Exploring Homelessness 

Among People Living in 

Encampments and 

Associated Cost

City Approaches to Encampments 

and What They Cost

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Exploring Homelessness Among People Living 

in Encampments and Associated Cost

City Approaches to 

Encampments and 

What They Cost

Submitted by: 

Lauren Dunton 

Jill Khadduri 

Kimberly Burnett 

Nichole Fiore 

Will Yetvin

Abt Associates

February 2020 
Foreword

The number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, defined in this report as living in a place 

not meant for human habitation, has grown to more than 200,000 in recent years. That increase is driven 

by individuals who are not experiencing chronic homelessness. While not all individuals experiencing 

unsheltered homelessness reside in encampments, encampments have become emblematic of the rise in 

unsheltered homelessness. In particular, the number of unsheltered homeless individuals has increased 

since 2016. The problem is most acute in major cities, on the west coast, and in markets that have seen 

major spikes in housing prices. Even cities with declining unsheltered populations face pressure to 

address visible encampments in their communities.

Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Costs was launched as a 

joint effort between The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Office of 

Policy Development and Research and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation at 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This study is intended to help policymakers 

and practitioners understand the nature of encampments, strategies for responding to encampments, and 

the costs associated with those approaches. The study offers a literature review, summaries of the four 

study sites, and a comprehensive final report documenting the full scope of the costs associated with the 

responses to encampments in the included communities. 

Underscored throughout the report is an understanding that a complex set of factors around housing 

precarity have contributed to the growth of encampments. Unsheltered homelessness is the tragic result of 

the country’s affordable housing crisis that stems from a combination of increasing rates of deep poverty 

and a lack of deeply affordable housing. Due to the impacts of structural racism, the affordable housing 

crisis is especially dire for Blacks and Latinos who are overrepresented among the homeless population. 

Within the homelessness system, shortcomings in emergency shelter policies and practices, a sense of 

community and safety within encampments, and a desire for autonomy and privacy contribute to some 

people’s preferences for encampments over shelters. 

The report shows that the four study sites have coalesced around a strategy that involves clearance 

(removing structures and belongings from encampments) and closure (requiring that people leave 

encampments) with support (resource-intensive outreach to connect residents with services and to ensure 

every resident has a place to go upon closure). Although this is the dominant strategy, outreach workers in 

at least one city highlight that this strategy exacerbates the challenges of moving residents to shelters or 

permanent housing, which research shows is the most cost-effective and humane strategy, long-term. The 

report also indicates that responding to encampments is resource-intensive for local governments, costing 

cities between $1,672 and $6,208 per unsheltered individual per year and requiring coordination across 

government and non-governmental actors. Since HUD funding is largely not being used for encampmentrelated activities, city governments cover the vast majority of these costs out of their own budgets. 

This study was conducted before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has likely worsened 

homelessness rates, while simultaneously increasing the urgency for finding safe housing for residents of 

encampments. At the same time, many homeless shelters have reduced capacity to abide by social 

distancing protocols, limiting options for those experiencing homelessness and potentially forcing more 

people into unsheltered homelessness and encampments. 

Future research on the characteristics and costs of encampments should integrate the perspectives of 

people with lived experiences in encampments. Research should also examine the racial inequities 

between those who live in encampments, how encampment residents are treated under the law, and who 
receives supports to enter shelters or housing. Finally, future research should seek to incorporate a fuller 

accounting of the cost to cities, including additional municipal costs (for example, from police, fire, and 

health departments), and the costs associated with residents’ trauma when faced with clearance and 

closure of encampments. This fuller accounting of the costs of encampments should also be compared to 

the cost of employing a Housing First approach to residents of encampments. 

Overall, this report reveals that communities need more resources and guidance for addressing 

encampments through a focus on outreach, engagement, and connection to housing with services. 

Suggested solutions in the report include expanding the capacity to place people experiencing 

homelessness into shelters and permanent housing. This suggestion aligns with the Administration’s 

belief in a Housing First approach that invests in homelessness prevention, rental assistance, supportive 

housing, and services to ensure stable housing acts as a platform for people to access employment, seek 

medical care, obtain care for behavioral health conditions like mental illness or addiction, and support 

children. 

This study provides useful information to help the field better understand a growing yet under-researched 

segment of the homeless population—information that we will incorporate into this Administration’s 

holistic vision for reducing homelessness.

Todd M. Richardson 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌i 

About This Report

This is the final report of a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Exploring Homelessness 

Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Costs. The report describes how some cities are 

responding to homeless encampments as of 2019, synthesizing findings from a literature review, 

telephone interviews with nine cities, and site visits to four cities. A major focus of the report is the 

strategies that Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma are using to attempt to reduce the phenomenon of 

encampments and provide assistance to encampment residents and what those cities are spending on 

activities related explicitly to encampments. 

Four separate community encampment reports describe the approaches of those four cities for responding 

to encampments.

This project was co-funded by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 

(ASPE) and the HUD Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R.) 

Abt Associates conducted this research in 2019, so it reflects the strategies communities were following 

before the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. For up-to-date guidance from the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) related to unsheltered homelessness, including encampments, see

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/homeless-shelters/unshelteredhomelessness.html. In addition, you can find information on COVID-19 resources related to 

homelessness at: 

https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/diseases/#covid-19-key-resources.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌ii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff of the many city departments, homeless services providers, and 

other implementation partners responding to encampments that the research team interviewed in Chicago, 

Fresno, Houston, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Portland, San Jose, and Tacoma. The authors 

also thank Emily Rosenoff, Galen Savidge-Wilkins, and Sarah Zapolsky for their guidance and assistance 

during the study. In addition, a number of staff at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Interagency Council on 

Homelessness contributed their knowledge and input during the course of the research. The study was 

informed throughout by senior advisors Carol Wilkins and Brooke Spellman. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌iii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. ES1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Research approach ................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Report organization ................................................................................................ 3

2. Understanding Encampments...................................................................................... 4

2.1. Definitions of encampments.................................................................................... 4

2.2. Reasons people form encampments....................................................................... 5

3. Nature of Encampments and Their Residents............................................................. 7

3.1. Encampment environments .................................................................................... 7

3.2. Characteristics of encampment residents .............................................................12

4. Strategies Cities Are Using To Address Encampments ...........................................14

4.1. Responding to encampments ...............................................................................14

4.2. Prioritization of encampment responses ...............................................................17

4.3. Linking the strategy for responding to encampments to the broader 

effort to end homelessness...................................................................................19

5. Carrying Out the Strategy: Leadership, Implementation Partners, 

and Activities...............................................................................................................21

5.1. Coordinating the city effort ....................................................................................21

5.2. Implementation partners common across cities ....................................................22

5.3. Other implementation partners..............................................................................24

5.4. Core activities for responding to encampments.....................................................25

6. Direct Costs of Encampment Responses..................................................................31

6.1. Overall costs and costs by type of activity.............................................................31

6.2. Spending by implementation partners...................................................................35

6.3. Sources of funding for encampment responses ....................................................36

6.4. Major activities before FY 2019.............................................................................37

6.5. Emergency medical costs .....................................................................................37

7. Conclusion...................................................................................................................39

Appendix A: Study Methodology ...............................................................................42

Appendix B: Approaches for Estimating Encampment Costs ................................. 47

References...................................................................................................................62
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌iv

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1. Numbers of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in 2017 

and 2019 in four cities........................................................................................ 2

Exhibit 1-2. Percentages of sheltered and unsheltered homeless people in four 

cities, 2019 ........................................................................................................ 3

Exhibit 4-1. Key encampment activities by city, 2017-2020 .................................................14

Exhibit 6-1. Total costs and cost per capita of encampment-related expenditures 

by city, FY 2019...............................................................................................31

Exhibit 6-2. Costs of encampment response per number of people experiencing 

unsheltered homelessness by city, 2019..........................................................32

Exhibit 6-3. Costs of encampment responses by type of activity by city, FY 2019...............32

Exhibit 6-4. Costs by type of activity as percentage of total encampment spending 

by city, FY 2019...............................................................................................33

Exhibit 6-5. Costs for labor and non-labor expenditures by city, FY 2019............................35

Exhibit 6-6. Spending on encampment responses by type of organization 

by city, FY 2019...............................................................................................35

Exhibit 6-7. Costs of encampment responses by source of funding by city, FY 2019 ..........36

Exhibit B-1. Typical costs of responding to encampments...................................................49
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌v 

Glossary of Key Terms

chronic homelessness

The situation of an individual or family with a disability or a disabling condition who has been 

continuously homeless for a year or more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past 

3 years, adding up to at least 12 months of homelessness.

coordinated entry

A centralized system for assessing the needs and program eligibility of people experiencing 

homelessness and determining priorities for linking them to the housing programs for formerly 

homeless people that are available in the community.

Continuum of Care (CoC)

A regional or local planning body required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) to organize and deliver housing and services to meet the specific needs of 

people who are homeless as they move to stable housing. CoC refers to the system for coordinating 

programs that address and prevent homelessness within a geographical region. 

emergency shelter

A facility that provides temporary overnight shelter for people experiencing homelessness, typically 

for a short duration. In addition to providing sleeping accommodations, shelters may or may not offer 

supportive services to assist people in exiting homelessness.

Homeless Outreach Team (HOT)

Run by city police departments, a team of trained officers who focus on building rapport with 

encampment residents. In addition to referring encampment residents to available supportive services, 

HOT officers support encampment clearance and closure activities. If necessary, HOT officers can 

make arrests and enforce laws and ordinances within encampments.

homeless services provider

An organization that delivers outreach and case management services to encampment residents, 

including assessing them for coordinated entry, helping them navigate the way to housing, and 

connecting them with public assistance programs. 

low-barrier shelter

A shelter that imposes few or no requirements for people who desire to stay there. Often, these 

programs allow people to stay in the facility as long as their habits or behaviors do not negatively 

affect other shelter users or staff. 

navigation center

A low-barrier shelter with onsite case managers who provide assistance with accessing housing 

resources, obtaining mental and physical health care, and connecting to mainstream public benefits. 

permanent housing

Housing in which the resident is the leaseholder and has no time limit on occupancy. Permanent 

supportive housing is a type of subsidized permanent housing reserved for people leaving 

homelessness and, usually, for people who could benefit from supportive services linked to the 

housing because they have disabling conditions. 

unsheltered homelessness

A person is considered to be experiencing unsheltered homelessness when he or she is living in a 

place not meant for human habitation. This term encompasses a wide range of circumstances, 

including living in tents not used for temporary recreational purposes, other impermanent structures, 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌vi

and cars and RVs without connections to power or sanitation and sleeping on sidewalks, in doorways, 

in abandoned buildings, and in public spaces, such as train stations. All encampment residents are 

considered people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, but not all unsheltered homeless people 

live in encampments.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌ES1 

Executive Summary

As of 2019, homeless encampments were appearing in numbers not seen in almost a century. The growth 

of encampments mirrored the increase in unsheltered homelessness overall and seemed to reflect a 

complex set of societal factors, including a lack of affordable housing and the persistence of deep poverty 

and chronic homelessness. Encampments have implications for the health, safety, and well-being of the 

people living in them and can negatively affect the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. 

Nationwide, communities are struggling to respond to public pressures to relocate encampment dwellers 

and prevent the formation of new encampments with only a weak knowledge base on which to structure 

that response. 

To learn more about encampments and cities’ approaches in responding to them, Abt Associates 

conducted the study Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated 

Costs for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD). After completing a literature review,1 the study team selected nine cities 

currently responding to encampments to participate in telephone interviews in early 2019. The nine cities 

were Chicago, Illinois; Fresno, California; Houston, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; Minneapolis, Minnesota; 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Jose, California; and Tacoma, Washington. In the fall 

of 2019, the team conducted site visits to Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma to collect cost 

information on expenditures explicitly related to encampments, interview implementation partners, 

observe encampments, and interview a small number of encampment residents. 

Findings from this study—this report on costs, individual site summary reports, and the literature 

review— are intended to help federal, state, and local policymakers and practitioners understand the 

nature of encampments, strategies for responding to encampments, and the costs associated with those 

approaches.

What are encampments? 

Currently, no standard approach prevails for defining an encampment.

2

 The study’s literature review 

identified three concepts commonly used in defining the term: (1) the presence of structures, (2) the 

continuity of location, and (3) the permanency of people staying there. Over time, some cities, such as 

San Jose and Tacoma, developed their own formal definitions of encampment that contain additional 

concepts, including (4) the number of people living together, (5) the presence of personal belongings, and 

(6) a sense of community or social support. Although some cities have adopted a formal definition, others 

rely on a more informal one shared among local organizations or city departments responding to 

encampments making data collection and comparisons across jurisdictions difficult. 

Location. Encampments are found in many types of locations, from inner city sidewalks and highway 

underpasses to secluded wooded areas or along waterways. All nine cities reported that encampments are 

emerging in more visible and public places as a result of decreases in undeveloped, vacant, or less visible 

spaces. Such encampments might occur in shared common spaces, such as parks or highway rights of 

way. Elsewhere, encampments are appearing in more remote and hidden locations, such as along railroad 

tracks or in caves or tunnels. In many of the cities in the study, encampments form in close proximity to 

1

 Rebecca Cohen, Will Yetvin, and Jill Khadduri, Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing Homelessness and 

Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2018 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 2019).

2

 Although there is no standard definition for encampments, encampment residents are a subset of the unsheltered 

homeless population, which does have a standard definition: staying in a place not intended for human 

habitation.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌ES2 

homeless services providers and shelters, so residents have easy access to resources such as food 

assistance, restrooms, showers, and case management. 

Size. Encampments vary in size both within and between cities. Some cities have primarily smaller 

encampments, of perhaps fewer than 15 people; other cities—including Houston, Minneapolis, and 

Philadelphia—have predominately larger encampments, of as many as 200 people. Chicago, San Jose, 

and Tacoma have a mix of smaller and larger encampments. Regardless of size, encampments typically 

contain personal belongings and may have features such as grills and dining and storage tents to make 

them feel more permanent. Specific data on the size of encampments was unavailable for this study. Most 

cities do not specifically enumerate encampment residents outside the broader count of people 

experiencing unsheltered homelessness.

Resident characteristics. Across the nine cities in the study, people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and 

genders live in encampments; however, encampment residents are most often men with multiple barriers 

to securing permanent housing, such as justice system involvement, substance use and mental illness. In 

some of the nine cities, encampments emerged among specific populations, including substance users, 

veterans, and Native Americans. In many of these cities, people living in encampments have high rates of 

disabling conditions, including physical disabilities and behavioral health challenges. Across all nine 

cities, service providers interviewed cited opioid use and alcohol use as the most prevalent substance use 

disorders. 

Most people living in encampments have ties to the local community. In the four cities where the study 

team conducted site visits, most encampment residents had grown up in the city or in the immediate 

geographic region. 

Why do encampments form?

Researchers and people responding to the encampments in the nine cities (for example, homeless services 

providers, law enforcement, outreach workers, and city staff) identified the reasons they believe

encampments form.

First is the shortage of affordable housing nationwide and acute shortages in certain metropolitan areas

combined with the lack of sufficient resources to prevent and end homelessness in certain cities. Second 

is the composition and requirements of local shelter systems, which can push people into encampments 

for various reasons. Some cities lack enough shelter beds; others have shelter beds available that go 

unused because of regulations or conditions that are incompatible with potential clients’ expectations or 

needs. Third, compared with shelters, encampments can offer more autonomy or a sense of community, 

allowing people to come and go as they please; they also may offer a greater sense of privacy. 

How are cities responding to encampments?

Across the country, cities are developing and implementing approaches to respond to the growing number 

of encampments. A city may follow more than one approach—depending on the size, visibility, and other 

characteristics of its encampments—and a city’s strategy may evolve over time—based on experience, 

pressures from the public, litigation, or leadership transitions. 

Strategies. The four cities that are the main focus of this study are converging on a common strategy for 

responding to their most visible encampments — “clearance and closure with support.” In this common 

approach, clearance (removing structures and personal belongings from the encampment) and closure 

(requiring people to leave the encampment), cities have followed resource-intensive outreach to help 

connect encampment residents with needed services to try to ensure that every encampment resident has 

somewhere to go at the point of its closure. While working toward clearance and the ultimate closure of 

major encampments, the cities may decide on the level and timing of responses using priority systems 

driven by the visibility and size of the encampments. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌ES3 

The cities also are pursuing the creation or expansion of low-barrier shelters to accommodate people 

exiting encampments. At the same time, these cities are attempting to connect encampment residents with 

permanent housing before clearance and closure begin. 

Coordination and decision-making. Essential to responding effectively to encampments are the 

coordination of city efforts and a clear path for decision-making. In all nine cities in the study, the 

mayor’s office or a city department coordinates a diverse set of implementation partners, many of which 

are not traditionally involved in providing homeless assistance. Across the cities, several common 

implementation partners participate in encampment response. In addition to their regular duties, city 

police departments sometimes operate Homeless Outreach Teams (HOTs), whose officers focus on 

building rapport and connecting encampment residents to services instead of enforcing laws, or other 

specialized response teams work with encampment residents. City departments of solid waste or 

sanitation help clean encampments by removing waste and providing trash bags and receptacles at 

designated encampments. 

Homeless services providers deliver outreach and case management services to encampment residents, 

including assessing them for coordinated entry, helping them navigate the way to housing, and connecting 

them with public assistance programs. Other city entities that provide staff and equipment to assist 

residents in encampment settings and to clean, close, and clear encampments are public health and fire 

departments, transportation and airport authorities, and parks and neighborhood services departments. In 

some cities, local utilities or other independent authorities have an important role in encampment 

responses.

Core activities. Most cities in the study focus their encampment responses on a core set of activities: 

• Outreach. Over time, outreach staff build rapport with encampment residents, gaining their trust so 

that the outreach staff can provide mental and physical health services (including substance use 

treatment), food assistance, and limited financial assistance. HOTs run by police departments also 

conduct outreach activities to encampment residents, trying to connect them to services. 

• Cleaning. If a city is not planning to close an encampment imminently, it may conduct routine 

cleanings (for example, weekly visits to remove trash and empty toilets and dumpsters), sometimes 

supplemented by “deep” cleanings (temporarily closing the site to remove debris and mitigate 

environmental hazards). During deep cleanings, outreach workers may be present to encourage 

residents to access services. 

• Clearing and closing. When a city decides to clear and close an encampment, it first posts notices, 

and outreach teams visit the area to connect residents to services and shelter. The city may also help 

residents store their belongings. Once an encampment is cleared of structures and possessions and 

residents are required to go elsewhere, some cities may take the additional step of fencing off the area 

or erecting barriers to prevent people from returning and the encampment being reestablished.

What is the cost associated with cities’ responses to encampments?

Overall cost. Annual spending related to city responses to encampments is significant for the four cities 

in which the study team collected cost data. Costs ranged from $3,393,000 in Houston to $8,557,000 in 

San Jose in fiscal year 2019. Chicago spent $3,572,000, and Tacoma spent $3,905,000 during the same 

period. Several factors drive differences in costs in each city, including the number of people who are 

unsheltered, the city’s strategy and resources for responding to encampments, and the varying nature of 

the encampments. These cost figures are a snapshot of spending in just one year. Cities may have incurred 

higher costs in previous years or may spend more in future years as the result of significant one-time 

activities, such as clearing a large encampment or erecting a low-barrier shelter. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌ES4 

Cost per person. The study found that encampment-related expenditures were more closely related to the 

number of unsheltered homeless people in the city than to the city’s overall population. The cost per 

unsheltered homeless person was $2,835 in Chicago, $2,102 in Houston, $1,672 in San Jose, and $6,208 

in Tacoma; however, the cost of a city’s encampment response per unsheltered homeless person was not 

highest in the cities with the largest unsheltered homeless populations. City strategies and willingness to 

devote resources seemed more important than population size. Because cities do not have accurate counts 

of the number of unsheltered homeless people living in encampments, which are a subset of the total 

number of unsheltered homeless people, actual cost per encampment resident is necessarily higher than 

the cost per unsheltered person reported. 

