).

40	Balles (2008).

41	Dallas (Texas) Police Department, Northwest Operations 

Division (1999).

42	Cousineau (1993); Fontana (California) Police Department 

(1998); Erlenbusch, Marr, and White (2001); Constable (2008).

43	U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008a).
Endnotes 45

44	Swope (2005).

45	Culhane, Metraux, and Hadley (2002).

46	Alliance to End Homelessness in Ottawa (2006); De Jong (2007).

47	Cousineau (1993); Erlenbusch, Marr, and White (2001).

48	McMurray-Avila, Gelberg, and Breakey (1999); Drake, Osher, 

and Wallach (1991); Drake, Mercer-McFadden, Mueser, 

McHugo, and Bond (1998); Drake, Mueser, Brunette, and 

McHugo (2004).

49	Amster (2003).

50	Whyte (1980).

51	National Coalition for the Homeless and National Law Center 

on Homelessness & Poverty (2006).

52	Shen (2007).

53	Hu (2005); Roberts (2008).

54	Tempe, Arizona, Homeless Task Force (2000).

55	Berkley and Thayer (2000).

56	Fontana (California) Police Department (1998).

57	Newport Beach (California) Police Department (2000); Reno 

(Nevada) Police Department (1998)

58	Moravcik (2005).

59	City of Concord (California) (2009).

60	Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006a, 2006b).

61	Fort Lauderdale (Florida) Police Department (2002).

62	San Diego (California) Police Department (1999).

63	Groves (2009); City of Santa Monica (California) (2008); 

Melekian (1990).

64	Leckerman (2001).

65	Leckerman (2001); Foscarinis (1996); National Law Center on 

Homelessness & Poverty (2003).

66	San Diego (California) Police Department (1995).
46 Homeless Encampments

67	Ellickson (1996); Cousineau (1993).

68	Fort Lauderdale (Florida) Police Department (2002).

69	Scott (2004).

70	Cousineau (1993); Erlenbusch, Marr, and White (2001).

71	Foscarinis (1996).

72	Fort Lauderdale (Florida) Police Department (2002).

73	Jencks (1994); Cousineau (1993); Erlenbusch, Marr, and White 

(2001).

74	Cousineau (1993); Erlenbusch, Marr, and White (2001).
References 47

References

Abt Associates Inc. (2008). A Guide to Counting Unsheltered 

Homeless People.

Allen, D., J. Lehman, T. Green, M. Lindegren, I. Onorato, and 

W. Forrester (1994). “HIV infection among homeless adults 

and runaway youth, United States, 1989-1992.” AIDS 8(11): 

1593-1598. 

Alliance to End Homelessness in Ottawa (2006). Experiencing 

Homelessness: Second Report Card on Homelessness in Ottawa 

(Jan-Dec 2005). Ottawa: The Alliance.

Amster, R. (2003). “Patterns of Exclusion: Sanitizing Space, 

Criminalizing Homelessness.” Social Justice 30(1): 195-221.

Aubry, T., F. Klodawsky, E. Hay, and S. Birnie (2003). Panel Study 

on Persons Who Are Homeless in Ottawa: Phase 1 Results: Final 

Report. Ottawa, CAN: Centre for Research on Community 

Services, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa.

Balles, J. (2008). “Executive Summary of Chronic Nuisance 

Behavior Project,” Inter-departmental memo, Madison Police 

Department, November 11. 

Ballintyne, S. (1999). Unsafe Streets: Street Homeless and Crime. 

London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Berkley, B., and J. Thayer (2000). “Policing Entertainment 

Districts.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies 

and Management 23(4): 466-491.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006a). Local Police Departments, 2003,

Table 48. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006b). Sheriffs’ Offices, 2003, Table 48. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). Criminal Victimization in the 

United States, 2006: Statistical Tables, Table 27. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Carter, D., and A. Sapp (1993). “Police Response to Street People.” 

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 62(3): 5-11.
48 Homeless Encampments

CBC News (2008). Winnipeg Orders Removal of Toilets Installed for 

Homeless. September 11. Accessed Jan 3, 2009 at http://www.

cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/09/11/portajohns.html.

City of Concord (California) (2009). Shopping Cart Pickup. 

Accessed on March 23, 2009 at http://www.ci.concord.ca.us/

living/shoppingcarts.htm.

City of Santa Monica (California) (2008). Homeless Liaison 

Program (HLP). Accessed March 23, 2009 at http://www.

santamonicapd.org/units/hlpteam.htm.

Constable, E. (2008). “The Criminal Victimization of the 

Homeless: The National Problem and its Presence in Green 

Bay.” Unpublished manuscript. Madison, WI: University of 

Wisconsin.

Cousineau, M. (1993). A Profile of Urban Encampments in Central 

Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Coalition to End 

Homelessness.

Culhane, D., S. Metraux, and T. Hadley (2002). “Public Service 

Reductions Associated with Placement of Homeless Persons 

with Severe Mental Illness in Supportive Housing.” Housing 

Policy Debate 13(1): 107-163.