Cost by activity type. Across the four cities, the greatest expenditures related to encampment-related 

activity were for outreach, costing between $870,000 in San Jose and $3,082,000 in Chicago in fiscal year 

2019. Those activities included engagement of encampment residents, case management, and housing 

navigation services offered to encampment residents by homeless services providers and HOTs. That 

fiscal year, cities spent between $140,000 in Chicago and $4,910,000 in San Jose on clearing 

encampments—the second-highest spending category overall. Two cities also incurred costs related to 

encampment prevention ($293,000 in Tacoma and $1,495,000 in San Jose); two used funds for a new 

emergency shelter developed explicitly as part of the encampment response ($297,000 in Chicago and 

$2,347,000 in Tacoma). Houston had an expenditure in FY 2019 of $782,000 for permanent supportive 

housing that was explicitly targeted to people who left an encampment during a clearance that took place 

the previous year. The study could not include the costs of responses by fire departments and emergency 

medical services—which can be the largest single encampment-related expense for cities—because of 

issues with data quality and availability. Furthermore, activities such as law enforcement responding to 

the areas around encampments were not included as data are largely not available, and distinguishing 

encampment-specific activity from responses related to homelessness generally is difficult. 

Spending by partners. Although city departments led the encampment response in all cities the study 

team visited, each city partnered with homeless services providers and other organizations, such as 

independent local authorities, to conduct activities related to encampments. Across the four cities, 

spending by homeless services providers was as great as 65 percent of all encampment-related spending 

in Chicago and as little as 13 percent in San Jose. City departments—in particular, police departments—

spent significant portions of the funding. A public utility, the Santa Clara Water Authority, spent more 

than one-half (57 percent) of the resources devoted to the encampment response in San Jose. 

Funding sources. City governments were the largest source of funding for encampment responses in FY 

2019. Much of the funding for overall responses of communities to homelessness comes from the federal 

government (in particular, from HUD) and flows through local Continuums of Care (CoCs). HUD funds 

cannot be used for cleaning, sanitation, or policing activities related to encampments, however. 

Furthermore, CoCs usually have committed the federal funds they control to permanent supportive 

housing, rapid rehousing, and transitional housing, so they cannot quickly redirect funds to emergency 

response programs related to encampments. As a result, cities provide a large portion of the funding for 

encampment responses from their own resources. In Chicago and Tacoma, the city government provided 

more than 90 percent of encampment-related funding. In San Jose, the city and the Santa Clara Valley 

Water District together accounted for 94 percent of the funding. Houston was an exception because the 

overall costs of the encampment response included the use of federal funds for permanent supportive 

housing and also some private philanthropic funding (from the government of Qatar) in the wake of 

Hurricane Harvey in 2017. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌ES5 

Looking ahead

This study furthers our understanding of encampments: what they are, why they form, how cities are 

responding to them, and what those responses cost. The information provided in this report may help 

communities across the country better understand their own encampments of people experiencing 

homelessness and the strategies they could implement to respond to encampments. The study does not 

provide in-depth information on the characteristics of encampment residents and their needs and 

preferences; that information will require data collection efforts that communities are just now beginning 

to undertake. This study does not attempt to measure the relationship between various state and local 

policy decisions around drug enforcement and treatment on encampment formation or community 

outcomes. This study also does not attempt to measure the outcomes of encampment responses or to 

compare the effectiveness of different approaches to reducing the phenomenon of encampments and 

meeting the needs of encampment residents; that analysis will require going beyond descriptive studies. 

Finally, the study does not provide estimates of the cost-effectiveness of different approaches or examine 

the motivations for those approaches; instead, the cost estimates presented in the study can help cities 

choose strategies and budget for them. 

The descriptions of encampments and of city responses presented in this report also suggest areas in 

which city policies and strategies need to be further developed. For example, the observations in this 

study suggest a need for the following: 

• Deeper links between city strategies to address encampments and the homeless services systems that 

have been developed to help people leave homelessness. Policymakers in those efforts will have to 

make tradeoffs between immediate emergency responses and expanding the capacity to place people 

experiencing homelessness into permanent housing.

• Creating more shelters and encouraging more people in encampments to stay in shelters, where they 

can be linked to available housing assistance and supportive services.

• Further evolution of approaches to reach out to and engage with people experiencing unsheltered 

homelessness, including tailoring those approaches to the characteristics and needs of encampment 

residents. 

• Consideration of the complex linkages between encampments and substance use challenges. This may 

require research on the impact of state and local drug policy, from both from the law enforcement and 

social services perspectives, on encampment formation and resident outcomes. 

• A more systematic understanding of the relationship between encampment residents and law 

enforcement, including both past justice system involvement and current interactions between 

encampment residents and those enforcing laws. 

• More robust data collection and technical assistance.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌1 

1. Introduction

As of 2019, homeless encampments were appearing in numbers not seen in almost a century. Today’s 

encampments, mirroring the increasing numbers of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, seem 

to reflect a complex set of factors: the persistence of deep poverty and chronic homelessness; lack of 

affordable housing; a shortage of shelter beds and, in some places, shelter rules; wage stagnation; large 

numbers of people who have been incarcerated; and substance use. Local policies and the availability of

resources and capacity to develop systems that serve homeless people can affect how commonly people 

experiencing homelessness choose to stay in encampments rather than enter shelters. 

Homelessness is primarily a housing affordability problem, reflecting income levels that fail to keep up 

with rents and insufficient levels of housing assistance in certain cities. Homelessness typically is 

triggered by a crisis, and once the crisis is resolved, many people regain stable housing (Shinn & 

Khadduri 2020). Additional factors may explain why more people are choosing to stay in encampment 

settings: addiction issues; lack of mental health treatment; a lack of knowledge about resources to assist 

people experiencing homelessness; past involvement with the criminal justice system, and the greater 

perceived safety, anonymity, autonomy, and social supports offered by encampments compared with 

shelters.

Encampments have implications for the health, safety, and well-being of the people who use them—as 

well as for the surrounding communities—with possible adverse effects on public health and safety, 

environmental quality, economic vitality, and the allocation of public resources (Chamard 2010). 

Communities are struggling to respond to public pressures to relocate existing encampment dwellers and 

prevent the formation of new encampments with only a weak knowledge base on which to structure a 

response. 

To learn more about encampments and cities’3

 approaches to responding to them, Abt Associates 

conducted a study called Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated 

Costs for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD). Findings from that study are intended to help federal, state, and local 

policymakers and practitioners understand the nature of encampments, strategies for responding to 

encampments, and the costs associated with those approaches.

1.1. Research approach

To document what was known about homeless encampments, the Abt study team conducted a literature 

review on homeless encampments (Cohen, Yetvin, and Khadduri 2019) and nine interviews with scholars 

and practitioners. Building on that information, the study team—in consultation with HHS, HUD, and the 

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness—selected nine cities currently responding to encampments to 

participate in telephone interviews. The nine cities were Chicago, Illinois; Fresno, California; Houston, 

Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; Minneapolis, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San 

Jose, California; and Tacoma, Washington. Across the cities, the study team conducted 39 telephone 

discussions in the spring of 2019 with stakeholders involved in responding to encampments. 

In the fall of 2019, the study team conducted site visits to Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma. 

During the site visits, members of the study team collected cost information on expenditures explicitly 

related to encampments, interviewed implementation partners, observed encampments, and interviewed a 

3

 In some places, county government rather than a city may take the lead role in responding to encampments. The 

study team is using the term city to refer to any political jurisdiction that is attempting to respond to the 

emergence of encampments.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌2 

small number of encampment residents.

4

 (Appendix A includes more information on the study’s 

methodology, and Appendix B is a guide that may help other cities determine how to collect and analyze 

cost data on encampments.)

The study team selected Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma because of their geographic diversity, 

varying numbers of unsheltered homeless people, and different approaches to responding to homeless 

encampments. Exhibit 1-1 shows the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in each 

city in 2019 and the change between 2017 and 2019. Exhibit 1-2 shows the percentage of each city’s 

homeless population that is unsheltered. San Jose has both the largest number of people experiencing 

unsheltered homelessness and the greatest recent increase of these four sites. San Jose also has by far the 

greatest percentage of people experiencing homelessness who are unsheltered. Chicago experienced a 

decrease in the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, whereas the other three cities 

all experienced large percentage increases during the same period. 

Exhibit 1-1. Numbers of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in 2017 and 2019 in four cities

Notes: This data is for the Continuum of Care (CoC) in which each city is located. With the exception of Chicago, the CoC includes the 

surrounding county as well as the city itself. 

Sources: HUD 2017 and 2019 Continuum of Care (CoC) Point-in-Time Count data

4

 The study team authored four community encampment reports summarizing the approaches and costs 

associated with encampment responses in Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌3 

Exhibit 1-2. Percentages of sheltered and unsheltered homeless people in four cities, 2019 

Notes: This data is for the Continuum of Care (CoC) in which each city is located. With the exception of Chicago, the CoC includes city and the 

surrounding county.

Source: 2019 HUD CoC Point-in-Time data

1.2. Report organization

This report synthesizes the findings from the study’s literature review, telephone interviews with nine 

cities, and the site visits to four cities to present an understanding of cities’ current responses to homeless 

encampments. First, the report explores definitions of encampments, provides physical descriptions of 

encampments, and presents common characteristics of encampment residents. Next, the report describes 

the strategies cities are using to respond to encampments as of 2019 and how the cities are setting 

priorities for implementing those responses. The report then describes the implementation partners that 

participate in city responses and details key elements of the responses in four cities: Chicago, Houston, 

San Jose, and Tacoma. The following section of the report presents cost estimates related to the 

approaches followed by those four cities in 2019. The report concludes with thoughts on the implications 

of encampments for cities and on what we have yet to learn. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌4 

2. Understanding Encampments

This section presents the varying definitions that cities are implementing in their efforts to respond to 

encampments. It then identifies some factors that seem to have contributed to the recent rise—in cities 

across the country—of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in highly visible groups. 

2.1. Definitions of encampments

The term encampment is widely used by journalists and researchers to describe groups of people living in 

tents or other temporary structures in public spaces in cities across the country. Although the common 

definition of unsheltered homelessness is “staying in a place not intended for human habitation,”5

 no 

standard approach exists for defining an encampment. The study’s literature review concluded the same

but revealed that several concepts are often included: the presence of structures; the continuity of 

location; and the permanency of people staying there (Cohen, Yetvin, and Khadduri 2019).

In the absence of a common definition, cities have over time developed their own definitions of 

encampments that may include structure, continuity, and permanency but also reflect how encampments 

look in their community. San Jose and Tacoma have formal definitions of encampments. San Jose defines 

an encampment as “any camp located along a sidewalk, other public right of ways, creek, or other 

waterway located in San Jose that has not been permitted” by the agency with jurisdiction over that 

property. Tacoma defines encampments as “one or more tent, lean-to, structure, tarpaulin, pallet, or 

makeshift structures used for purposes of habitation.” Those formal definitions focus primarily on the 

location of encampments and the structures present and relate to the jurisdiction’s formal encampment 

response approach. 

Other cities that were part of this study do not have formal definitions of encampments, but they do have

informal definitions that are shared among the implementation partners involved in responding to 

encampments locally. For example, although Chicago and Houston have not established formal 

definitions of encampments, stakeholders articulated shared common elements of a definition that drive 

the city’s encampment response strategy.

In looking across nine cities, the study team identified several additional elements present in definitions of 

encampments: 

• Number of people residing at the location. Some cities differentiate between unsheltered 

homelessness and an encampment by the number of people currently staying in a location. In 

Chicago, three people must be present in a single space not meant for human habitation for the space 

to be considered an encampment. In Houston, implementation partners said that a minimum of at least 

three to eight people must be experiencing unsheltered homelessness in a single location for that place

to be considered an encampment. 

• Presence of some type of physical structures. The concept of physical structure is very widely 

defined and can include camping tents, a series of cardboard boxes fashioned into a lean-to shack, 

tarps strung from a stand of trees, structures built into riverbeds, or old campers, vans, and cars 

together with other components of a temporary built environment. Typically, cities do not define a 

small group of people in sleeping bags on a sidewalk as an encampment.

• Presence of personal belongings. People living in encampments often have amassed an array of 

personal belongings, including bicycles, clothes, coolers, mattresses, tables, and other household 

5

 Definition of Homelessness for HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs. 

https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/HEARTH_HomelessDefinition_FinalRule.pdf.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌5 

items. Those items may be owned by individuals in the encampment or shared communally among 

the residents. 

• Sense of social support or community. Residents may provide support to each other, assisting with 

daily living tasks or providing a sense of community, safety, and security. 

2.2. Reasons people form encampments

Researchers generally concur that increases in homelessness are the result of insufficient affordable 

housing. In addition to an acute shortage of affordable housing, researchers and people responding to 

encampments in the study cities cite several other factors that result in people forming and staying in 

encampment settings. 

Requirements of shelter systems 

Requirements in emergency shelter systems are 

consistently identified in the literature as a primary 

factor that “pushes” people to form encampments. 

Many communities have literal shortages in the 

capacity of the shelter system to provide beds for 

everyone experiencing homelessness (Herring and Lutz

2015; National Coalition for the Homeless 2016; 

National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty 

2014; Speer 2018). Several of the cities included in this 

study—including Fresno, Minneapolis, Portland, San 

Jose, and Tacoma—have a shortage of emergency 

shelter beds for individuals on any given night. People 

experiencing homelessness in those cities do not have 

the opportunity to enter a shelter or another type of 

temporary facility, such as transitional housing. In 

Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia, shelter beds are 

available but go unused because of rules or conditions 

that are incompatible with potential clients’ 

expectations or needs. Those reasons may be 

separation from a partner or pet; shelter entry or exit 

times that are inconvenient or incompatible with 

people’s schedules, including employment; concerns 

about personal health and safety, as well as the safety 

of belongings; and rules such as sobriety requirements and entry fees. The availability and the type of 

shelter available seem to be key drivers of encampments, as people weigh the disadvantages of staying in 

a shelter against their tolerance for the difficulties of staying in an unsheltered location (City of San 

Francisco 2015; Herring and Lutz 2015; National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty 2014). 

Resistance to Shelter Resistance to Shelter

People with experience living in encampments 

who were interviewed by the study team gave a 

variety of reasons why they were hesitant to 

accept referrals to emergency shelters from 

outreach workers who visited the encampments. 

To stay in a shelter, encampment residents 

believed they had to sacrifice some personal 

autonomy. One woman in San Jose prefers 

camping over emergency shelter because she 

likes having her own space to live and create her 

home. She prefers choosing her own friends 

rather than having to sleep with people she 

doesn’t know. A man in Tacoma said that he can 

manage his own life and keep warm without 

shelter. A man in Chicago and a woman in 

Houston explained that shelter life didn’t work for 

them because shelters have too many rules and 

restrictions. Overall, the encampment residents 

interviewed thought the benefits of personal 

autonomy outweighed the benefits provided in 

temporary emergency shelters. 

Legal Framework

Fear of legal challenges can influence how cities approach closing encampments. Local jurisdictions want 

to avoid being taken to court over due process and cruel and unusual punishment challenges. This concern 

has likely grown following the September 2018 ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Martin v.

City of Boise. The 9th Circuit, which covers the states of California and Washington, and other courts 

have found that depriving homeless people of the rights to perform survival activities in public spaces 

when no alternatives are available violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌6 

Constitution. In Martin v. City of Boise, the court held that “as long as there is no option of sleeping 

indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public 

property.” 

Sense of autonomy or community offered in encampment settings

In contrast to the rules that govern many aspects of shelter stays, staying in an encampment allows people 

to come and go as they please. The ability to exercise autonomy, anonymity, and freedom of movement 

seems to be a powerful factor that draws some people 

to encampments (Lutz 2015; National Law Center on 

Homelessness and Poverty 2014; Sparks 2017). More 

remote encampments, such as those observed by the 

study team in San Jose near creeks and other 

waterways, offer privacy that may not be available in a 

shelter setting or even in a larger encampment. Local 

outreach workers and city staff note that people living 

in such encampments do not want to be disturbed and 

sometimes post “Do Not Enter” signs and have guard 

dogs. 

The Encampment Family

Residents of encampments often described other 

people in the encampment as family who provide 

support for each other. A current resident of 

Pierce encampment in Houston explained how 

she definitely feels a “part of a community and a 

family,” and she feels safe in the encampment 

because of that fact. “[Among the residents] I’m 

like the momma; they love me and I love them,” 

she said. She makes sure everyone is fed and 

keeps medical supplies and clothes for people 

who need them. Two men in the People’s Park 

encampment in Tacoma who called themselves 

“overseers” of the encampment explained that 

everyone knows everybody else, and they have 

“developed community.” Residents in People’s 

Park are like neighbors, borrowing things from 

each other and resolving disputes that arise. In 

Chicago, a woman said that although people in 

her encampment came from different 

backgrounds and were racially diverse, “We’re 

family and take care of each other.” People 

helped each other if someone got sick or needed 

food or warmth.

The Encampment Family

Conversely, living in encampments may appeal to 

some people more than staying in shelters because of 

the sense of safety and community they can offer. 

People who stay in encampments may perceive them 

as involving less interaction with law enforcement 

(Burnes and Brown 2016), as well as fewer assaults or 

the theft of belongings (Donley and Wright 2012; 

Speer 2017). Residents of an encampment in Chicago 

told the research team that they rely on fellow 

encampment residents to watch their personal 

belongings while they are at work during the day. 

They may prefer living in encampments over staying 

in unsheltered locations on their own because of a

sense of “safety in numbers” that may be particularly 

prevalent in some long-standing and highly organized encampments. Residents of some encampments 

have established around-the-clock security patrols and developed shared norms and standards for 

behavior (Lutz 2015; National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty 2014; Sparks 2017). An 

encampment setting may offer a sense of community or even serve as a surrogate family to someone 

during this particularly challenging period in his or her life. 

The influence of the encampment community can also be negative, however. Stakeholders in Chicago, 

Houston, and San Jose cited high levels of the use and sales of illicit drugs in encampments, as well as 

associated crime. The majority of residents in four large encampments in the Kensington area of 

Philadelphia in 2018 bought and used opioids in the encampment or nearby. An encampment survey 

conducted by outreach workers to identify encampment residents and learn more about them found near 

universal substance use (93 percent) among those staying in the four encampments, which were known to 

be hubs of opioid sales and use (Metraux et al. 2019). 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌7 

3. Nature of Encampments and Their Residents

3.1. Encampment environments

The location, size, and structures present in encampments varied across and within the nine cities that 

participated in this study. 

Location of encampments

All communities reported that encampments are 

emerging in more visible and public places as a result 

of decreases in undeveloped, vacant, or less visible 

spaces. Implementation partners in both Houston and 

Portland explained that economic development, 

including the development of vacant spaces and the 

redevelopment of abandoned buildings, has pushed 

encampment residents into more visible parts of the 

city. In past years, encampments in Houston were

scattered throughout the downtown area, mostly 

underneath highways and along the bayous; however, 

increased development of downtown Houston and the 

bayou trails pushed residents into three large 

encampments located underneath highway overpasses 

in downtown Houston on Texas Department of 

Transportation property. Portland is also experiencing 

increased visibility of encampments. Historically, 

homeless encampments in Portland have mostly been 

in remote places (e.g., viaducts, forested areas, and 

undeveloped parts of the city). Economic development 

has changed Portland’s physical landscape, and 

undeveloped spaces have become scarce, pushing 

encampment residents into more densely populated 

areas.