Dallas (Texas) Police Department, Northwest Operations Division 

(1999). “Stemmons Corridor Service Delivery Project.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing.

De Jong, I. (2007). “What ‘Housing First’ Means to People Housed 

Under Toronto’s Streets to Homes Program: Preliminary 

Findings of 2007 Post-Occupancy Research.” Toronto, CAN: 

City of Toronto, Shelter, Support and Housing Administration 

Division.

Drake, R., C. Mercer-McFadden, K. Mueser, G. McHugo, and 

G. Bond (1998). “Review of Integrated Mental Health and 

Substance Abuse Treatment for Patients With Dual Disorders.” 

Schizophrenia Bulletin 24(4): 589-608.

Drake, R., F. Osher, and M. Wallach (1991). “Homelessness and 

Dual Diagnosis.” American Psychologist 46(11): 1149-1158.
References 49

Drake, R., K. Mueser, M. Brunette, and G. McHugo (2004). “A 

Review of Treatments for People with Severe Mental Illnesses 

and Co-occurring Substance Use Disorders.” Psychiatric 

Rehabilitation Journal 27(4): 360–374.

Ellickson, R. (1996). “Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City 

Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows, and Public Space Zoning.” 

Yale Law Journal 105(5): 1165-1248.

Erlenbusch, B., M. Marr, and P. White (2001). Life on Industrial 

Avenue: A Profile of an Urban Encampment In Downtown Los 

Angeles With Ten Policy Recommendations. Los Angeles: Los 

Angeles Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness.

Fischer, P. (1988). “Criminal Activity Among the Homeless: A 

Study of Arrests in Baltimore.” Hospital and Community 

Psychiatry 39(1): 46-51.

Fitzpatrick, S., and C. Kennedy (2000). Getting By: The Links 

Between Begging and Rough Sleeping in Glasgow and 

Edinburgh. Report to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 

Glasgow: Department of Urban Studies, University of 

Glasgow.

Fontana (California) Police Department (1998). “Transient 

Enrichment Network (TEN-4) for Fontana.” Submission 

for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing.

Fort Lauderdale (Florida) Police Department (2002). “Police 

Response to Homelessness: The Fort Lauderdale Model.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing.

Foscarinis, M. (1996). “Downward Spiral: Homelessness and Its 

Criminalization.” Yale Law & Policy Review 14(1): 1-63.

Foscarinis, M., K. Cunningham-Bowers and K. Brown (1999). 

“Out of Sight – Out of Mind?: The Continuing Trend Toward 

the Criminalization of Homelessness.” Georgetown Journal of 

Poverty Law & Policy 6(2): 145-164.
50 Homeless Encampments

Groves, M. (2009). “Santa Monica Sees Some Progress in its 

Battle to Get the Homeless Off the Streets.” Los Angeles 

Times, February 26. Accessed March 23, 2009 at http://www.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-santamonica-homeless26-

2009feb26,0,6521551.story

Harcourt, B. (2005). “Policing L.A.’s Skid Row: Crime and Real 

Estate Redevelopment in Downtown Los Angeles (An 

Experiment in Real Time).” University of Chicago Legal Forum

(2005): 325-403.

Hu, W. (2005). “Deal is Reached to Put Toilets on City Streets.” 

New York Times, September 22. Accessed March 22, 2009 at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/nyregion/22furniture.

html.

Huichochea, A. (2008). “Man fatally stabbed at homeless camp.” 

Arizona Daily Star, Nov. 13. Accessed Jan 2, 2009 at http://

www.azstarnet.com/sn/crime/267000.

Jencks, C. (1994). The Homeless. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press.

Lawson, S. (2002). Response to Homelessness Strategy 2002 – 06. 

Brisbane: BrisFane City Council, Social Policy Branch, 

Community and Economic Development.

Leckerman, J. (2001). “City of Brotherly Love?: Using the 

Fourteenth Amendment to Strike Down an Anti-Homeless 

Ordinance in Philadelphia.” University of Pennsylvania Journal 

of Constitutional Law 3(1): 540-572.

Mallory, P. (2002). Crimes Committed Against Homeless Persons: 

Special Report to the Legislature on Senate Resolution 18. San 

Francisco: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice 

Statistics Center.
References 51

McMurray-Avila, M., L. Gelberg, and W. Breakey (1999). 

“Balancing Act: Clinical Practices That Respond to the 

Needs of Homeless People.” In Fosburg, F.B. and Dennis, 

D.L. (eds) Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on 

Homelessness Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

Melekian, B. (1990). “Police and the Homeless.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 59(11): 1-7.

Moravcik, M. (2005). “City OKs Funding for Shopping Cart 

Pickup.” The Arizona Republic, June 11. Accessed March 23, 

2009 at http://www.nowpublic.com/city_oks_funding_for_

shopping_cart_pickup.

National Coalition for the Homeless (2008a). Hate, Violence and 

Death on Main Street USA: A Report on Hate Crimes and 

Violence Against People Experiencing Homelessness, 2007.

Washington, D.C.: The Coalition.

National Coalition for the Homeless (2008b). HIV/AIDS and 

Homelessness. NCH Fact Sheet #9. Washington, D.C.: The 

Coalition.