Familiarity is a Key Factor in 

Choosing an Encampment Location

The people the study team interviewed moved 

into specific encampments because they knew 

someone currently living in the encampment or 

were familiar with the neighborhood where the 

encampment was located. Both men the study 

team spoke to in Tacoma moved to the People’s 

Park encampment because they knew a few 

people living there already. A woman moved to an 

encampment near the Chicago airport because 

her boyfriend was there. Another man in Chicago 

described how encampments grew because 

people experiencing homelessness would bring 

their friends (who were also experiencing 

homelessness) to the encampment with them 

when they moved in. A woman in San Jose chose 

to set up her camp in the neighborhood she grew 

up in and near the school she attended as a child. 

Although she no longer could afford to live in a 

house in the neighborhood, the familiarity of the 

area brought comfort and safety to her while she 

lived in an encampment.

Urban Areas

Encampments in urban areas often are located on city streets, in parks, under bridge overpasses, or near 

highway exit ramps. In Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood, a series of encampments exist underneath three 

major Lake Shore Drive overpass tunnels, known locally as viaducts. Each of the viaducts has a main 

road, with concrete barriers that serve as partitions between the road and the sidewalk. Encampment 

residents set up tents on the concrete sidewalks on both sides of the road. Two of Houston’s major 

encampments, Chartres and Hamilton/Pierce, are located under highway overpasses that offer large 

swaths of unused land protected from the weather, including sun and rain. In Las Vegas, some 

encampments are located in storm drains and tunnels underneath the Las Vegas Strip. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌8 

Encampment on Felipe St., San Jose, October 2019.

Hamilton/Pierce encampment, Houston, October 2019.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌9 

In San Jose and Tacoma, some small encampments are found on sidewalks in the central business 

districts. Those encampments may be less stable because police often ask people to take their belongings 

and move. 

In many of the cities that participated in the study, encampments formed in close proximity to homeless 

services providers and shelters so residents could easily access resources, such as food assistance, 

restrooms, showers, and case management. In Fresno and Las Vegas, homeless encampments are located 

near the area of the city’s emergency shelter and other homeless assistance programs. In Houston, the 

Chartres encampment, which occupies an area under Highway 69, is less than one-tenth of a mile from 

two homeless services providers, as well as the Loaves and Fishes Soup Kitchen. In San Jose, the most 

populated encampments are near a large, low-barrier shelter,6 which offers an array of services, such as 

mental health counseling, employment placement, hot meals, showers, and restrooms. In Tacoma, a row 

of tents is located across from Nativity House, a large shelter and supportive housing project. Fresno had 

several large encampments between 2013 and 2016 near the city’s rescue mission and a drop-in day 

center.

Encampments may be located near other providers of services to low-income communities. In Tacoma, 

the People’s Park encampment is across the street from the Tacoma Housing Authority. The large 

Hiawatha/Franklin encampment that existed in Minneapolis in 2018 was close to many Native American 

community organizations. 

Secluded areas

Sometimes encampments are in more secluded and out-of-sight locations, such as creeks, riverbeds, and 

underground tunnels. Such locations may be hidden in the terrain. Many encampments in San Jose are 

along creeks, waterways, and the surrounding hills. Those encampments have resulted in significant 

environmental degradation, such as water contamination from human waste and trash, habitat destruction, 

and the accumulation of trash and other hazardous materials. 

Secluded encampment along Guadalupe Creek, San Jose, October 2019.

6

 Although the low-barrier shelter is often at capacity, some people 

living in encampments decline to enter the shelter even when 

space is available.

Encampments in Cold Climates 

In cold climates, some encampments may not be 

out of doors. Chicago has some outdoor 

encampments and some in which people avoid 

sleeping outside.

• CTA “L” Red Line Encampment. Rather 

than a physical gathering with tents, “L” 

individuals ride the Red Line of the “L” to stay 

warm and sheltered from the elements. The 

Red Line operates 24 hours a day, so people 

do not have to leave the train cars or, if they 

do leave the train car at the end of the line, 

they can get right back on so that they are not 

outdoors for several hours at night. Hundreds 

of people experiencing homelessness ride “L” 

lines continuously every day, and service 

providers report that often as many as 10 

people experiencing homelessness can be 

found in a single “L” train car.

• O’Hare Airport. A 24-hour outreach program 

based at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport focuses on 

individuals and groups who sleep in the 

O’Hare terminals, parking structure, and public 

transit passages that connect to the airport.

Encampments in Cold Climates
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌10

In Tacoma, some encampments are in wooded areas, with vegetation and trees that make preventing 

encampments with fencing and other obstacles challenging. Some encampments In Las Vegas are in the 

desert or in abandoned mines. 

Encampments near highways or railroads 

One emerging trend across many cities—including Houston, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and San Jose—is 

the establishment of encampments on property that belongs to states’ Departments of Transportation 

(DOTs) or private transportation companies. Land owned by state DOTs often sits vacant or with minimal 

activity, making it the ideal location for people who need a place to put their tent and belongings. In 

addition, the local police often do not have jurisdiction to enforce local laws or to tell the encampment 

residents to vacate property owned by the DOT or private railroad company. 

Encampments that are in close proximity to railroad tracks often are the most logistically challenging for 

cities to respond to. In Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood, encampments formed near the active 

Conrail railroad tracks as well as in abandoned rail infrastructure. The city worked with Conrail to secure 

and clean up the area along the tracks in an effort to close the Kensington encampments. In San Jose, 

numerous encampments formed next to freeways and under highway overpasses on land owned by the 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as well as in the spaces between barrier fence or wall 

and the railroad tracks owned by Union Pacific. San Jose is able to send outreach teams to encampments 

on Union Pacific property but must coordinate beforehand to ensure the outreach team’s safety from 

trains.

Size of encampments

Some cities have numerous, small encampments with fewer than 15 people, whereas other cities have 

primarily large encampments of more than 70 people. Some cities have a mix of both small and large 

encampments. Chicago has encampments of various sizes, ranging from fewer than 5 to more than 150 

people. San Jose has a large number of smaller encampments scattered along its creeks, riverbeds, and 

railroad tracks. At its height, the Hiawatha/Franklin encampment in Minneapolis had 250 to 300 people. 

In Philadelphia, four tent encampments that had formed on the sidewalks of highway overpasses ranged

in population from 16 to 100 individuals each. The population of the city does not correlate to the size of 

the encampments; encampments of various sizes occur in both large and small cities. Specific data on the 

size of encampments is elusive. Most cities/ do not specifically enumerate encampment residents outside 

the broader count of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. 

Encampment structures

A common element of all definitions of encampments is that they must have some type of built structures. 

These structures can take many forms, including tents, small structures on pallets, and shanties or lean-to 

shacks. Many encampment residents use camping tents designed for two or three people and then 

reinforce the structure with tarps and blankets for privacy and protection against the weather. Some 

encampments residents add household items such as rugs, mattresses, furniture, and shelving to the inside 

of their tents to make the inside of the tent comfortable so that it functions more like a home. Some 

encampments are groups of tents in close proximity, whereas others include tarps and tents linked to cars 

and RVs. Depending on the size of the encampment and the items that residents have available, residents 

may create common cooking and socializing areas with chairs and couches. In Chicago, at the Belmont 

and Kedzie encampment, residents created dining and restroom tents and strung blankets over the fences 

that surround the encampment, likely both for privacy and to control the noise from the traffic that 

surrounds them. The encampment also has a stock of general supplies, including wooden pallets, grills, 

rocking chairs, and crates to store belongings. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌11

Personal belongings at Lower Wacker Drive encampment, Chicago, October 2019.

Most encampments that the study team observed during the four site visits had many personal belongings, 

including shopping carts, bicycles, mattresses, blankets, clothing, cooking items, and furniture; however, 

whether the items belonged to the encampment residents or were left behind by other people was unclear. 

Stakeholders in San Jose explained to the study team that encampments can become a “dumping site” for 

community residents to bring household goods that are not being used anymore. In Houston, city officials 

and outreach workers described a similar trend, in which community residents “donate” furniture and 

personal belongings to the encampment residents even though the residents may not want the items. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌12

3.2. Characteristics of encampment residents

Demographics of encampment residents

Across the cities in the study, people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and genders live in encampments. 

Most encampment residents are adults. In Houston, one-half of encampment residents are between the 

ages of 25 and 50, and another one-fourth are between 51 and 60. Similarly, in Chicago, most 

encampment residents are between the ages of 25 to 65. In San Jose, outreach workers reported that 

transition-aged youth (TAY) established their own encampments, separate from adults, and Chicago has 

at least one encampment with predominately younger people. San Jose has several small encampments 

composed primarily of veterans, whereas in Chicago, very few veterans are found in encampments. A 

high percentage of encampment residents are men, although women also are present in encampment 

settings. Some encampment residents are in partner relationships. The more remote encampments in San 

Jose include some families with children. 

Although people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds live in encampment settings, Chicago and 

Houston—cities with large African American populations—have still higher percentages of African 

Americans living in encampments. In Minneapolis, the residents of Hiawatha/Franklin encampment were 

primarily Native Americans. In Chicago, the residents of the Lower Wacker Drive encampment are 

mostly African American and tend to be younger than those in other Chicago encampments. Residents of 

Chicago’s Belmont and Kedzie encampment are mainly Latinx and people of Polish descent, reflecting 

the demographics of the surrounding neighborhoods. All cities have some people staying in encampments 

who are employed—in particular, residents of the Belmont and Kedzie encampment. 

In some cities, people living in encampment settings have high rates of disabling conditions. In Houston, 

Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) records show that 96 percent of the residents of the 

Chartres encampment and 98 percent of Hamilton/Pierce encampment residents have at least one 

disability. In Chicago, San Jose, and Tacoma, outreach workers reported that encampment residents 

exhibit high rates of both mental illness and substance use disorders. Outreach workers in Chicago, 

however, reported that severe mental illnesses are not as common among people in encampments as 

among unsheltered people living in more isolated settings; depression is a more typical mental illness 

among encampment residents. Across all nine cities in which the study team conducted interviews, 

service providers cited opioid use and alcohol use as the most prevalent substance use disorders. In West 

Coast cities, service providers also reported significant use of methamphetamines. The Kensington 

encampments in Philadelphia emerged around people engaged in the use and sale of opioids. 

Encampments within the same city may have residents with different levels of acuity and high barriers to 

housing. In San Jose, people with higher levels of co-occurring disorders tend to be in downtown 

encampments, whereas people who locate near the creeks often have fewer needs and related barriers to 

housing. Residents of the Houston encampments have very high rates of co-occurring conditions, 

including physical and mental health conditions, as well as substance use disorders, which is likely a 

reflection of a relatively inexpensive housing market and the availability of shelter beds for people willing 

to use them. Similarly, many residents of the Jungle encampment in Tacoma, who are now staying in 

temporary outdoor shelters that replaced the encampment, have very high needs. In this case, people with 

lower needs may have relocated to other encampments.

People living in encampments often are long-time local residents and often have ties to the community 

where the encampment is located. In the four cities where the study team conducted site visits, most 

encampment residents grew up in the city or in the immediate geographic region. Over time, people 

turned to living in encampment settings because of untreated behavioral health conditions, past 

involvement with the justice system, trauma, and other complex factors—all while facing rapidly 

increasing housing costs in their city or the larger metropolitan area. Outreach workers in San Jose said

that the majority of people living in encampment settings grew up in either San Jose or Santa Clara 

County. As the housing market has become increasing unaffordable in that region, people have been 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌13

displaced from their homes and cannot or will not rely on assistance from their family or social network. 

One San Jose encampment resident said that she grew up in the same neighborhood as her camp, 

attending the school across the creek bed. Now, she cannot afford housing in the city. Living in the same 

neighborhood as when she was a child—albeit in an encampment setting—offers her a sense of safety and 

familiarity. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌14

4. Strategies Cities Are Using To Address Encampments

Cities across the country are in the midst of developing and implementing approaches to the growing and 

increasingly visible phenomenon of encampments. This section starts with an overview of city strategies

as of 2019. City responses are evolving quickly, and what the study team observed may not reflect the 

strategy that a particular city will follow over the next few years. The four cities that were the primary 

focus of this study, however—Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma—have well-developed strategies 

as of late 2019, and the following sections describe those strategies as well as those of five other cities 

where the study team conducted stakeholder interviews. This section also describes the prioritization 

systems the four focus cities are using and how the city’s strategy relates to the broader effort to end 

homelessness in the community. 

Section 5 of this report provides more detail on the responses of the four cities, describing the lead

agencies and implementation partners that carry out the city’s strategy and detailing how the activities 

that constitute the city’s response work. Section 6 then provides cost estimates for activities carried out 

directly as part of four cities’ strategies and describes who incurs those costs and who pays for them.

4.1. Responding to encampments

In response to the number and variety of encampments, the same city may follow more than one 

approach, depending on the size, visibility, and other characteristics of an encampment. Exhibit 4-1 

summarizes the key activities of each city related to encampments between 2017 and 2019, as well as 

those planned for 2020. In Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma, some encampments are allowed to 

remain—at least for a period of time—during which the cities work to mitigate unsanitary conditions and 

other negative environmental consequences. San Jose has not attempted to clear all of the small 

encampments near waterways; Chicago provides routine outreach services to encampments with fewer 

than five people; and Houston and Tacoma also have smaller encampments that receive modest levels of 

response. 

Exhibit 4-1. Key encampment activities by city, 2017–2020

City 2017 2018 2019 2020*

Chicago • Conducted 

routine cleanings 

of Lower Wacker 

Drive 

encampment

• Formed Task Force 

to Reduce 

Homelessness

• Opened Pilsen lowbarrier shelter

• Conducted five Level 

1 encampment 

responses (highest 

level)**

• Performed routine 

cleanings of Lower 

Wacker Drive 

encampment

• Conducted four Level 

1 encampment 

responses (highest 

level) and five Level 2

(second highest level)

responses

• Performed routine 

cleanings of Lower 

Wacker Drive 

encampment

• Continue all levels 

of encampment 

responses

• Conduct biannual 

citywide scan to 

identify 

encampments

Houston • Enacted city

encampment 

ordinance in 

response to 

increased 

encampments 

after Hurricane 

Harvey

• Performed routine 

cleanings of Wheeler, 

Chartres, and 

Hamilton/Pierce 

encampments

• Closed Wheeler St. 

encampment

• Performed routine 

cleanings of Chartres 

and Hamilton/Pierce 

encampments

• Began Housing 

Harvey’s Homeless 

(H3) (November)

• Open navigation 

center

• Implement 

Housing Harvey’s 

Homeless (H3) to 

clear Chartres 

encampment
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌15

City 2017 2018 2019 2020*

San Jose • Performed routine 

clearance, 

closure, and 

cleanups of 

encampments

• Created Hope Village 

sanctioned 

encampment

• Performed routine 

clearance and 

closure of 

approximately 300

encampments

• Closed Hope Village 

sanctioned 

encampment 

• Performed routine 

clearance and closure 

of encampments

• Increase funding 

for encampment 

outreach providers 

• Perform routine 

clearance and

closure of 

encampments

Tacoma • Closed Jungle 

encampment

• Created mitigation 

and stability sites

• Launched 

Homeless 

Outreach Team 

• Performed routine 

clearance and 

cleanups of 

encampments

• Executed cleanup 

and clearance of a 

large encampment on 

Tacoma Public 

Utilities property

• Performed routine 

clearance and 

cleanups of 

encampments

• Increased outreach 

and services provided 

to People’s Park 

encampment

• Close People’s 

Park encampment

• Create temporary 

emergency microshelters site

• Open Tacoma 

Rescue Mission

emergency shelter 

* This column includes activities planned by cities before the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. 

** For more information on Chicago’s encampment response, see the text box on p. 26.

Source: Implementation partner interviews, 2019

At the same time, these four cities are converging on a common strategy used to respond to the largest 

and most visible of their encampments. This strategy can be characterized as “clearance and closure with 

support.” Clearance means removing structures and personal belongings from the encampment site. 

Closure means requiring encampment residents to leave the site and no longer sleep there.7

 Houston, San 

Jose, and Tacoma have cleared and closed large encampments and have plans to close others. In every 

case, the clearance has included resource-intensive outreach to help encampment residents connect with 

needed services and to try to ensure that the closure does not mean an encampment resident has no place 

to go. Often the closure is preceded by weeks or even months of outreach to the residents of the 

encampment. During this period, outreach workers try to engage with the residents, providing services on

site or linking them to services. The outreach workers try to persuade encampment residents to enter

shelters and to connect them with programs that may be able to provide permanent housing placements 

before the date when the clearance and closure occurs. Outreach workers provide “housing navigation” 

services: helping people obtain documents, connecting them with housing providers, taking them to visit 

housing units, and helping them move in and stabilize. The efforts to find another place for encampment 

residents to stay may continue through the day of the closure. 

Chicago follows a variant of this strategy for dealing with its largest encampments through an effort to 

clear the encampment—or at least to downsize it—through intensive, several-day efforts to persuade 

residents to leave voluntarily. Chicago does not close encampments by requiring current residents to take 

their belongings and go elsewhere, however. Illinois state law has been interpreted to prohibit law 

enforcement from preventing people from sleeping on public property. 

Chicago’s strategy has elements in common with the other three cities: intensive outreach and provision 

of services preceding and during a clearance and a “deep” cleaning of the encampment site. In a few 

cases, the city has tried to contain the footprint of an encampment by fencing off part of the site and 

7

 Cities may use different terminology to describe this approach. For example, San Jose refers to a clearance and closure as an

“abatement.” Chicago refers to a clearance as a “Level One response.” The report uses standardized terminology to reflect 

the common characteristics of the strategies cities use.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌16

enforcing laws prohibiting structures on public property. The settlement of a 2015 lawsuit defines the 

“portable personal property” that encampment residents are allowed to keep. Chicago’s objective is to 

eliminate encampments of more than 10 people. So far, the city’s approach has had only modest success, 

as several relatively large encampments still exist across the city.

Although these four cities may not prioritize closing or downsizing smaller and less visible encampments, 

in 2019 none of the four had a “sanctioned” encampment in the sense of an outdoor place a group of 

people would be permitted to stay indefinitely with public support. Portland has such sanctioned 

encampments, and San Jose and Tacoma had them for brief periods before 2019. 

As part of the 2017 clearance and closure of The Jungle, an encampment of roughly 100 people located 

underneath Interstate 705, Tacoma operated a “mitigation site” and still operates a “Stability Site,” which 

is intended to provide a place for former encampment residents to stay until permanent placements can be 

found. In existence for a brief period (May–June 2017), the mitigation site was an existing encampment 

that was cordoned off and occupied both by people who had been staying there and by people who 

relocated from The Jungle. Some services and amenities were provided, and the short-lived mitigation site 

could be considered a sanctioned encampment. The Stability Site that replaced the mitigation site in June 

2017 has a large tent within which smaller tents are placed. Although it is not in a permanent structure, 

the study team considers the Stability Site a low-barrier shelter. City officials make the rules about who 

can stay there and how the space is used, and the city provides extensive services that attempt to place 

people into housing. 

The creation of low-barrier shelters such as Tacoma’s Stability Site is a common element of the response 

strategies across three of the four cities. Some cities call these low-barrier shelters that offer onsite 

intensive services “navigation centers.” Tacoma plans to open another temporary, low-barrier shelter to 

support the closing of the People’s Park encampment. The City of Chicago contracted with a nonprofit 

organization to create the low-barrier Pilsen shelter (in an existing building) with no sobriety 

requirements and guaranteed available beds when the clearance of a large encampment is in progress.

Houston is planning to open a navigation center that will be open during the day, have a curfew much 

later than other shelters in the city, and not require sobriety as a condition of entering. San Jose does not 

intend to create a low-barrier shelter because city officials consider creating permanent housing for people 

experiencing homelessness a higher priority. 

All four cities attempt to connect encampment residents— in particular, residents of an encampment 

scheduled for clearance or clearance and closing—to permanent housing. 

• Houston was able to close the Wheeler Street encampment because of the availability of housing 

assistance for all encampment residents. Implementation partners, including the Houston Coalition for 

the Homeless, aligned the encampment closure with the opening of a new permanent supportive 

housing building—the type of housing that many of the more vulnerable encampment residents 

needed. Outreach workers and housing navigators worked with residents of the Wheeler Street 

encampment and helped them prepare to move into housing. The majority of Wheeler Street residents 

left the encampment for housing; only a small number chose to relocate to another encampment. For 

the planned closing of the Chartres encampment, the Houston and Harris County housing authorities 

have committed to providing housing choice vouchers to support the affordability of the permanent 

housing placements of encampment residents. Houston also has an initiative called Housing Harvey’s 

Homeless, which will use philanthropic funding (from the government of Qatar) to provide 

permanent housing to former Chartres residents. 

• In Chicago, the organization that manages the coordinated entry system that matches people to 

resources of the homeless services system recently changed its protocol to take the length of time a 

person has experienced homelessness into account. Any experience of unsheltered homelessness is a 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌17

tiebreaker. Permanent supportive housing in Chicago is now reserved for individuals with a disability 

who have experienced homelessness for more than 2 years. Stakeholders report that more 

encampment residents are being matched with permanent supportive housing since this change took 

effect.

• In San Jose, outreach and engagement of encampment residents includes referrals to Santa Clara 

County’s coordinated entry system, but so far encampment residents do not receive any special 

priority for access to permanent supportive housing or other affordable housing programs. Tacoma 

has an affordable housing action strategy developed in September 2018. The strategy has 10-year 

goals for producing and preserving affordable housing but is not linked explicitly to the city’s 

response to encampments.

Three of the other five cities that were included in the study (with stakeholder interviews but no site visits 

or collection of data on costs)—Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Portland—seem to be following a similar 

strategy of clearance and closure, with extensive outreach and support for the encampment residents. 

Following the clearance and closuring of the Hiawatha encampment, Minneapolis established some small, 

seasonal encampments at which outreach workers provide some support for residents. Following the 

clearance and closure of the Kensington encampments, Philadelphia has made vigorous efforts to prevent 

additional encampments from forming—a policy based in part on the view that the city has adequate 

shelter capacity. In addition to clearing and closing encampments and providing outreach and support for 

the residents, Portland continues to permit the operation of four sanctioned encampments that were 

created in the past. 

Fresno follows a different strategy as of 2019: clearing and closing encampments and providing limited 

support for the residents. The strategy followed by Las Vegas is difficult to characterize because the 

region has three jurisdictions (Las Vegas, Clark County, and Henderson), and, as of 2019, they had not 

yet coalesced around a coordinated strategy.8

4.2. Prioritization of encampment responses

All four cities in which the research team conducted site visits and intensive interviews described their 

priority systems for deciding on the level and timing of responses to particular encampments. Chicago 

and San Jose have explicit priority systems, and Houston and San Jose described similar emphases, 

prioritizing highly visible encampments in downtown areas, along major thoroughfares, and in public 

areas frequented by city residents and tourists. Houston focuses the city’s efforts on the largest 

encampments in the downtown core. In Chicago, the number of people living in an encampment is the 

primary factor that determines which of three levels of encampment response occurs. Although smaller 

encampments exist throughout the four cities, they often are spread throughout the city or in more out-ofthe-way locations. 

8 The study team was able to complete only two interviews with Las Vegas stakeholders.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌18

Chicago’s Prioritization System 

In 2018, the City of Chicago created the Task Force to Reduce Homelessness. Led by the Department of Family and 

Support Services (DFSS), the task force created the city’s first official encampment response strategy with three tiers, or 

levels of encampment responses. The response at a specific encampment is determined by the number of people living 

in the encampment and the funding available for that fiscal year. DFSS provides similar services for each response level 

but varies the intensity and duration of those services based on the number of residents. 

• A Level One response is for encampments with 10 or more people and aims to connect encampment residents to a 

low-barrier shelter, other permanent housing, medical care, and supportive services. During Level One responses, 

DFSS, other city departments, and homeless service agencies are on site at the encampment providing 10 

consecutive days of onsite services. DFSS offers all encampment residents the opportunity to enter a low-barrier 

shelter. Residents who do not wish to leave the encampment or engage with services are allowed to remain in the 

encampment. 

• A Level Two response occurs for smaller encampments of six to nine people. For a Level Two response, DFSS 

coordinates with a subset of service agencies—depending on the location and needs of the encampment residents—

to provide 2 to 3 days of onsite services. 

• Level Three responses are encampments with fewer than five people. DFSS considers a Level Three response to 

be “business as usual” outreach to small groups of people residing in unsheltered locations. DFSS or a service 

agency visits the encampment periodically to ensure that residents know about available services and provides 

referrals and transportation to appropriate supportive services. 

Chicago’s Prioritization Systems

In addition to size and type of location, the prioritization of encampments for a formal city response may 

be driven by other factors. 

The extent of the health, safety, and environmental hazards posed by the encampment. Encampments 

can pose public health and safety hazards to encampment residents and to surrounding neighborhoods and 

businesses. Those hazards include human waste, used needles, rodents, disease, and criminal activity 

(primarily drug use and prostitution). Encampments also can cause negative impacts on the natural 

environment. Trash and waste from people living in encampment settings without access to regular 

sanitation services can pollute waterways and soil.

• At the request of the mayor, Houston’s Health Authority inspects the city’s largest encampments 

periodically to ensure sanitary conditions. An inspection usually results in a deep cleaning that 

temporarily closes the encampment. During those cleanings, encampment residents must remove all 

of their property so cleaning crews can power wash sidewalks and other paved areas; remove 

contaminated dirt; and vacuum sewers, drains, manholes, and sidewalk gutters of human waste and 

trash. The Health Authority inspects the site again before residents are permitted to return.

• In Tacoma, the mayor and city council responded to the large encampment under Interstate 705 called 

The Jungle by declaring a State of Public Health Emergency, which allowed the city to access 

increased funding to develop an encampment response. One component of the response, a mitigation 

site, was designed to resolve the health and safety hazards associated with The Jungle by providing 

portable toilets, trash services, and around-the-clock security. 

• San Jose prioritizes encampments that are near fragile creeks or waterways in response to the 2016 

settlement of a lawsuit filed by a conservation group to protect the community’s waterways. Such 

encampments can cause significant environmental damage and pollution as trash, debris, and human 

waste enter the waterways.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌19

The level of public and political pressure. As a 

result of complaints from local residents and 

businesses, city officials—including mayors and 

other elected officials—may prioritize responding 

to certain encampments. 

• In Houston, complaints to the mayor’s office 

about specific encampments trigger a response. 

The mayor requests that the health authority 

inspect the encampment, which results in a

deep cleaning and subsequent inspection for 

sanitary conditions before encampment 

residents may return. 

• In San Jose, the city’s housing department 

bundles all encampment complaints. A large 

volume of complaints from city residents and 

businesses about a specific encampment can 

elevate that encampment to the mayor or city 

council, which can expedite the encampment’s 

priority for response and abatement. 

• Tacoma’s Jungle encampment resulted in a 

large amount of political pressure on the mayor 

and the city council. In an effort to respond 

more quickly, the city manager expedited 

closure of the encampment.

• Some stakeholders said that complaints from Chicago residents resulted in the city undertaking a 

larger number of the most intensive—Level 1—encampment responses in the affluent neighborhoods 

of the city’s north side. 

• Complaints from residents and business owners in San Jose and Tacoma often result in police asking

people on sidewalks to clear their encampment with little notice. As a result, outreach workers often 

prioritize assisting people in sidewalk encampments. 

San Jose’s Prioritization Strateg

San Jose developed an encampment response 

prioritization strategy that takes several factors 

into account. The city’s homelessness response 

team uses a database to monitor and track 

requests for encampment assistance, including 

outreach services, cleaning, and encampment 

closures. Those data are then used to help city 

staff decide where to deploy resources. This 

system tracks requests from the public and is not

designed to provide an estimate of how many 

people live in encampments or even how many 

encampments exist in San Jose. The city 

prioritizes closing encampments that— 

• Are located within fragile creeks or waterways.

• Present health or safety concerns.

• Block a passageway (e.g., street, sidewalk, or 

driveway).

• Are highly visible.

• Are receiving a significant amount of public 

complaints.

• Have significant amounts of trash and debris.

San Jose’s Prioritization Strategy

Prioritization systems, formal or informal, may shift in response to the competing interests and 

perspectives of stakeholders, such as concerns about encampments’ impact on downtown businesses or 

residential neighborhoods; environmental degradation; and health hazards to encampment residents and 

others associated with large, dense encampments. 

4.3. Linking the strategy for responding to encampments to the broader effort 

to end homelessness

In each of the four cities that were the focus of this study, the city government has the predominant role in 

not only creating the encampment response strategy but also (as will be detailed in Sections 5 and 6) 

carrying it out and funding it. Each city (and often the surrounding county) has a broader set of 

institutions responding to homelessness overall, not just to encampments. The encampment strategy can 

relate to that broader system in several ways: 

• Making changes to the emergency shelter system to improve its ability to serve encampment 

residents, thus encouraging more people to leave encampments and enter shelters. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌20

• Making use of the organizations that are already providing outreach to people experiencing 

unsheltered homelessness.

• Bringing encampment residents into the coordinated entry system for placing people experiencing 

homelessness or chronic homelessness into permanent housing. 

In none of the four cities has the existing emergency shelter system changed substantially as part of the 

strategy to respond to encampments. Those cities have instead created new types of shelter explicitly 

targeted to encampment residents: a new, low-barrier shelter in Chicago; a temporary, tent-based shelter 

in Tacoma; and a planned navigation center in Houston. 

Three of the four cities expanded the use of preexisting teams that provide outreach to unsheltered 

homeless people to offer these services to encampment residents. This is probably the deepest connection 

between the cities’ strategies for responding to encampments and the broader homeless services system. 

Ultimately, the response to encampments must go beyond the shelter system and provide opportunities for 

people experiencing unsheltered homelessness to be placed in permanent housing. This objective is 

challenging because not one of the four cities has sufficient resources to meet the needs of its homeless 

population for permanent housing. Continuums of Care have developed coordinated entry systems to 

prioritize housing resources and to match people to programs appropriate to their needs. 

Chicago and Houston seem to have gone further than the other two cities in making use of broader 

systems to provide permanent housing for at least some former encampment residents—in Chicago, 

through changes to the coordinated entry system agreed to with the Continuum of Care, and in Houston, 

through a combination of dedicated funding and agreements with the local housing authorities to provide 

long-term housing voucher subsidies to former encampment residents. San Jose and Tacoma—with larger 

numbers of unsheltered homeless people and high-cost, tight housing markets—face greater challenges. 

In every case, linking encampment residents to housing providers requires tradeoffs between supporting 

the encampment response strategy and serving other people experiencing homelessness (sheltered and 

unsheltered), who may have even higher needs.

In many cities, the faith-based community has a large role in the broader response to homelessness. The 

role of the faith-based community in encampment response strategies seems to have been modest in these 

four cities. In Chicago, a faith-based organization operates the new, low-barrier shelter to which 

encampment residents have preferential access. In other cities, the faith-based community provides 

humanitarian aid such as food, water, and basic supplies to residents of encampments. Although those 

efforts are well intentioned, partners implementing the encampment response strategy in Houston said

that they believe that this support sometimes discouraged encampment residents from fully engaging with 

available supportive services or leaving the encampment to take advantage of housing assistance.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌21

5. Carrying Out the Strategy: Leadership, Implementation Partners, 

and Activities

The overall response to homelessness in a community usually is coordinated by a local Continuum of 

Care (CoC), which may be an agency of the city government or a nonprofit organization. The response to 

encampments has been different in different cities, with the mayor’s office or a city department taking the 

lead role. As will be shown in Section 6 of this report, city governments are by far the largest funders of 

encampment responses. Much of the funding for homeless assistance programs from the federal 

government—in particular, from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—

flows through the CoC; however, HUD funds may not be used for cleaning, sanitation, and policing 

activities related to encampments. Furthermore, CoCs usually have committed the federal funds they 

control to permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, and transitional housing and cannot quickly 

redirect funds to emergency response programs related to encampments, such as low-barrier shelters and 

navigation centers. Although CoCs do not generally dedicate funding to encampment responses, their 

resources do assist people living in encampment settings by providing the trained outreach staff who work 

with encampment residents and by enabling referrals to CoC-funded homeless assistance programs. 

5.1. Coordinating the city effort

In the four cities where the study team conducted site visits and the other five cities for which only 

telephone interviews occurred, a representative of the mayor’s office or a city department coordinates a 

diverse set of implementation partners—often entities not traditionally involved in homelessness 

assistance. As part of the city’s response to encampments, they divert resources from their core, “business 

as usual” tasks. Coordination of efforts and a clear path for decision-making are essential. 

In Houston, the Special Assistant to the Mayor for Homeless Initiatives leads the city’s encampment 

response. In San Jose, the Department of Housing has been designated as the lead agency, whereas in 

Tacoma, the Neighborhood and Community Services Department takes the lead. In Philadelphia, the 

Managing Director’s Office, a cabinet-level office that oversees the city’s operating departments, played a 

critical role in closing the Kensington encampments by facilitating collaboration between different city 

departments as well as outside organizations. 

Another approach is the formation of a task force or working group to oversee the city’s encampment 

response. Chicago created a Mayor’s Task Force to Reduce Homelessness, staffed by the city’s 

Department of Family and Support Services. Fresno County established a Working Group to Address 

Homeless Encampments in 2016 to coordinate the work of countywide agencies that were responding to 

encampments outside the city of Fresno. Working group members include the county’s sheriff’s 

department; the Departments of Environmental Health, Social Services, Behavioral Health, and Public 

Works; and homeless services providers. 

Some communities have moved forward without a clear coordinating entity and have faced challenges. In 

Minneapolis, the rapid formation of the Hiawatha/Franklin encampment forced a response before a 

coordinating entity emerged. A stakeholder explained how difficult decision-making and accountability 

are when so many organizations are involved without a single group being wholly in charge of decisionmaking. The Southern Nevada region has no cross-jurisdictional plan for addressing encampments. Each 

of three political entities—Las Vegas, Henderson, and Clark County— has its own strategy, and that has 

led to overlapping, fragmented, or even conflicting approaches to addressing encampments. One example 

of this situation is that the city of Las Vegas funded the construction and operation of a low-barrier 

emergency shelter—the Courtyard—despite opposition from the county and other community partners 

who wanted the city to spend its resources differently. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌22

5.2. Implementation partners common across cities

Common implementation partners for cities’ encampment response existed across all of the cities that 

participated in the study. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 describe the roles of the implementation partners; Section 

5.4 provides more detail on the encampment activities. 

Police 

Police respond to people living in encampments during the course of their regular duties. In addition to 

regular responses to disturbances and criminal activity, police play a key role in their city’s encampment 

responses. Partnerships with police departments exist in all study cities, but the degree of law 

enforcement involvement with encampment residents varies. In some cities (Fresno, Houston, Las Vegas, 

and Tacoma), outreach workers and service providers work alongside police officers when visiting 

encampments. The presence of police officers provides security to outreach workers and other staff, and 

their role is one of enforcement. In other cities (Chicago, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Portland, and San 

Jose), outreach workers coordinate with police officers but visit encampments and offer services 

separately from police. For example, Portland makes a concerted effort to maintain strict separation 

between outreach workers, who conduct assessments and provide services, and police officers and others 

involved in the encampment clearance process. Regardless of the approach, police officers who 

participate in these partnerships often receive specialized training in mental health services and crisis 

intervention and typically focus on connecting people experiencing homelessness with community 

resources rather than enforcing laws. Across all nine cities, stakeholders report that police make very few 

arrests in encampments, preferring nonpunitive or jail-diversion responses. 

Some city police departments have specialized response teams that work with encampments and their 

residents. 

• The Chicago, Houston, and Tacoma police departments have Homeless Outreach Teams (HOTs). 

These teams, with four to six assigned officers, typically receive special training related to crisis 

intervention. In Houston, the HOT is supported by three case managers with mental health training. 

HOT officers typically focus their efforts on building rapport with encampment residents to 

ultimately connect them with services such as case management, food assistance, and mental health 

services. HOT members also are present at encampment cleanings in Houston and Level 1 and 2 

responses in Chicago. 

• In San Jose, a dedicated team of eight officers operates as the Street Crimes Unit. These officers 

focus on quality-of-life crimes across the city, including criminal complaints related to encampments 

and crimes committed against homeless people. Members of the Street Crimes Unit then work with 

housing department staff and other city officials to share information. These officers try to build 

rapport with encampment residents while also enforcing the law. 

• In Chicago, a Crisis Intervention Team (separate from the HOT) consists of officers that have 

completed a 40-hour training course that includes recognizing the symptoms of mental illness and 

how to interact, intervene, and de-escalate situations in which an individual may be experiencing a 

mental health crisis. Members of the Crisis Intervention Teams may join the city’s Level 1 response 

to the largest homeless encampments.

Sanitation /Solid Waste/ Environmental Services

City departments of sanitation, solid waste, or environmental services are key partners in cities’ 

encampment responses. Their primary role is to lead the periodic cleanings of encampments. In Chicago, 

the Department of Streets and Sanitation is responsible for posting notices at encampments about 

upcoming cleanings. Staff are then on site during the cleanings, removing trash and other debris. In 

Tacoma, the Department of Public Works clears encampment-related debris that poses an immediate 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌23

public safety concern. For routine cleanings, the Environmental Services Department contracts with an 

outside organization that conducts cleanings of city encampments, including removal of solid waste. 

Houston’s Solid Waste Department engages a biohazard cleaning crew to conduct deep cleanings of the 

two major encampments in the city. Staff attend all cleanings and provide clear trash bags for residents to 

store their personal belongings at the designated city facility. The department also participates in twiceweekly cleanings of the two largest encampments. During those cleanings, the portable toilets and 

dumpsters are emptied and trash around the encampment is removed. These departments also routinely 

empty trash receptacles located at larger encampments. 

Homeless Services Providers

In all nine cities in the study, encampment response strategies are linked—to various degrees—with the 

broader homeless service system, including the services coordinated by the local CoC. 

• Outreach and case management. Typically, the same agencies that provide outreach to people 

experiencing unsheltered homelessness more broadly also work with encampment residents in 

particular. Outreach workers often conduct assessments and subsequently enter encampment residents 

into their community’s coordinated entry system. They also provide referrals to emergency shelters or 

navigation centers, temporary or bridge housing, or permanent supportive housing. In Chicago, both 

daytime and nighttime outreach teams establish relationships with encampment residents. These 

teams connect residents with supportive services, including housing navigation, food assistance, and 

behavioral and mental health services. In Houston, outreach workers spend a great deal of effort on 

the early stages of housing navigation, such as obtaining their personal documents (e.g., driver’s 

license or state identification card, birth certificates, or passports). In San Jose, outreach workers 

respond to complaints from the city’s Homeless Concerns Hotline that residents call or email to report 

encampments of concern. While visiting these encampments, outreach workers offer food and 

supplies to residents, conduct housing assessments, provide referrals to shelter, and help encampment 

residents to access state and federal public benefits. Outreach workers may also offer transportation to 

medical services or shelter. In Tacoma, outreach workers provide referrals to housing, the Stability 

Site, shelter, and other supportive services and financial resources such as bus tokens to help them get 

there. 

• Medical and mental health services. Other services frequently offered to encampment residents are 

medical and mental health services. In San Jose, the Valley HealthCare Program supports a backpack 

medical team that consists of a nurse, a mental health clinician, and a community health worker; the 

team visits encampments three times a week. In Houston, Healthcare for the Homeless provides lowlevel medical care once a week, including blood pressure checks, wound care and cleaning, and basic 

medical checks. The nurse practitioner can also refer and make medical appointments for 

encampment residents. During a formal encampment response in Chicago, Heartland Alliance’s 

Health’s medical team offers a mental and physical health examination and then can offer 

medications, prescriptions, and supplies to address common conditions or illnesses. The medical team 

also offers referrals to other medical providers as well as follow up appointments. 