National Coalition for the Homeless and National Law Center 

on Homelessness & Poverty (2006). A Dream Denied: The 

Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities. Washington, 

D.C.: National Coalition for the Homeless and National Law 

Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (2003). 

Punishing Poverty: The Criminalization of Homelessness, 

Litigation, and Recommendations for Solutions. Washington, 

D.C.: The Law Center.

Newburn, T., and P. Rock (2005). Living in Fear: Violence and 

Victimisation in the Lives of Single Homeless People. London: 

Crisis UK.

Newport Beach (California) Police Department (2000). “Talbert 

Regional Park.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award 

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.
52 Homeless Encampments

Nicol, J. (2001). “Life in ‘Tent City’.” Maclean’s 114(3):14-15.

Pacheco, W. (2007). “Homeless camp is site of 3rd killing.” Orlando 

Sentinel. Aug. 23. Accessed Jan 2, 2009 at http://www.

orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/orl-db-homicidestephenking,0,1080095.story.

Reno (Nevada) Police Department (1998). “Truckee River Area 

Project.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Roberts, R. (2008). “Coming Soon: A Public Toilet, Fully 

Sterilized, for $1.” National Post, June 9. Accessed March 22, 

2009 at http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/

archive/2008/06/09/coming-soon-a-public-toilet-fullysterilized-for-1.aspx.

Sahagun, L., and A. Bloomekatz (2008). “One of the five shot at 

camp in Long Beach wasn’t homeless, family says.” LA Times, 

Nov. 4. Accessed Jan 2, 2009 at http://www.latimes.com/

news/local/la-me-homeless4-2008nov04,0,5585535.story.

San Diego (California) Police Department (1995). “Otay River 

Valley: Cleaning Up Crime and Disorder in a River Valley.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing.

San Diego (California) Police Department (1999). “Homeless 

Outreach Team (H.O.T. Team).” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

San Diego (California) Police Department (2003). “Transient 

Project – Interstate 805 Corridor.” Submission for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

San Diego (California) Police Department, Northern Division 

(2001). “Transient Problems at the Clairemont Square Mall in 

San Diego, California.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.

Scott, M. (2002). Panhandling. Problem-Oriented Guides 

for Police Series; Guide No. 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services.
References 53

Scott, M. (2004). The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Response Guides for Police Series; Guide No. 

1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services.

Shen, L. (2007). “Were High-Tech Toilets Worth $6.6 

Million?” The Seattle Times. September 4. Accessed 

Jan 3, 2009 at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/

localnews/2003867372_toilets04m.html. 

Siemers, S. (2008). “Brittingham Park.” Unpublished manuscript. 

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Simon, H. (1995). “The Criminalization of Homelessness in Santa 

Ana, California: A Case Study.” Clearinghouse Review 29(8-9): 

725-729.

Snow, D., S. Baker and L. Anderson. “Criminality and Homeless 

Men: An Empirical Assessment.” Social Problems 36(5) 

(1989): 532-549.

Swope, C. (2005). “A Roof to Start With.” Governing 19(3): 38-42.

Tempe, Arizona, Homeless Task Force (2000). Volume 1: Homeless 

Task Force Report. Tempe, Ariz.: Tempe Community Council.

U.S. Conference of Mayors (2008). Hunger and Homelessness 

Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in 

America’s Cities, a 25-City Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Conference of Mayors.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008a). 

A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People. (2nd ed.) 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Planning and 

Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008b). 

The Third Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Planning and 

Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.
54 Homeless Encampments

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New 

York, NY: Project for Public Spaces.

Zerger, S. (2002). A Preliminary Review of Literature: Chronic 

Medical Illness and Homeless Individuals. Nashville, TN: 

National Health Care for the Homeless Council.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 55

Other Problem-Oriented Guides 

for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott 

with David K. Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael 

S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3
56 Homeless Encampments

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. 

Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 

1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and 

Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and 

Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel 

Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana 

York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and 

Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and 

John E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You 

Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
58 Homeless Encampments

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of 

Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008

ISBN: 1-932582-90-8

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential 

Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. 

Jim Hilborn. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 

for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and 

Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis 

Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-85-1
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 59

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

Rob T Guerette. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,

Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide. 

Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A ProblemOriented Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County 

Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Street Robbery

Stolen Goods Markets

Thefts from Cafés and Bars

Aggressive Driving

Theft of Scrap Metal

Missing Persons

Stranger Rape

Theft of Vehicles for Export

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Response Guides

Assigning Police Officers to Schools

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

Problem-Oriented Policing Implementation Manual

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides 

for Police series and other COPS Office publications, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770, via 

e-mail at askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 



Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

• Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention:

• A complete listing of other POP Guides

• A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office).

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

T

C

V

Ja

e0

IS

o obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the

OPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

isit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

nuary 2010

11013251

BN: 978-1-935676-01-0

Homeless Encampments provides police with information about 

the problem of homeless encampments and reviews the factors 

that contribute to it. It also reviews responses to the problem 

and what is known about them from evaluative research and 

police practice.