• Substance use services. Substance use treatment is another service to which outreach workers attempt 

to connect encampment residents. In Chicago and Houston, organizations specializing in substance 

use sometimes join the outreach workers who visit encampments periodically or at the time of a 

clearance and closure, offering connections to treatment programs. Notably, Houston is the only city 

with encampment-specific costs related to substance use disorder programs. This does not reflect the 

presence of or costs associated with services that may be broadly available to homeless people in the 

other city. See Appendix A for more information on the cost study methodology. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌24

• Food assistance. In Chicago, the Salvation Army’s Mobile Feeding and Outreach Program delivers 

meals to three encampments in the city 365 days a year. Two outreach workers accompany the mobile 

unit and attempt to engage encampment residents during the meal and provide a connection to 

supportive services. 

• Financial assistance. In Tacoma, Comprehensive Life Resources provides temporary financial 

assistance—for example, bus tokens—to encampment residents, as well as connections to shelter and 

other services. 

5.3. Other implementation partners

In addition to the implementation partners that are common to all cities in the study, some cities engage

other important partners in their responses to encampments. 

Department of public health 

Houston’s Public Health Department oversees the periodic deep cleanings. The city’s Health Authority 

(the physician who oversees the department) inspects the encampments and requests the deep cleaning. 

After the cleanings, the Health Authority conducts an inspection to confirm that conditions in the 

encampment are sanitary before residents are allowed to return. The process usually takes a full day. In 

Chicago, the Department of Public Health contracts with Heartland Alliance Health to provide medical 

care and outreach during the city’s encampment response.

State Departments of Transportation 

In six of the nine cities in the study, a significant number of encampments were (or still are) on property 

belonging to the state’s Department of Transportation or a private transportation company. For example, 

in Houston, encampments exist below highways on Texas Department of Transportation (TX DOT) 

property. For decades the TX DOT did not allow people to camp on its property, but recently it decided to 

cease enforcing that policy. As a result, the city of Houston is now left with responsibility for

enforcement and cleanup of those areas. In San Jose, stakeholders reported encampments on public 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) property and private Union Pacific railroad property. 

They explained that the police will not relocate those encampment residents because jurisdictional 

boundaries are unclear. Recently, a state legislator’s office worked to facilitate coordination between 

outreach workers and Caltrans to address some of those challenges. In addition, some homeless services 

providers do not visit those encampments because of safety and trespassing concerns. By contrast, the 

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) is heavily involved in Minneapolis City and 

Hennepin County’s response to encampments on its property. MN DOT continues to report encampments 

to outreach workers and is exploring the adoption of an assessment tool to determine the appropriate 

response to encampments on its property. 

Airport authorities 

The Chicago Department of Aviation (part of the city government) contracts with a local nonprofit 

organization to provide outreach and engagement to people who are using the terminal buildings, parking 

structure, and public transit tunnels at O’Hare International Airport as encampments. An outreach team 

walks though the airport and terminals 24 hours a day, trying to engage with people experiencing 

unsheltered homelessness and administering assessments for coordinated entry. Outreach staff also 

provide housing navigation services to link those people to shelters and housing and offer connections to 

detoxification or substance use treatment programs.

Other transportation authorities 

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) participates in encampment responses on the city’s “L” Red Line. 

CTA also funds two security teams that operate at both ends of the Red Line in an attempt to curtail 

continuous riding or congregating in the subway stations. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌25

Neighborhood services and parks departments

Tacoma’s Neighborhood and Community Services (NCS) Department is the lead city department that 

responds to encampments, working closely with other city departments, managing contracts related to the 

city’s Stability Site, and coordinating cleanup efforts. NCS also assesses areas where encampments 

regularly occur for potential physical changes that could help deter the establishment of future 

encampments. As part of a local city beautification initiative focused on blight reduction, San Jose’s 

Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department provides trash bags to encampment residents 

for their refuse and funds local organizations who conduct cleanups after the closure of encampments 

along local waterways. 

Utilities

Local utilities can play important roles in encampment responses. Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU) 

maintenance crews are responsible for identifying, reporting, and coordinating with the city’s 

Neighborhood and Community Services Department in Tacoma to facilitate responses to encampments on 

TPU property. As part of its role to maintain waterways, the Santa Clara Valley Water District funds 

encampment responses, including a cleanup contractor to remove trash and debris along waterways, 

mitigation work that offsets the damage caused by encampments close to waterways, and off-duty police 

officers that provide security for encampment closures. Valley Water also provides heavy machinery 

(e.g., compactors and Bobcat-style bulldozers or backhoes) as needed for cleaning encampments, 

removing structures, and abating the environmental effects of the encampments.

Fire departments

City fire departments typically have an ancillary role in encampment responses. Their most common role 

is responding to calls for medical services in encampments (which may not be more frequent than among 

other people experiencing sheltered or unsheltered homelessness). Some calls, especially in the San Jose 

encampments that are in natural settings, are related to trash or vegetation fires. As detailed in Section 6, 

fire department costs are not included in the costs of encampment responses because of data quality 

limitations.

Other publicly funded organizations 

The Downtown and Midtown Management Districts are important partners in Houston’s encampment 

response. These tax- and assessment-funded organizations supplement the city’s cleaning efforts by 

providing staff that operate ride-on street vacuum cleaners to reduce litter at the encampments. They also 

regularly transport encampment residents’ personal property to the city storage facility during cleanings. 

The Downtown Management District also provides dumpsters and portable toilets at the Chartres 

encampment that are emptied on a weekly basis by their staff. Both organizations also fund private 

security to help deter the any additional encampments in their sections of Houston. 

5.4. Core activities for responding to encampments

City responses to encampments have key elements in common. They focus on a core set of activities:

helping encampment residents through outreach and engagement, periodic cleanings, clearing 

encampments, and (when permitted by law) closing them. 

Outreach

Outreach is a key component of city responses to encampments. Outreach teams focus on building rapport 

with people living in encampments, gaining their trust, and ultimately helping them understand and gain 

access to available housing and supportive services. Outreach workers described the challenges of 

providing supportive services to encampment residents. Encampment residents are highly mobile, hard to 

contact, and often have mental health and substance use conditions that create barriers to communication. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌26

As a result, outreach workers invest significant time establishing trusting relationships with encampment 

residents that enable the outreach workers to provide supportive services. Outreach staff often begin their 

work by offering encampment residents supplies, such as bottled water, nonperishable snacks, and 

hygiene materials. Outreach staff also may help encampment residents by transporting them to medical 

appointments. Workers frequently visit encampments many times a week to focus on relationship 

building. If an encampment resident declines to engage, outreach workers often will approach the person 

again after a few weeks.

Relationships with Outreach Workers

Across four cities, the study team consistently 

heard from people living in encampments who 

had developed good relationships with outreach 

workers and who appreciated their kindness and 

support. “My hat’s off to outreach workers,” a 

woman in Houston said about the outreach 

workers she had seen provide housing for many 

people from her encampment. A woman in San 

Jose appreciated the snacks and other supplies 

outreach workers brought to her, including pet 

food for a dog. Both men the study team 

interviewed in Tacoma’s People’s Park 

encampment described their positive relationships 

with outreach workers, mentioning that outreach 

workers distributed hygiene kits, toiletries, and 

snacks and were helpful in connecting 

encampment residents to services and resources 

to improve their situation. One of the men said an 

outreach worker from Comprehensive Life 

Resources is like family to him. Their close 

relationship means the outreach worker can 

always come to him when something needs to be 

done in the encampment or if information must be 

communicated to all encampment residents.

Relationships with Outreach Workers Outreach workers in the four cities said that they spend 

significant time on the early stages of housing 

navigation, gathering identification and other documents 

needed to move encampment residents into housing. A 

stakeholder in Tacoma said that outreach workers spend 

about 75 percent of time overcoming barriers to service 

provision, such as locating or securing driver’s licenses, 

Social Security cards, or birth certificates.

Outreach workers at all four cities help in identifying 

and securing housing. The first step in that process 

typically is administering assessments for the CoC’s 

coordinated entry system. This assessment helps the 

outreach worker determine which housing options are 

available, based on the person’s homeless history, 

income, and mental and physical health. Drawing on the 

information from the coordinated entry assessment used 

in each community, the outreach worker next provides 

housing navigation assistance. In Chicago, San Jose, 

and Tacoma, the outreach staff conduct housing 

navigation, whereas in Houston, both outreach workers 

and separate housing navigators work with encampment 

residents. Housing navigation helps encampment 

residents accessing permanent housing by helping them 

locate affordable housing units or programs, completing 

applications, visiting housing units, and moving from 

the encampment to the housing. Navigation can also 

include a warm handoff to a housing provider, such as a housing authority or the manager of a permanent 

supportive housing program. Entry into another housing program by an encampment resident is likely to 

appear in the local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) but usually without identifying 

that the person was an encampment resident as distinct from the broader unsheltered population.

Outreach workers also offer referrals to social and supportive services—including mental health and 

substance use treatment—and assistance applying for mainstream benefits.

Medical and substance use outreach 

Outreach workers often partner with healthcare providers to offer medical services at the encampment or 

to have trained staff offer referrals to services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment. 

• Formal encampment responses in Chicago include local partner organizations with expertise in 

substance use and recovery services, mental health, and comprehensive health care. Those partner 

organizations provide onsite case management and related services from 1 to 10 days during Level 1 

and 2 responses. Heartland Alliance Health outreach teams also make routine visits to encampments 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌27

across Chicago, offering basic onsite medical care, prescription medications, and supplies, as well as 

making referrals to Heartland’s medical clinics for further diagnosis and treatment. 

• In Houston, a nurse practitioner from Health Care for the Homeless and a case worker from a 

substance use treatment program sometimes accompany outreach teams. The nurse practitioner visits 

the encampments in the morning and provides basic medical care, such as blood pressure checks and 

routine wound care. She then may refer patients for same-day appointments at a local medical clinic

or provide referrals for behavioral health care. A staff member from the Recovery Center in Houston 

also visits encampments and provides referrals to the Sobering Center and other substance use 

services. 

• In San Jose, the Valley Homeless HealthCare Program (funded by the Santa Clara County Health 

System) supports a backpack medicine team consisting of a nurse, mental health clinician, and a 

community health worker. The team provides medical services to encampments in Santa Clara 

County two to three times a week. 

Role of police in outreach

Some city police departments also participate in outreach activities. A number of cities established 

Homeless Outreach Teams (HOTs), whose members focus on outreach efforts to people experiencing 

unsheltered homelessness. 

OUTREACH 

WORKERS 

Complete coordinated 

entry assessments 

Offer housing 

navigation assistance 

Provide case 

management 

Build rapport w ith 

encampment residents 

Refer encampment residents 

to supportive services 

including shelter, medical 

services, food assistance 

Support clearance and 

c losure activities 

HOT 

Make arrests if observe 

illegal activity 

Enforce laws and 

ordinances around 

encampments, including 

orders to vacate property 

Collect (and store) 

personal property 

• In Chicago, HOTs operate in specific areas of the city, establishing relationships with people experiencing 

homelessness within that area. Using their established rapport, HOT members refer people experiencing 

homelessness to supportive services including shelter, medical services and food assistance. If a Level 1 or 

2 encampment response occurs in the geography covered by a HOT, the officers will attend and participate 

in the encampment response.

• The Houston Police Department HOT includes a sergeant, six officers trained in crisis intervention, and 

three case managers with training in mental health services. The HOT focuses its work on building rapport 

with encampment residents through regular visits to the encampments, “bringing the services to people in 

encampments” by offering onsite connections to available services, including shelter and medical 

assistance.

• The HOT in Tacoma consists of two outreach members, five police officers, and one mental health 

professional. This team’s philosophy is to first connect people experiencing homelessness with services 

rather than immediately enforce laws. The HOT takes a long-term approach and expects that they will 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌28

have many repeat interactions with people who initially refuse to accept services. If Tacoma officials 

schedule the clearance of an encampment, the HOT is sent to the encampment to offer services and ensure 

that residents vacate the property. The HOT collects any personal property remaining at the encampment 

and transports it to a city facility to be stored for a maximum of 60 days. 

Cleaning encampments

If a city is not planning to close an encampment in the immediate future, it may conduct regularly

scheduled cleanings. In addition to maintaining sanitary conditions, these cleanings provide another 

touchpoint for outreach staff and HOT members to interact with encampment residents and encourage 

them to access shelters and supportive services. 

• The Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation conducts weekly cleanings of the Lower Wacker Drive 

encampment. The cleanings focus on removing trash and debris from in and around this large 

encampment. Notices of a cleaning are posted in advance, and DFSS staff are on site to ensure that 

personal belongings are safeguarded.

• A key component of the response to encampments in Houston is twice-a-week cleanings of the largest 

encampments. During the cleanings, the portable toilet and dumpster are emptied, and the trash around the 

encampment is removed. These short cleanings take only a few hours, and encampment residents do not 

have to leave or move their belongings. Outreach staff and HOT members are present for the cleanings, 

offering assistance and referrals for other services.

In some instances, regular cleanings are supplemented by periodic “deep” cleanings. Deep cleanings often 

involve more staff and focus on maintaining sanitary conditions in the encampment by removing human 

waste, drug paraphernalia, and items that are no longer being used, such as furniture and bicycles.

• In Chicago, the Department of Streets and Sanitation is present during Level 1 responses (encampments 

with more than 10 people) to remove trash, litter, and other debris. If the Department determines that

needles or other biohazards are present that make the area unsafe, they call in a hazmat team. Notices of 

deep cleanings are posted 72 hours in advance.

• Houston conducts deep cleanings of encampments when the mayor requests that the health authority 

inspect an encampment. Typically, these deep cleanings occur quarterly. An inspection that results in a 

deep cleaning triggers a temporary closure of the encampment to facilitate the cleaning process., Notices 

are posted in English and Spanish 72 hours before a deep cleaning to alert encampment residents that they 

must remove all of their property from the area during the cleaning. If belongings remain at the time of the 

deep cleaning, they are removed as trash. 

Clearance and closure of encampments

If an encampment is to be cleared and closed, officials provide the residents between 24 and 72 hours’ 

notice by posting signage around the area. Outreach teams often visit the encampment shortly before a 

clearance to connect residents to services and, if available, shelter. If an encampment is abandoned or 

residents are not present at the time of clearing, officials work to collect, label, and store personal 

belongings for a set amount of time, usually between 30 and 90 days. 

• In San Jose, if the city decides to clear an encampment, it begins with a notification of abatement or 

clearance that is posted at the encampment site at least 72 hours in advance. One or two days before 

the clearance and closure, outreach teams and housing department staff remind encampment residents 

of the upcoming clearance. They provide garbage bags and shelter and service referrals to 

encampment residents. Outreach teams visit the encampment on the days before the clearance but 

usually are not present when the closure occurs. If encampment residents are still on site when the 

clearance begins, they have 15 minutes to collect their belongings and leave the site. Items of value 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌29

(e.g., tents, bicycles, and personal documents) that are left behind are labeled and placed into storage 

for up to 90 days for encampment residents to retrieve. 

• Once Tacoma decides to close an encampment, the city posts a notice to vacate the premises 72 hours in 

advance. The HOT and other outreach workers visit the encampment, providing linkages to housing for 

encampment residents. On the day of the scheduled closing, the HOT is sent to the encampment to ensure

that residents have left and taken their belongings. Any remaining personal property is transported and 

stored for 60 days. 

In San Jose and Tacoma, cleaning of the encampment site occurs after people leave the encampment and 

remove their belongings. 

• In San Jose, several organizations participate in encampment cleanup efforts. The Santa Clara Valley 

Water District funds a cleanup contractor to offset environmental impacts of encampments after their 

closure. Sometimes those efforts include heavy equipment to facilitate the removal of larger encampment 

structures or abating the environmental impacts of the encampment. Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful and 

South Bay Clean Creeks Coalition clean up trash and debris along Coyote Creek and the Guadalupe River

after encampments are closed. 

• To expedite the closure of encampments in 

Tacoma, the city created a mitigation site nearby 

to offer basic health and safety amenities, such as 

portable toilets, trash services, and 24/7 security to 

people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. A 

few months later, in June 2017, city officials 

closed and fenced off the mitigation site and 

opened an outdoor temporary shelter called a 

Stability Site. The Stability Site has a large, 

sprung-style FEMA-style tent that can hold up to 

100 individual tents, which are provided by the 

city. The site also has one-room units called pallet 

shelters, as well as trailers for bathrooms, laundry, 

and service provision. 

Negative Impacts of Clearing and Closing 

Encampments

The goals of reducing public health hazards and 

nuisance complaints by cleaning and closing 

encampments can sometimes work against goals 

of housing encampment residents and lowering 

the number of people experiencing unsheltered 

homelessness. Outreach workers report that 

cleaning and clearing an encampment often 

exacerbates the challenges of moving residents to 

shelter or permanent housing because residents

lose identification, legal documents, and 

medications. In addition, cleanings and clearings 

can disrupt relationships between outreach 

workers and encampment residents.

Negative Impacts of Clearing and 

Closing Encampments

Preventing reestablishment of encampments

Once an encampment is cleared of people and 

personal belongings, some cities take steps to prevent former residents or other people from returning and 

reestablishing the encampment. City departments or local utilities fence areas or erect other barriers to

discourage future encampments. This practice is most common for larger encampments and for 

encampments that have negative environmental impacts on local greenspace or waterways. 

• After Philadelphia and Houston cleared and closed the Kensington and Wheeler encampments, 

respectively, city officials fenced off the areas so that the encampments did not re-form. Similarly, when 

Tacoma cleared the Jungle encampment, the city repaired existing fencing around the site and routinely 

monitors the location to prevent the establishment of a subsequent encampment.

• After an encampment in Tacoma is cleared of people and personal belongings, a city contractor conducts a 

rigorous cleaning of the area. In most cases, the city is not able to prevent people from returning because it 

does not want to restrict public use of the area; however, the city conducts what it calls site reclamation of 

public areas to make them less desirable for camping by trimming vegetation, leveling the ground, and 

adding lighting to increase visibility. In other locations, such as under bridges and freeways, the city 

installs fencing and erects boulders or other obstacles to discourage public use of the space.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌30

• In San Jose, the Santa Clara County Water District repairs fences to prevent the formation of 

encampments in areas where they could contaminate the water supply. Valley Water also employs offduty police officers to patrol and enforce no-camping regulations.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌31

6. Direct Costs of Encampment Responses

Each of the four cities at which the study team conducted site visits and collected cost data undertook 

significant efforts to respond to homeless encampments. At the same time, costs varied widely across the 

cities—for a number of reasons. At the policy level, cities implemented different approaches to 

responding to encampments and devoted varying levels of resources to their response efforts.9 This 

section compares the ongoing costs of responding to encampments in fiscal year (FY) 2019 across 

Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma on a number of dimensions. Those dimensions include overall 

expenditures, variations in spending by activity type, spending by the various organizations implementing 

the responses, and the sources of funding for the responses. 

These costs are a snapshot of spending in 1 year. As cities undertake initiatives to permanently reduce the 

number of people residing in encampments, the costs of those initiatives may push expenditures higher in 

FY 2020. (See Exhibit 4-1, for a list of major encampment activities, 2017–2019, and activities planned 

for 2020.) 

The methodology used for collecting and analyzing the cost data is presented in Appendix A. Appendix B 

is a detailed presentation of approaches for estimating the costs of encampments intended to inform the 

efforts of other cities.

6.1. Overall costs and costs by type of activity

The total costs of encampment responses in the four cities in FY 2019 ranged from $3.4 million in 

Houston to $8.6 million in San Jose. Several factors drove differences in those costs, including the 

number of people who were unsheltered in each city, the strategy and resources for responding to 

encampments, and the varying nature of its encampments. 

Expenditures per capita, per person

Exhibit 6-1 shows that spending on encampments is not related to the total population of the city. In FY 

2019, Chicago was the largest of the four cities but ranked third in total spending on encampments. San 

Jose, less than one-half the size of Chicago, spent more than twice as much as Chicago on its encampment 

response. Tacoma was by far the smallest of the cities—less than one-tenth the size of Chicago or 

Houston—but Tacoma spent more than either city. On a per capita basis, Tacoma spent much more than 

the other three cities—more than twice as much as San Jose and more than 10 times as much as Chicago 

or Houston. 

Exhibit 6-1. Total costs and cost per capita of encampment-related expenditures by city, FY 2019

Total spending on 

encampment activities Population Cost per capita

San Jose $ 8,557,000 1,035,317 $ 8.27 

Tacoma $ 3,905,000 213,418 $ 18.30 

Chicago $ 3,572,000 2,716,450 $ 1.31 

Houston $ 3,393,000 2,312,717 $ 1.47 

Sources: City cost data; U.S. Census

As would be expected, encampment-related expenditures are more closely related to the number of 

unsheltered homeless people in a city than to its overall population. San Jose, the third largest of the four 

cities in population, has roughly five times the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness 

9

 Technical reasons also account for differences in reported costs of encampment responses, including differing 

definitions of encampments, differences in how data are reported and categorized, and missing data.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌32

than any of the other cities. Given the magnitude of the encampment issue in San Jose, it is not surprising 

that San Jose has the largest expenditures. Per unsheltered homeless person, however, San Jose spends the 

least of the four cities, at around $1,080. Tacoma spends the most, at about $6,200 (Exhibit 6-2). This is 

not the cost per encampment resident; the unsheltered count includes people staying by themselves rather 

than in groups or in locations with tents or other structures. Because encampment residents are a subset of 

all unsheltered homeless people, an estimate of costs per encampment resident would by definition be 

greater than cost per unsheltered person.

Exhibit 6-2. Costs of encampment response per number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness 

by city, 2019

Total spending on 

encampment activities, 

FY 2019

Unsheltered homeless 

population, 20191

Cost per unsheltered 

homeless person, 2019 

Chicago $ 3,572,000 1,260 $2,835 

Houston $ 3,393,000 1,614 $2,102 

Tacoma $ 3,905,000 629 $6,208 

San Jose $ 8,557,000 7,922 $1,080

1 The unsheltered homeless population for Chicago is for the city, whereas the numbers for Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma include the 

surrounding counties (Harris, Santa Clara, and Pierce Counties). 

Source: City cost data; 2019 CoC Point-in-Time data, HUD

Expenditures by activity

Encampment-related expenditures reflect differences in city encampment responses. Exhibits 6-3 and 6-4 

show expenditures by type of activity for each city in dollar amounts and as a percentage of total spending 

on encampment activities. 

Exhibit 6-3. Costs of encampment responses by type of activity by city, FY 2019

 Chicago Houston San Jose Tacoma

Outreach (total) $ 3,082,000 $ 1,546,000 $ 870,000 $ 1,056,000 

Outreach and housing navigation $ 2,110,000 $ 834,000 $ 800,000 $ 168,000 

Homeless Outreach Teams $ 931,000 $ 630,000 $ 0 $ 887,000 

Substance use disorder programs $ 0 $ 27,000 $ 0 $ 0 

Medical assistance $ 33,000 $ 52,000 $ 53,000 $ 0 

Financial assistance $ 7,000 $ 3,000 $ 17,000 $ 1,000 

Encampment clearance $ 140,000 $ 887,000 $ 4,910,000 $ 144,000 

Encampment prevention $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,495,000 $ 293,000 

Shelter $ 297,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,347,000 

Dedicated permanent supportive 

housing $ 0 $ 782,000 $ 0 $ 0 

Other $ 53,000 $ 178,000 $ 1,281,000 $ 65,000 

Total $ 3,572,000 $ 3,393,000 $ 8,557,000 $ 3,905,000 

Source: City cost data.

Notes: Outreach and navigation includes services provided during the clearance of an encampment. Police department Homeless Outreach 

Team costs are shown separately from other outreach services because of their magnitude. All costs of HOTs are included, not only the time 

officers spend at encampments. Costs of encampment clearance include cleaning and sanitation. Financial assistance generally is modest

(e.g., bus tokens to get to services or housing programs). Examples of encampment prevention costs are erecting fencing and other barriers 

and patrolling former and potential future encampment sites.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌33

Exhibit 6-4. Costs by type of activity as percentage of total encampment spending by city, FY 2019

86%

46%

10%

27%

4%

26%

57%

4%

17%

8%

8%

60%

23%

1%

5%

15%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Chicago

Houston

San Jose

Tacoma

Outreach - total Encampment cleaning and clearance Encampment prevention Shelter PSH Other

PSH = permanent supportive housing. 

Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding

Source: City cost data

Chicago 

Chicago did not undertake significant new initiatives related to homeless encampments in FY 2019, but 

the city did expend significant resources executing existing plans and strategies. Outreach—including 

activities completed by outreach workers and the HOT—was its largest expenditure, accounting for 86 

percent of total spending. Shelter for encampment residents—the 40-bed, low-barrier Pilsen shelter—

accounted for 8 percent of spending. The city also conducted routine trash pickups from encampments 

and a small number of encampment clearances and closures. 

Houston 

Outreach activities were the largest expenditure in Houston in FY 2019, totaling 46 percent of its 

encampment-related spending. Encampment clearance was also a large spending category in Houston (23 

percent of the total), for two reasons. First, the city completed the Wheeler Street encampment closure in 

FY 2019. Second, two business management districts contributed to the city encampment response by 

regularly cleaning two major encampments. The costs of biweekly cleanings in Houston totaled $887,307 

in FY 2019. Also, in FY 2019, Houston dedicated significant resources to an initiative to permanently 

house encampment residents. The city designated 21 permanent supportive housing (PSH) beds for 

encampment residents, timing the Wheeler Street encampment to coincide with the availability of new 

PSH units. Expenditures on PSH in Houston accounted for 23 percent of spending. Relatively small 

amounts of money were spent on other costs, which included coordination and management of the 

encampment response and encampment services and supports. 

San Jose 

San Jose, with encampments common along ecologically sensitive creeks and streams, spent the majority 

of its budget—57 percent—on an estimated 300 encampment clearances and closures. Most of the money 

was spent by the Santa Clara Water District. Encampment prevention was the next-largest category, at 

more than 17 percent of the total; again, much of it was spending by the Santa Clara Water District for 

activities such as repairing fencing and enforcing land use regulations. Outreach, by the San Jose Police 

Department’s Street Crimes Unit and by outreach workers, was about 10 percent of spending. About 3 

percent of expenditures were for other costs, including coordination and management and the police 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌34

department Street Crimes Unit, which is primarily responsible for working with people experiencing 

homelessness. None was spent on shelter specifically for encampment residents. 

Tacoma 

The encampment response in Tacoma, driven by the city’s emergency declaration on homelessness that 

emphasizes shelter for encampment residents, spent the majority (60 percent) of its encampment response 

dollars on the Stability Site for people leaving encampments. The Stability Site is a large, industrial-style, 

temperature-controlled tent containing rows of up to 100 individual camping tents, which are provided by 

the city. In addition to obtaining shelter, residents of the Stability Site also receive services from outreach 

workers and housing navigators, employment assistance, transportation for appointments, and meals.10

The City of Tacoma spent an additional 27 percent of its total encampment response budget providing 

outreach directly to encampment residents via outreach workers and the Tacoma Police Department’s 

HOT. Tacoma also had expenditures for encampment prevention, at 8 percent of the total. 

Expenditures for labor and other costs

Although expenditures across activities varied significantly by city, the types of costs incurred did not. 

All four cities spent significantly more on labor than they did on nonlabor costs (Exhibit 6-5).11 This 

finding is not surprising because the bulk of expenditures was for the salaries of police officers on the 

cities’ HOTs; of city staff coordinating the encampment response and carrying out encampment 

clearances and closures; and of the staff of homeless services providers and other organizations 

conducting outreach, assisting with encampment clearance and closure, and providing medical care. 

Supplies such as blankets, water bottles, and hygiene kits handed out to encampment residents as part of 

outreach activities had often been donated. The most significant nonlabor expenditure was an in-kind 

donation of supplies for encampment residents in Houston. In Houston, about 28 percent of expenditures 

were for nonlabor expenses, including these supplies and also encampment clearance and closure 

materials, such as dumpsters and use of a truck for picking up trash. 

10 Although these costs fall into a variety of categories, they are categorized with the Stability Site as shelter because they are 

exclusive to Stability Site residents. 

11 In all four cities, direct financial assistance to encampment residents—typically in the form of cash, bus passes, or hotel 

vouchers—represented less than 1 percent of expenditures.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌35

Exhibit 6-5. Costs for labor and non-labor expenditures by city, FY 2019

86%

56%

98%

89%

14%

44%

2%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Chicago

Houston

San Jose

Tacoma

Labor Non-Labor

Source: City cost data

6.2. Spending by implementation partners 

Although city departments led the encampment response in each site, each city partnered with homeless 

services providers and other organizations—such as independent local authorities—to conduct activities 

related to encampments. 

In Tacoma, Chicago, and Houston, homeless services providers carried out one-half or more of the 

encampment response; in San Jose, a local independent authority (the Santa Clara Water District) carried 

out the largest share of activities (57 percent; Exhibit 6-6). The activities performed by the Santa Clara 

Water District were almost entirely related to encampment clearance and prevention. In Houston, 

independent authorities also participated actively in conducting encampment-related activities, expending 

10 percent of funds—primarily clearing encampments.

In Chicago, Houston, and Tacoma, the police department accounted for roughly one-fourth of all 

expenditures in FY 2019, primarily supporting the police-based HOT in each city. In the City of San Jose, 

spending on the police department Street Crimes Unit was somewhat less than spending in other cities on 

HOTs—at about $555,000—compared with $867,000 on average in the other three cities. 

City departments (excluding the police) accounted for between 9 percent (in Chicago) and 21 percent (in 

San Jose) of expenditures. In San Jose, one significant expenditure was by the housing department’s 

homelessness response team, which dedicates about four FTEs (full-time equivalents) to coordinating and 

managing the city’s response to encampments. The housing department also funds a park ranger program, 

dedicated primarily to preventing encampments. Along with encampment clearance and closure activities, 

the city spent about $1.8 million in FY 2019 in addition to the police department’s expenditures. 

In Chicago, city departments other than police have a smaller role in implementing activities than in San 

Jose (although not necessarily in funding them, as discussed below). Chicago’s activities focus primarily 

on outreach, funded by the Department of Family and Support Services, and encampment cleanings, 

conducted by Streets and Sanitation. Those expenditures totaled about $321,000 in FY 2019. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌36

Exhibit 6-6. Spending on encampment responses by type of organization by city, FY 2019

23%

6%

26%

23%

20%

21%

9%

16%

54%

13%

65%

50%

3%

57%

10%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tacoma

San Jose

Chicago

Houston

Police Other city departments Homeless services providers

Local independent authorities Environmental non-profits

Source: City cost data

6.3. Sources of funding for encampment responses 

The implementation partners involved in city encampment responses did not necessarily provide funding 

for their own activities. Cities were by far the largest funder of encampment responses, funding between 

35 percent of activities (in San Jose) and 97 percent of activities (in Tacoma) (Exhibit 6-7). For example, 

although non-profit providers of homeless services provided much of the outreach and engagement of 

encampment residents, they did so under contract to the city. 

Exhibit 6-7. Costs of encampment responses by source of funding by city, FY 2019

Source: City cost data. 

Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Other funders included the federal government (HUD and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services [HHS]), local independent authorities (e.g., business management districts and an independent 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌37

park district), and private funding. In San Jose, an independent local authority (the Santa Clara Water 

District) played a large role in both implementing and funding encampment-related activities.

Some cities also reported in-kind donations, such as food and clothing, donated to encampments residents 

and, in some cases, vehicles and equipment to enable the provision of services to encampment residents. 

Nonprofit organizations, including homeless services providers, conducted a significant share of the 

activities that were part of the encampment response in each city through contracts with the city 

government. Those nonprofit organizations did not provide a significant share of the funding for their 

own activities, however, via fundraising or other means. 

6.4. Major activities before FY 2019

In addition to the costs cities expended in FY 2019, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma had significant 

expenditures related to major initiatives or encampment responses in previous years. Exhibit 6-8 lists 

those expenditures (also see Exhibit 4-1 for a timeline of activities by year for the four cities). The largest 

of those expenditures was in Tacoma for setup costs related to the 100-person Stability Site, totaling 

$900,000. Tacoma also incurred expenses for establishing the mitigation site, a temporary place for 

people leaving the Jungle encampment to stay following its closing. Costs related to setting up the 

mitigation site, which served approximately 80 people, were about $170,000 in 2017. 

San Jose and Houston also incurred expenditures for major initiatives before FY 2019. In San Jose, Santa 

Clara County operated a 20-person sanctioned encampment for 6 months in FY 2018 at a cost of about 

$215,000. In Houston, the FY 2018 costs of closing the Wheeler Street encampment totaled $202,000.

Exhibit 6-8. Encampment response activities for three cities before FY 2019 

Site Event Description Date Key stakeholders Cost

Tacoma Stability Site

Setup costs for the 

Stability Site

2017 

(FY 2017) City of Tacoma $900,000

Tacoma Mitigation site

Creation of a site for 

residents of the 

Jungle

May–June 2017 

(FY 2017) City of Tacoma $169,286

Tacoma

Large 

encampment 

cleanup

Clearance and 

cleanup of large 

encampment

2018 

(FY 2018) Tacoma Public Utilities $35,000

San Jose Hope Village

Temporary 

“sanctioned” 

encampment 2018 Santa Clara County $215,000

Houston

Wheeler Street 

encampment 

closure Encampment closure

FY 2018 

(completed in FY 

2019)

City of Houston, Midtown 

Management District, 

homeless services 

providers $202,000

Source: City cost data

6.5. Emergency medical costs

The cost estimates presented above do not include one potentially significant category of costs: the cost of 

emergency medical responses to encampments. The study team was not able to collect data from either 

the Chicago or Tacoma fire department on the costs of responses to emergency calls from encampments, 

and data reported from Houston had a high degree of uncertainty. Although fire departments track the 

addresses of responses to emergency calls, whether or not those addresses correspond to people 

experiencing unsheltered homelessness or encampments specifically is generally not tracked. Better data 

collection and reporting on emergency medical and fire response costs would provide valuable additional 

context to these findings.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌38

The most reliable data came from San Jose, which reported about 2,500 responses to calls from 

encampments in FY 2019, at a cost of about $1,900 per call—for a total of about $4.75 million. Clearly, 

that is a large expenditure: it would be the largest single encampment-related expense in San Jose if it 

were included in the estimate. Also excluded are costs of responding to homelessness-related fires (most 

emergency calls are for medical assistance, not firefighting.

12 Among the four sites, that issue is most 

serious in San Jose, where the study team estimates that the San Jose Fire Department responded to about 

100 calls for homelessness-related fires—at a cost of about $195,000 in FY 2019. 

Across the cities in the study, whether the costs associated with those calls can be attributed to the 

existence of the encampment is not clear—that is, are the costs the result of the existence of the 

encampment or the needs of the people who happen to live in the encampment? High costs of emergency 

responses may be related to homelessness generally rather than encampments specifically. In comparing 

calls for medical assistance between patients experiencing sheltered homelessness and patients in an 

encampment setting, calls related to environmental hazards and substance use seem similar. Anecdotal 

evidence from stakeholders in Tacoma suggests that among people living in a homeless shelter, requests 

for emergency medical assistance are also very high—perhaps as high as among those living in an 

encampment or those who are unsheltered in other locations. 

Stakeholders in Tacoma reported that emergency medical services often are used as a taxi service to 

medical services and appointments. Other cities report similar misuse of 911, both by people experiencing 

unsheltered homelessness and by those who are currently staying in homeless shelters. In contrast, 

Tacoma stakeholders reported that emergency responses to the city’s Stability Site are rare. That fact may 

be a result of the connection of residents with outreach and housing navigation staff and provided 

transportation to medical and other appointments. 

Although the study team determined that emergency medical responses by fire departments were not 

among the costs of city responses to encampments, a broader view of the costs of homelessness would 

take those costs into consideration, along with the possible cost offsets from providing permanent 

supportive housing to high users of medical services (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine 2018). 

12 National Fire Protection Association, NFPA Fire Experience Survey. https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Dataresearch-and-tools/Emergency-Responders/Fire-department-calls
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌39

7. Conclusion

In response to the growing number of encampments nationwide, this study offers a detailed look at the 

nature of encampments and how cities are currently responding to them. First, the study presents 

qualitative data from national and community-level stakeholders on what encampments are, what we 

know about them, and what communities are doing to respond to them. Data on the location and size of 

current encampments and the characteristics of people living in encampment settings does not exist 

nationally and is generally limited or inconsistent at the community level. The study summarizes the 

approaches cities take in responding to encampments and the key implementation partners involved in 

those responses. Finally, the study presents cost estimates for annual responses to encampments in four 

cities that were the focus in this report. Unless otherwise indicated, data collected in this report should not 

be used to develop cost estimates for encampment responses in other jurisdictions. Instead, communities 

should review Appendix B, which provides a general framework for collecting and analyzing costs 

related to their local encampment response.

Better understanding the unique needs of encampment residents

The study team found that encampments exist in a variety of locations—from urban sidewalks to wooded 

areas along riverbeds. Currently, understanding the needs and demographics of people in encampment 

settings is challenging, as no standards or requirements exist for reporting on this subset of people 

experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Although some cities are capturing data via their biennial 

unsheltered point-in-time counts or via outreach data entered into their local Homeless Management 

Information System (HMIS), many cities are not yet collecting reliable, standardized data on encampment 

residents. Standardized data collection requirements or protocols for encampments would assist both 

service providers and policymakers in better understanding the challenges and needs of people living in 

encampment settings. Based on the limited data available, people living in encampment settings 

sometimes have complex needs that can make it challenging to help them access shelter or housing. Some 

cities report high levels of mental illness among encampment residents but also note that severe mental 

illness may be lower among encampment dwellers than among people experiencing unsheltered 

homelessness in more isolated settings. Other people living in encampments may just need help accessing 

housing assistance. 

Because of the sense of community offered in an encampment, some encampments have people with 

similar needs or characteristics. Some encampments are composed of specific racial or ethnic groups, 

often reflecting the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood. Further exploration should be done 

on approaches to prevent the formation of encampments, including ones that reach out to and serve 

encampment residents by building on neighborhood and community strengths. This approach could be 

coupled with enhanced engagement with people who have recently lived in encampment settings. Their 

perspectives and feedback could offer insight into what assistance would be most helpful both to help 

people leave encampments and to prevent their formation. 

Implementation partners in many cities also noted high rates of substance use and sales in encampment 

settings. Whether people choose to live in encampment settings to facilitate their substance use or if they 

begin to increase their use of harmful substances after entering an encampment is not clear, however. The 

relationship between encampment residents and substance use must be better understood so that solutions 

can be better tailored to their specific needs. 

Further development of outreach practices and housing assistance

Despite conducting different encampment response activities that reflect local factors and policies, cities 

included in this study are dedicating significant resources to responding to encampments by clearing and 

(if permitted by law) closing their largest encampments. In all the study cities, outreach plays a key role in 

their response, with both city departments and homeless services providers filling that role. Outreach 

workers have traditionally worked with people experiencing unsheltered homelessness and tried to engage 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌40

them in services, but their strategies and the resources that they can offer may not relate well to the needs 

and preferences of people living in encampment settings. Research is needed to determine best practices 

for outreach specifically for encampment populations. Also, given the high number of people in 

encampment settings struggling with substance use, a stronger emphasis on connections to substance use 

treatment programs may be needed, as well as more effective outreach strategies, such as treatment on 

demand, for motivating engagement in substance use recovery or “harm reduction” mitigation of the 

consequences of abuse.

Cities are working to connect people living in encampments with housing assistance; however, the four 

study cities face a shortage of housing assistance for people leaving encampment settings. Without 

meaningful connections to housing assistance, outreach workers may not be able to convince people to 

leave an encampment. As a result of that shortage, some cities are developing or expanding low-barrier, 

service-rich shelters sometimes known as navigation centers as part of their efforts to respond to 

encampments. Efforts are needed to document this new type of emergency shelter, describe its logic 

model, and determine whether the existing programs are following this model. Research must then

measure the outcomes of people exiting navigation centers and ultimately compare their outcomes to 

people placed in other types of emergency shelter or in affordable permanent housing. Housing assistance 

must be a key component of city responses to homeless encampments. 

In all four cities, outreach workers administer assessments to enter encampment residents in the CoC 

coordinated entry system; however, the demand for housing assistance is high, and people in 

encampments may not be able to receive immediate assistance based on their prioritization. As CoCs 

continue to implement and refine coordinated entry to homeless assistance programs, cities and CoCs 

must determine how people living in encampments fit into the coordinated entry prioritization strategy. 

Cities and CoCs have difficult decisions to make about balancing the need for permanent housing as the 

solution to the homelessness of encampment residents and the need for additional shelter beds to give 

encampment residents an immediate place to go. Assessing that tradeoff will require cost-benefit analyses 

beyond the scope of the cost analysis in this study. 

Cities shoulder the financial burden of encampment responses

Finally, the study provides cost estimates for the encampment response approaches of four cities. In 2019, 

cities spent significant amounts—between $3,393,000 and $8,557,000 annually—on encampment-related 

activities.13 Those expenditures include costs related to outreach, clearance, and prevention activities, as 

well as emergency shelter costs and—in one city—permanent supportive housing. In all four cities, the 

largest funder of encampment response activities is city government. 

Typically, cities are able to access very limited federal or state funding to respond to encampments 

because the HUD funds available for homelessness assistance through the local CoC are already 

dedicated to other programs or are not designated to assist people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. 

As a result, cities are funding many activities using their own resources. Using city funding for 

encampment responses may divert some funding from other, more traditional activities of city 

departments (e.g., trash collection, park maintenance). It also may divert city support for other types of 

homelessness assistance, including longer term investments in expanding permanent housing 

opportunities for people who experience unsheltered homelessness. To support future encampment 

response efforts as well as assistance for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness overall, some 

cities are exploring and identifying other ways to fund their activities (e.g., special assessments and 

taxes). 

13 It is important to remember that this cost analysis is not a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis but a documentation of the 

different types and amounts of spending by cities related to encampments.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌41
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌42

Appendix A: Study Methodology

This appendix presents the research questions and methodology for the data collection and analysis that 

formed the basis for this report. 

Research questions

The study’s research questions address three areas of interest: understanding encampments, community 

responses to encampments, and costs associated with those responses.

Research Questions Literature 

Review 

Telephone 

Interviews

Site 

Visits

Understanding Encampments

Factors driving the increase in unsheltered homelessness and encampments 

specifically?  

What infrastructure or state/local ordinances or policy establish or govern 

encampments?   

Who stays in encampments? What are common subpopulations or characteristics? 

Are there differences between encampments and the unsheltered population 

generally?

  

How large are encampments? Do their characteristics vary by size?  

What type of social structures characterize encampments? 

City Efforts to Address Encampments

What steps are cities taking to prevent the establishment of encampments (e.g., 

ordinances and regulations, infrastructure, strengthening of the social safety net)?  

How are communities responding to encampments? What are the major activities, 

and which stakeholders are engaged?  

Can approaches to encampments be categorized—for example, as sanctioning, 

clearing, or relocating?   

How do responses to encampments relate to the broader homeless services 

system?   

How do responses to encampments differ across different types of communities?   

In what ways do those efforts differ from efforts to serve the unsheltered population 

not living in encampments?   

Costs Associated with Encampments

What are the direct costs incurred by cities in their efforts to address 

encampments? 

How do costs differ depending on different city approaches (e.g., sanctioning, 

clearing, or relocating encampments)? 

What health and safety issues have communities encountered with people sleeping 

in encampments?   

Literature review

The study began with a literature review to determine what was known about encampments as of the fall 

of 2018 and to provide preliminary answers to the research questions, focused on understanding 

encampments and documenting city responses. A formal examination of the peer-reviewed literature and 

grey literature was augmented by nine interviews with scholars and practitioners who have knowledge of 

encampments. The interviewees were asked about ongoing research projects focused on the recent growth 

in unsheltered homelessness and encampments; the characteristics of people in encampments and the 

factors that lead them to congregate there; and responses of communities, including costs and 

effectiveness. Each interviewee was asked targeted questions about specific research projects or 

programs. 

A synthesis of the literature review and expert interviews was published in early 2019 (Cohen, Yetvin, 

and Khadduri 2019). The synthesis set forth a preliminary typology of responses to encampments, with 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌43

four categories: clearance with little or no support; clearance and closure with support; tolerance; and 

formal sanctioning. 

The literature review informed the selection of sites for the study’s primary data collection and the data 

collection protocols. 

Telephone discussions with stakeholders from nine sites

In consultation with HHS, HUD, and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), the 

research team selected nine cities to participate in telephone discussions to explore the responses to 

homeless encampments by those cities. The nine cities were Chicago, Illinois; Fresno, California; 

Houston, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; Minneapolis, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, 

Oregon; San Jose, California; and Tacoma, Washington. In selecting those cities, the research team 

considered factors that could affect the presence, growth, and responses to encampments: 

geography/climate, city population, housing market affordability, trends in the number of people 

experiencing unsheltered homelessness, and the broader overall response to homelessness by the city. 

The research team conducted 39 telephone discussions, interviewing three to six stakeholders in each city. 

Interviewees included representatives from public agencies, homeless services providers, law 

enforcement, outreach teams, and other organizations involved with the community response. The 

interviewers used semi-structured interview guides to elicit the information needed to answer the study’s 

research questions, with a focus on trends in encampments, the characteristics of encampment residents, 

and the evolution of local approaches to responding to encampments. The interviews also focused on 

identifying the various organizations participating in the response by the city. Respondents were asked 

about the availability of cost data and the willingness of the city to participate in the next phase of the 

study. 

The study team synthesized the results of those interviews, creating descriptions of encampments in each 

of the nine cities and the response strategies of each city, as well as common themes across the nine cities. 

That synthesis formed the basis for selecting four cities for the site visits and collection of cost data. 

Site Visits and Cost Data Collection at Four Cities

In consultation with HHS and HUD, the study team selected Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; San Jose, 

California; and Tacoma, Washington. Criteria for selection of those cities included geographic diversity, 

varying levels of housing affordability, a variety of approaches to encampments, and potential for 

findings that could be helpful for other communities across the country that are responding to 

encampments. 

While on site in each city, two members of the study team— 

• Met with fiscal staff at government and other organizations involved in responding to encampments 

to review their expenditures related to encampment responses. The site visitors inventoried the 

activities that contributed to encampment costs for each city, with each implementing partner and 

collected data costs associated with each activity.

• Conducted in-person interviews with key implementation partners working to address homeless 

encampments. Discussion topics included the drivers of unsheltered homelessness in the city; details 

of the response strategy and its implementation; and the way in which the strategy related to local 

ordinances, litigation, and public reactions to encampments.

• Observed local encampments and interviewed two people with lived experiences in encampment 

settings. The study team accompanied outreach workers to encampment locations, where outreach 

workers identified people willing to be interviewed for 15 to 20 minutes. Interviewers asked 

individuals a range of questions relating to their decision to stay in the encampment location, 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌44

interactions with other encampment residents, and availability and interest in services provided to 

encampment residents.

Analysis and reporting

The study team used the results of the interviews with nine cities and the site visits to four cities to 

produce five reports: this overall final report summarizing the findings of the study and four community 

reports, one covering each of the four cities that were the major focus of the study: Chicago, Houston, San 

Jose, and Tacoma.14 To produce each report, the study team reviewed the information collected through 

interviews and supporting documents and synthesized that information, using a common topical structure 

for each of the community reports. In many cases, the study team had to ask interviewees followup 

questions to fill in missing information. The study team then produced this summary report, synthesizing 

the information on the four focus cities and, in some cases, adding observations about the other five cities 

for which telephone interviews were conducted. 

Estimating the cost of encampment responses

Each of the community reports and this final report includes a section providing estimates of the costs of 

city responses to encampments.

Because the cost data came from a number of different sources with varying formats and levels of detail, 

the study team used a combination of three different approaches to analyzing the data: (1) a budget 

approach, (2) a full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, and (3) an activity-based approach. Whenever 

possible, the analysis was based on implementation partners’ budgets (or a line item in the budget) or a 

financial report for the encampment-related activity. If the cost data covered a different period than FY 

2019 (such as calendar year 2019), then the analysis prorated or extrapolated the budget data to create an 

estimate for FY 2019. 

In a number of cases, implementer budgets combined activities related to encampment residents and 

homelessness generally. In those cases, implementers were asked to estimate the share of the cost 

specifically relating to homeless people residing in encampments. For example, a homeless outreach team 

may work primarily with people in encampments but also provide services to homeless people staying 

elsewhere.

Alternatives to the budget approach 

The financial records provided by implementation partners sometimes were not useful for the analysis 

because the budget for encampment response activities did not appear in specific budget line items. For 

example, city departments providing trash removal services for encampment residents did not have 

specific budgets that separated the costs of this service from other trash removal services. In those cases, 

the study team conducted interviews with department or organization leadership and asked them to 

describe all of the encampment-related activities they conduct in as much detail as possible. Based on that 

information, the study team then used either the FTE or activity-based costing approach to analyze the 

data. 

FTE approach

An FTE approach was feasible when the implementation partner could report how many FTEs are used to 

conduct an encampment-related activity (for example, if one maintenance crew member spends one-half 

of his or her time cleaning encampments, then .5 FTE is dedicated to that activity). In addition to the 

number of FTEs, the study team gathered data on the salary and benefits of each FTE involved to 

calculate a total cost. 

14 See Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; San Jose, California; and Tacoma, Washington Community Encampment 

Reports.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌45

Activity-based costing approach

When no reliable budget information was available or when the implementation partner could not 

estimate FTEs, the study team gathered details about the encampment-related activities and constructed a 

cost estimate. Using this activity-based costing approach required a detailed understanding of the 

activities being conducted by each implementation partner. Information that implementation partners 

were asked to provide included— 

• Staff performing the activity. 

• Annual FTE salary and fringe benefits of staff performing the activity. 

• Staff hours needed per unit of activity (e.g., 2 hours per trash pickup at encampment). 

• Time period over which activities occurred (e.g., calendar year 2019). 

• Number of times the activity occurred during the time period (e.g., once a week). 

• Any direct costs of conducting the activity (e.g., cost of trash bags). 

Consider overhead in cost estimates

In general, overhead costs (other than fringe benefits of staff conducting the activities) were not included 

in the cost estimates. For many of the departments or organizations that implemented encampment 

activities, those activities represent a small portion of their work. For those implementation partners with 

a limited role in responding to encampments, the analysis was based on a marginal cost approach. The 

assumption was that the encampment-related activities had no measurable effect on overhead costs such 

as accounting, human resources, equipment, or the cost of office space. 

In two notable exceptions, the study team did not use a marginal cost approach. The cost of office space 

was included if it was used specifically to support encampment activities, such as providing storage for 

the belongings of encampment residents. In addition, some city contracts with implementing partners 

specifically allowed those partners to include overhead costs in their contracts for encampment-related 

work. In those instances, because the costs were directly incurred as a result of responding to 

encampments (by the city, if not by the implementing partner), overhead costs were included in the cost 

estimates.

Analyze funding source of activities for each stakeholder 

In addition to analyzing the costs of encampment-related activities, the study team collected data on the 

funding source for each activity. That information permitted the analysis to identify which organization 

was bearing the costs of encampment-related activities in each city. It also was needed to ensure that costs 

were not being double counted by multiple stakeholders. For example, if a local nonprofit is responsible 

for conducting outreach to encampment residents but that activity is being funded by a city contract, the 

cost sometimes appeared in financial reports for both the city and the nonprofit. 

Analyze costs of encampment response 

To analyze costs of the encampment response for each site, the study team first prorated or extrapolated 

the cost data as needed to estimate costs for FY 2019. Then the team categorized the cost data by— 

• Stakeholder type: police department, other city department, homeless services provider, independent 

authority, and others. 

• Activity type: outreach and housing navigation; homeless outreach team; substance use program; 

medical assistance; financial assistance; encampment clearance; encampment prevention; shelter; 

permanent supportive housing; and other. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌46

• Funding source: city government, federal government, in-kind donation, private, independent 

authority, and other. 

• Cost type: labor and nonlabor. 

• Funding type: cash and in-kind. 

With costs standardized and organized within and across sites, the study team could compare costs across 

cities in this final report and report them in detail in the community reports. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌47

Appendix B: Approaches for Estimating Encampment Costs

This appendix offers communities a general approach for collecting and analyzing costs related to their 

local encampment response. This approach is based on the methodology used by the authors for 

estimating costs of encampments in Chicago, Houston, San Jose, and Tacoma (outlined in Appendix A). 

This appendix provides a guide for how to conceptualize the analysis to meet the needs of your 

community, as well as instructions for collecting the data from different departments and organizations 

who are helping to respond to encampments. For example, it outlines the steps in the process for 

estimating the costs of encampments, outlines a series of questions to help communities clearly define the 

scope of their analysis, and provides tools and steps for collecting and analyzing cost data. 

Process for estimating cost of encampments

Estimate the costs of homeless encampments requires several steps:

• Define the scope of the cost estimate. 

• Inventory the activities involved in responding to encampments. 

• List the stakeholders involved in responding to encampments and their activities. 

• Gather the costs of activities from each stakeholder. 

• Analyze the cost data.

Although the process is laid out in steps, it likely will involve revisiting some steps. For example, you 

may learn while going through the process of identifying the activities being conducted by each 

stakeholder that the original list of activities was incomplete or that stakeholders have been left off the 

list. 

Define scope

Inventory 

activities

List 

stakeholders Gather costs

Analyze cost 

data
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌48

Define the purpose and scope of the cost estimate

The first step in planning a cost estimate is to delineate the purpose the estimate is intended to serve, how 

it will be used, and who will use it. Answering those questions will help to define the cost estimate and 

ensure that it serves the purposes for which it is intended. 

These questions include— 

• What is an encampment in your community? 

• Who will use the cost estimate in your community? 

• What will it be used for?

• What costs are relevant? Which should be ignored?

• What time period should costs cover? 

• What geography is most relevant (e.g., within city or county boundaries? including an entire 

metropolitan area?)? 

Those questions and their implications are discussed in the remainder of this section.

Establish a shared definition of encampment

An important component of the scope of the analysis is a clear definition of what constitutes an 

encampment. The use of the word varies from place to place. For example, in some places, it refers to 

even a single temporary occupied structure; in others, it refers only to groups of structures; in others still, 

it may include people sleeping in vehicles. The definition itself is not as important for the purposes of the 

analysis as that the definition is shared by all the stakeholders within the community so that the term is 

understood consistently. 

Use the purpose of the cost estimate to define the relevant geography and funding sources

In estimating costs of encampments, it is important to clearly define the audience and the purpose for the 

cost estimate. This information will help determine the scope of the exercise. For example, if the cost 

estimate is primarily for use in determining how to most effectively use city resources, then costs counted 

should exclude those spent outside city limits. Some stakeholders and contracts may cover geographic 

areas outside the city; in those cases, the share of costs spent outside the city should not be included. 

Likewise, the cost data collection should focus primarily on city resources. Although understanding 

federal, state, and county costs and how those affect the use of city resources may be helpful, those costs 

are not central to the estimate.

If the cost estimate is intended to broadly capture all costs related to responding to encampments—

perhaps so that costs can be compared with other homeless service approaches, such as rapid rehousing or 

permanent supportive housing—then costs to all entities should be included. 

In estimating the costs of responding to encampments, it is also important to select an appropriate time 

period from which to collect cost data. If the purpose of the analysis is to understand all spending on 

encampments over the previous 5 years, then that entire period is relevant, and cost data should be 

collected for that entire period. On the other hand, if the analysis is intended to provide a representative 

annual cost of responding to encampments, then costs from several years ago may not accurately depict 

the current level of response for the city. Also worth noting is that the older cost data are, the harder they 

may be to obtain. Cost information often is lost or is difficult to access, and people who understand and 

can explain the data often have moved on to other positions.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌49

Inventory activities involved in responding to encampments

The types of activities involved in responding to encampments vary from place to place; however, on the 

basis of experience with encampments in several cities, the study team has outlined some typical costs of 

encampments in Exhibit B-1. The categories of costs involved include cleanup/sanitation and 

encampment prevention, services provided to sanctioned encampments, emergency responders to 

encampments, response coordination, social services (provided at the encampment), and other community 

services and supports specifically for or related to encampment residents. 

Exhibit B-1. Typical costs of responding to encampments

Encampment costs

Clean-up/sanitation/prevention Sanctioning through formal policies with support 

for residents

• Trash removal

• Hazardous waste removal

• Dumpsters

• Transportation (resident relocation)

• Other cleanup efforts

• GIS applications/technology

• Encampment prevention, such as fence 

construction and repair

• Temporary shelters erected for encampment 

residents

• Structure/tents

• Permitting 

• Supportive services

• Transportation

• Operation/utilities

• Hygiene facilities

• Food

Emergency responders (to calls from 

encampments) Response coordination

• Fire 

• Police

• EMT 

• Public health officials

• Park rangers

• Staff time for encampment response meetings

• Developing ordinances/response to lawsuits

• Declaration of public emergencies

• Hotline/311/website

Social services (at the encampment)

Other community services/supports available 

(specifically for or related to encampment 

residents)

• Outreach

• Case management

• Medical (planned, not emergency)

• Mental health

• Substance use treatment

• Housing navigation

• Other social services

• Tents/sleeping pods

• Information kiosks

• Hotline

• Storage of personal belongings

• Toilets/showers

• Transportation 

• Other services/supports

Ongoing and one-time costs of encampments

Most of the costs listed in Exhibit B-1 are ongoing costs of responding to encampments. In 

addition to those routine costs, which typically persist over multiple years, communities may 

also incur unusual or one-time costs in responding to encampments, including the following: 

• Creating a low-barrier shelter specifically for encampment residents (but not operating the shelter, 

which is an ongoing cost). 

• Passing an encampment-related ordinance. 

• Implementing an emergency declaration related to encampments. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌50

• Conducting a large-scale, one-time encampment clearance. 

• Responding to a lawsuit related to encampments (unless the litigation process is lengthy, covering a 

period of several years, in which case it may be considered an ongoing cost). 

• Designing sanctioned encampments. 

The reason for distinguishing between one-time and ongoing costs is to properly account for the costs of 

responding to encampments. For example, if part of the purpose of the cost estimate is to project the 

resources needed to respond to encampments in the future, then a large, one-time cost should not be 

included in those projections (because it is not likely to be repeated). On the other hand, if the purpose is

to understand what the full costs of responding to encampments in the city has been over the past 1 or 

more years, then one-time costs should be included. 

Excluding costs not specific to encampments

A key challenge in estimating the costs of encampments is differentiating them from the costs of 

providing services to people experiencing homelessness more generally. Although the broader cost of 

homelessness is an important topic, this analysis will be of most use if it clearly identifies costs related to 

encampments. In the cost analysis, include the costs of services if they are offered to people because they 

are in encampments and not simply because they are experiencing homelessness. Similarly, if people use 

a service more frequently or with more intensity because they reside in encampments, the cost of those 

services should be included in the analysis.

Exhibit B-2 displays examples of cost categories for the homelessness service system and other public 

systems with which people experiencing homelessness may interact on a regular basis. Those costs should 

generally not be included in the cost of encampments. For example, the costs of long-established 

emergency shelters are attributable to homelessness, not to encampments specifically; however, if a new 

shelter opened in response to a recent increase in encampments in a community or if an existing shelter 

expanded capacity for the same reason, then those costs would be attributed to the rise of encampments 

and included in the cost estimate. 

Exhibit B-2. Costs related to homelessness generally

Homeless service system costs: Housing 

intervention and supportive services

Examples of costs related to homelessness

Costs of public systems that interact with 

the homeless service system

Examples of costs related to homelessness

• Coordinated entry

• Emergency shelter

• Bridge/interim housing

• Transitional housing

• Rapid rehousing

• Permanent supportive housing

• Group housing

• Stabilization rooms

• Prevention 

• Case management

• Linkages to other supportive/community services

Health Care

• Mental health

• Emergency room visits

• Rehabilitation services

• Recuperative care

• Inpatient services

Criminal Justice

• Arrests 

• Incarceration

• Other criminal justice system costs

Likewise, costs of other public systems—such as health care and criminal justice—should be included 

only when there is reason to believe that those living in encampments make more extensive use of those 

systems than do unsheltered homeless people overall. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌51

Even with that distinction in mind, separating the costs of homelessness and the costs of encampments is 

likely to be challenging. Stakeholders may serve both encampment residents and people experiencing 

sheltered or unsheltered homelessness, and their budgets or financial reports may not indicate the specific 

population being served. Helping those stakeholders understand that distinction—and to estimate as 

closely as possible how much of their work is specific to assisting people living in encampment 

settings—will be important.

Exhibit B-3 presents a template for inventorying the activities involved in responding to encampments. 

As a first step, you should complete the table, identifying the stakeholders involved in each encampment 

activity (enter “N/A” if the activity is not part of the city response to encampments), and list a primary 

contact for each stakeholder. The table should be periodically revised during the cost data collection 

process to update it with any additional information collected. 

Exhibit B-3: Inventory of ongoing activities 

Activity Stakeholders Involved in Activity 

(List all. Indicate N/A if the activity is 

not part of your city’s response to 

encampments)

Primary Contact for Each 

Stakeholder

Emergency response to encampments

Fire

Law enforcement

Emergency medical (EMT)

Public health incidents

Other (specify)

Cleanup/sanitation/prevention

Trash removal

Hazardous waste removal

Dumpsters

Property storage

Transportation (for resident relocation)

GIS applications/technology

Other cleanup efforts (specify)

Encampment prevention

Temporary shelters erected for encampment residents 

(e.g., low-barrier shelters)

Social services (provided at encampments)

Outreach 

Medical services (planned, not emergency)

Mental health services 

Substance use treatment

Housing navigation 

Case management

Crisis response

Other (specify)

Other community services/supports available

Storage of personal belongings

Information kiosks

Toilets/showers

Tents/sleeping pods

Transportation from encampment to other services

Other available support (specify)

Encampment coordination

Park/public land management

Staff time for task force meetings

Developing ordinances/response to lawsuits

Hotline/311

Other (specify)
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌52

List the stakeholders involved in your city’s response to encampments

Responding to encampments involves a variety of stakeholders, including a number of city agencies, 

homeless services providers, and other community organizations. A thorough estimate of the costs 

involved in responding to encampments requires a comprehensive list of the stakeholders active in your 

community. Those stakeholders may include the following: 

• City officials and departments, which could include a mayor’s office liaison, the fire department, 

police department, neighborhood services, environmental services, public works, parks department, 

and others 

• Mayor’s office liaison

• Fire department

• Police department

• Human services department

• Sanitation department

• Neighborhood services

• Environmental services

• Public works

• Parks and recreation department

• Other government or quasi-governmental agencies within the scope of your cost estimate, such as 

county officials or departments, public utilities, and the state Department of Transportation 

• Nonprofit agencies, such as homeless services providers or general social service organizations

• The local Continuum of Care (CoC)

• Businesses or business associations

• Neighborhood or resident groups 

• Faith-based groups, such as churches and faith-based coalitions

• Other

Exhibit B-4 presents a template for surveying the stakeholders involved in responding to encampments. 

This table will assist in understanding the relevant stakeholder activities. Note that there is some overlap 

between Exhibits B-3 and B-4. Exhibit B-3 should be used as a starting point for identifying which 

stakeholders are involved in which activities. The survey in Exhibit B-4 should be distributed to each 

stakeholder identified previously to verify the activities in which each is involved. This process will 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌53

ensure that you have a complete list of activities and stakeholders involved in your city’s response to 

encampments. 

Exhibit B-4: Survey of stakeholders

Stakeholder Name and Contact Information:

Activity Is Your Organization Involved in the 

Activity? (Y/N)

Emergency responses

Fire 

Law enforcement

Emergency medical 

Public health incidents 

Other types of crisis (please specify)

Cleanup/sanitation/prevention

Trash removal

Hazardous waste removal

Dumpsters—providing and emptying

Property storage

Transportation (for resident relocation)

GIS applications/technology

Other cleanup efforts (specify)

Encampment prevention

Temporary shelters erected for encampment residents (e.g., lowbarrier shelters)

Social services (provided at encampments)

Outreach 

Medical services (planned, not emergency)

Mental health services 

Substance use treatment

Case management 

Housing navigation support

Crisis response

Other (specify)

Other community services/supports available

Lockers/day storage

Information kiosks

Toilets/showers

Tents/sleeping pods

Transportation from encampment to other services

Other available support (specify)

Encampment coordination

Park/public land management

Staff time for task force meetings

Hotline/311

Other (specify)

Gather costs of activities from each stakeholder

Unless your city’s response to encampments is highly centralized and cost information is well 

documented and organized, it is likely that you will need to gather the costs of activities related to 

encampments from each stakeholder. There are three approaches to collect this data depending on the 

type of cost information available: (1) a budget approach, (2) a full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, or 

(3) an activity-based costing approach. The budget approach is preferable; the FTE approach and the 

activity-based costing approach are alternatives to this approach if budget or financial information is not 

available. This section describes each of these approaches. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌54

Budget approach

Some stakeholders will have a budget (or a line item in the budget) or a financial report for the 

encampment-related activities in which they are involved. In those cases, this information is typically the 

best source for understanding the costs of their activities. Whether or not a stakeholder has readily 

available financial information will most likely depend on how focused the overall organization is on 

encampments. For example, a police department may have a homeless outreach team that dedicates a 

significant share of its efforts to those living in encampments. A budget or financial report that provides 

the needed cost information is likely available for the team.

On the other hand, a public works department that collects trash as needed from encampments most likely 

does not have a specialized team or resources specifically for encampments. One of the other cost data 

collection and analysis approaches is most likely needed. 

Exhibits B-5 and B-6 provide a template for the budget approach to gathering cost data. Each stakeholder 

should have a separate spreadsheet that includes the name of the stakeholder, the name and contact 

information of the person providing the cost information, the source of the information (e.g., FY 2018 

budget), and the dates covered by the cost information recorded. The budget or financial report may 

include both staff costs and the cost of materials in a single line item, in which case all costs should be 

reported using the template in Exhibit B-5. If the costs of materials are reported separately, then use 

Exhibit B-6 to capture those costs.

Using the financial information available, fill out the table, including a description of the activity, the total 

encampment-related spending, and the time period over which the spending occurred. Use the “total cost” 

column to make any needed adjustments to project or interpolate costs to cover the entire time period of 

the analysis. For example, if the public utility has only costs available for the past 6 months, then a 

reasonable estimate of costs for the entire year would probably be double that amount. As discussed 

above, be sure to identify during interviews whether the spending reported is typical and ongoing or 

whether it is a one-time or unusual cost. Any projections for future spending or necessary assumptions 

about past spending should be based on expenditures considered typical and ongoing. 

The funding source column is needed to ensure that costs are not being double counted. For example, if a 

local nonprofit is responsible for outreach to residents of encampments but that activity is being funded 

with a contract with the city, the cost may appear in the financial reports of both the city’s and the 

nonprofit’s financial reports. It is important to count each cost only once. 

The “share of activity relating to homeless residing in encampments” column is important when financial 

information includes other activities as well. For example, a homeless outreach team may primarily work 

with people in encampments but also provide services to homeless people residing elsewhere. In those 

cases, ask the point of contact to provide an estimate of the share of the work that is specifically related to 

homeless encampments. 

An example entry for the budget approach is in italics in the first line of each exhibit. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌55

Exhibit B-5: Budget Approach to Cost Data—Labor Costs

Name of Program/Stakeholder: 

Program Point of Contact (Name, Phone, Email): 

Source of Data (e.g., FY 2018 Budget):

Date of Costs (e.g., FY 2018): 

Labor Costs

Activity 

Detailed Description of 

Activity

Total 

EncampmentRelated Budget 

or Spending

Time Period 

Over Which 

Activities 

Occurred

Total Cost, 

Date (e.g., 

2018)

Funding 

Source(s)

Percentage of 

Activity Related to 

Homeless Residing 

in Encampments Notes

Clearing 

encampments

Identifying, reporting, 

coordinating encampment 

response on public utility 

property $10,000 2018 $10,000 Public utility 100% 

 

 

 

 

Total $10,000 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌56

Exhibit B-6: Budget Approach to Cost Data—Cost of Materials

Cost of Materials

Item Total Expenditures Total Cost, Date Funding Source(s) Notes

Fencing $8,000 $ 8,000 Public utility 

Totals $8,000 

Alternatives to the budget approach

For stakeholders focused primarily on work unrelated to encampments, financial records such as budgets or expenditures may not be particularly 

informative, unless the budget for activities related to encampments appear in specific line items. As noted above, a public works department’s 

budget is unlikely to specify costs of trash collection from encampments. In these cases, interviews with department leadership and staff members 

may provide the most accurate information on encampment-related costs. This information will be used with the FTE or activity-based costing 

approach. 

FTE approach 

When collecting cost data for analysis using the FTE approach or the activity-based costing approach, ask stakeholders to describe all of the 

encampment-related activities they conduct in as much detail as possible. 

The FTE approach should be used when the stakeholder knows how many FTEs are used to conduct encampment-related activities. For example, 

if one maintenance crew member spends half of his or her time cleaning encampments, then there are .5 FTEs dedicated to that activity. In 

addition to the number of FTEs, you will need to gather data on the salary and benefits of the FTEs involved. To get the total cost annual of each 

activity, multiply the number of FTEs by the hourly wages and benefits by 2,080 (the number of working hours in a year, assuming that activities 

occurred over an entire year).
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌57

Exhibit B-7 provides a template for collecting FTE-based cost data. An example entry for the FTE approach is in italics in the first line of the 

exhibit.

Exhibit B-7: FTE Approach to Cost Data – Labor Costs

Name of Program/Stakeholder: 

Program Point of Contact (Name, 

Phone, Email): 

Date of Costs (e.g., FY 2018): 

Labor Costs

Activity

Detailed Description 

of Activity # FTEs

Staff 

Performing 

Activity 

(Name/Initials/

Staff Title) 

Hourly 

Salary and 

Fringe 

Benefits 

Time Period 

Over Which 

Activities 

Occurred (in 

years)

Total Cost, 

Date (# 

FTEs*hrly 

cost*time 

period)*2080

Funding 

Source(s)

Share of 

Activity 

Related 

Encampments Notes

Clearing 

encampments

Identifying, reporting, 

coordinating 

encampment response 

on public utility property 0.1 

Maintenance 

crews $ 60 1 $12,480

Public 

utility 100% 

Totals $12,480 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌58

Activity-based costing approach 

Using the activity-based costing approach requires a very detailed understanding of the activities being 

conducted by each stakeholder. In-depth interviews with each stakeholder are necessary to gather data 

that are as accurate as possible. This approach should be used when there is no reliable budget or other 

financial information available, and when the stakeholder cannot estimate the share of an FTE needed to 

conduct activities. As suggested by the name, this approach involves gathering details about the activities 

being conducted and building up a cost estimate based on those details. 

Begin by asking stakeholders to describe all of the encampment-related activities they conduct in as much 

detail as possible. Ask stakeholders to be specific, and ask probing questions to be sure the information 

they report covers all of the following information:

Then, for each activity (e.g., response to encampment), ask them to estimate how often the activity occurs 

and what the cost is. 

For example:

• Any direct costs (e.g., trash bags) 

• Units of activity provided per period (e.g., two trash collections) 

• Period (e.g., weekly, monthly) (e.g., two emergency responses per week) 

• Staff hours needed per unit of activity (e.g., 2 hours per trash collection) 

• Staff performing activity (names or initials)

• Annual FTE salary and fringe benefits of staff performing activity 

• Time period over which activities occurred (e.g., calendar year 2018) 

Exhibits B-8 and B-9 provide a template for collecting FTE-based cost data (labor cost in Exhibit B-8; 

cost of materials in Exhibit B-9). An example entry for the activity-based costing approach is in italics in 

the first line of the exhibits.
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌59

Exhibit B-8: Activity-Based Costing Approach to Cost Data—Labor Costs

Labor Costs

Activity 

Detailed 

Description 

of Activity

Period 

(e.g., 

weekly, 

monthly)

Units of 

Activity 

Provided 

per 

Period

Staff 

Hours 

Needed 

per Unit 

of 

Activity

Staff 

Performing 

Activity (Name/ 

Initials/ Staff 

Title) 

Hourly 

Salary 

and 

Fringe 

Benefits 

Time 

Period 

Over 

Which 

Activities 

Occurred

Total 

Hours 

(units x 

hrs/unit x 

# periods 

in year)

Total 

Cost 

(total 

hours x 

hrly 

costs)

Funding 

Source(s)

Share of 

Activity 

Related to 

Homeless 

Residing in 

Encampments Notes

Clearing 

encampments

Identifying, 

reporting, 

coordinating 

encampment 

response on 

public utility 

property Monthly 1 10

Maintenance 

crews $ 60 One year 120 $7,200

Public 

utility 100% 

Total $7,200 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌60

Exhibit B-9: Activity-Based Costing Approach to Cost Data—Cost of Materials

Cost of Materials

Item

Number of Items 

Purchased Over the 

Period Cost per Item

Period (e.g., per 

month, per week)

Time Period Over 

Which Expenditures 

Occurred Total Cost, Date

Funding 

Source(s) Notes

Fencing 1,000 feet of fencing $8/foot Per year 2018 $ 8,000 

Public 

utility 

Total $8,000 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌61

Analyze costs

With cost data collected, the final steps are to analyze the costs of your encampment response. This 

activity primarily involves organizing, categorizing the cost information, and determining how to present 

it based on the purpose of the analysis. Analysis involves the following steps: 

• Ensure that costs cover a consistent period of time. Although data that cover an identical time period 

are preferable, stakeholders may have provided data from varying time periods. If time periods vary, 

cost data must be prorated or extrapolated as needed to estimate costs for the selected time period.

• Identify useful dimensions of analysis. The methods used to categorize and present the data will 

depend on the questions the analysis is intended to answer. If the question is only about the total 

amount that stakeholders in the city spent during the selected period, then analysis simply involves 

adding up costs from each of the stakeholders. More likely, you will also want to answer questions 

about how much was spent on each type of activity, who the funders were, and how much was spent 

by each stakeholder or type of stakeholder within the city, among other questions. 

• Categorize costs appropriately to answer the questions the analysis is intended to address. Sorting 

costs into the appropriate category is more art than science and can be the most challenging aspect of 

the analysis. Categories should be defined carefully but should also be flexible enough to encapsulate 

multiple activities and stakeholders. A very fine-grained analysis—such as one that reports on 15 or 

more categories of activities—can overwhelm consumers of the information with too much detail to 

be absorbed. At least for an initial analysis, information should be aggregated into no more than about 

10 categories. 

As noted above, you may want to categorize costs in a number of different ways: 

• Costs by type of implementer (e.g., police department, other city department, homeless services 

provider, independent authority, other). 

• Costs by activity (e.g., outreach and housing navigation; homeless outreach team; substance use 

program; medical assistance; financial assistance; encampment clearance; encampment prevention; 

shelter; permanent supportive housing; other). 

• Costs by funding source (e.g., city government, federal government, in-kind donation, private, 

independent authority, other). 

• Costs by type (e.g., labor and nonlabor). 

• Funding by type (e.g., cash and in-kind). 

With costs organized into categories, the information can be presented to answer the questions of interest. 

Bar charts, pie charts, and other graphical displays can present the information in ways that consumers 

can easily grasp and absorb. Presentations can include total costs, costs by activity type, costs by 

implementing partner, funding sources for costs, and types of costs. 
City Approaches to Encampments and What They Cost ▌62

References

Burnes, D., and C. Brown. An Assessment of Adams County’s Efforts to Address Homelessness. Denver, 

CO: University of Denver, 2016. 

Chamard, S. Homeless Encampments. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Problem-Specific Guides 

Series No. 56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, 2010. 

City of San Francisco, Office of the Controller. “Encampment Homelessness in San Francisco: Lessons 

Learned at the Navigation Center,” in Perspectives from the Navigation Center, Report No. 2, 2. San 

Francisco, CA: City of San Francisco, 2015. http://hsh.sfgov.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/Perspectives-from-the-Navigation-Center-Report-2.pdf.

Cohen, R., W. Yetvin, and J. Khadduri. Understanding Encampments of People Experiencing 

Homelessness and Community Responses: Emerging Evidence as of Late 2018. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), January 2019. 

Donley, A., and J. Wright. “Safer Outside: A Qualitative Exploration of Homeless People’s Resistance to 

Homeless Shelters.” Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 12, no. 4 (2012): 288–306.

doi:10.1080/15228932.2012.695645. 

Herring, C., and M. Lutz. The Roots and Implications of the USA’s Homeless Tent Cities. City 19, no. 5 

(2015): 689–701. doi:10.1080/13604813.2015.1071114. 

Lutz, M. “Uncommon Claims to the Commons: Homeless Tent Cities in the US.” In Urban Commons: 

Moving Beyond State and Market, edited by M. Dellenbaugh, M. Kip, M. Bieniok, A. Müller, and M. 

Schwegmann, 101–116. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser, 2015. doi:10.1515/9783038214953.

Metraux, S., M. Cusack, F. Graham, D. Metzger, and D. Culhane. An Evaluation of the City of 

Philadelphia’s Kensington Encampment Resolution Pilot. Philadelphia: City of Philadelphia, 2019. 

https://www.phila.gov/documents/an-evaluation-of-the-citys-kensington-encampment-resolutionpilot/.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Permanent Supportive Housing: Evaluating 

the Evidence for Improving Health Outcomes Among People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. 

Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17226/25133. 

National Coalition for the Homeless. Swept Away: Reporting on the Encampment Closure Crisis.

Washington, DC: Author, 2016. 

National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. Welcome Home: The Rise of Tent Cities in the 

United States. Washington, DC: Author, 2014. 

Shinn, M., and J. Khadduri. In the Midst of Plenty: Homelessness and What To Do About It. Wiley 

Contemporary Social Issues Series. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2020. 

Sparks, T. Citizens Without Property: Informality and Political Agency in a Seattle, Washington 

Homeless Encampment. Environment and Planning 49, no. 1 (2017): 86–103. 

doi:10.1177/0308518X16665360.

Speer, J. “‘It’s Not Like Your Home’: Homeless Encampments, Housing Projects, and the Struggle over 

Domestic Space.” Antipode 49, no. 2 (2017): 517–35. doi:10.1111/anti.12275.

———. The Rise of the Tent Ward: Homeless Camps in the Era of Mass Incarceration. Political 

Geography 62 (2018): 160–69. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.11.005. 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2021