A homeless man in Santa Monica, California. (Wikicommons)

Homeless advocates are criticizing the executive order President Donald Trump signed last week, aimed at removing people from the streets by imposing fines and forcibly committing people to mental health or drug treatment. 

Those who work directly with the unhoused every day point out that it is useless for Trump to make mandates – signing yet another executive order – without the infrastructure to support it.  

Forcibly committing people to mental health hospitals when there are so few, which often require insurance, is impractical, said Mel Tillekeratne, co-founder & executive director at End Homelessness California (The Shower of Hope).

“Whether a person is homeless or housed, we don’t have psychiatric beds to help these people. So it doesn’t matter how many laws we try to push around until we actually create the infrastructure,” said Tillekeratne. “For the folks who are suffering from severe mental health issues, we put them into psychiatric care for a couple of days, and we kick them out because we don’t have the funding and the space for them. So they never fully recover or get the treatment they deserve.”

Further, fining people with little money, who are not able to pay fines, only increases their risk for arrest and further floods the jail system, which is not set up to handle homelessness.

Criminalizing homelessness, said Rowan Vansleve, president at Hope the Mission, is not only the “wrong thing to do” but is also impractical in its implementation, because we lack the infrastructure for such tactics. 

“Our prison systems are too full,” said Vansleve. “Our homeless shelters are at capacity.” 

Trump’s order directs Cabinet heads to prioritize funding for cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, and that commit those suffering from mental health issues to treatment without consent, with the goal of creating a safer environment for the public. 

“Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order,” the order states. “Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens.”

The administration claims that the “overwhelming majority” of homeless people are a threat to public safety because they are “addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.”

Vansleve agrees that there are some cases where leaving people in the streets who are suffering from extreme mental health or addiction issues without administering care and treatment “would be really cruel and inhumane,” but fears that this kind of directive could be used to criminalize poverty instead.

“I could take you right now to any one of our interim housing shelters and introduce you to countless people who aren’t suffering from an addiction, who aren’t suffering from mental health issues, they’re simply somebody who has been through some trauma, or have fallen behind on rent, or they’re just part of an economic system that kind of left them behind,” said Vansleve. “And those people, they’re really at risk of being criminalized in a situation like this.”

Tillekeratne noted that “we’ve tried this” before, and it didn’t work to fix the homelessness epidemic we are now facing.

“We try these small methods, short-term methods that we think will help,” Tillekeratne said, “but we don’t invest in the long-term resources we need.”

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments, even when adequate shelter is unavailable. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also already been pressuring cities to clean up homeless encampments. In May, he encouraged cities to pass illegal dumping laws and released a “model ordinance” that would make it illegal to camp for more than three nights in one location or build semi-permanent shelters. 

The governor has also funneled money into programs that treat mental health and substance abuse disorders, even if that means without their consent. His CARE Court program gives judges the authority to place people into mental health and addiction treatment plans, but does not allow for forced compliance. 

“In California, we have the CARE court system that is slowly starting to roll out,” said Vansleve. “My hope is that we’re able to find that perfect compromise and balance, where we’re not restricting people’s freedoms, but when someone is in desperate, life-threatening need, we’re able to provide them the treatment and care that they deserve – with dignity, love and respect.”

The executive order, Tillekeratne noted, is unlikely to change much in the region, since similar directives are already in place at the state level, yet local authorities manage homelessness differently.

LA County has taken an approach of encampment resolution, prevention and housing. Notably, LA Mayor Karen Bass boasts the “Inside Safe” initiative, which aims to bring people from encampments into temporary housing and hotels until more permanent housing becomes available. But with increasing housing costs and a shortage of long-term housing to meet demand, this approach has also faced criticisms.

Trump differs from California’s approach to homelessness on two key matters. The president wants to defund “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” programs, which focus on preventing overdoses and making drug use safer. He also wants to abolish federal support for “housing first” initiatives, which support homeless individuals getting housing even if they are still abusing drugs. 

Much of the current federal funding goes towards housing vouchers, said Tillekeratne, and if Trump were to pull back on that funding, it could have severe implications in LA, which is already behind in providing permanent, sustainable housing. 

“If the federal government really wants to help, what they can do is increase the amount of housing vouchers they give to California, and help the state and the county of LA build more psychiatric infrastructure,” said Tillekeratne. “That’s the way for us to get out of this [homeless crisis]. Not just by ticketing people.”

Gabriel Arizon contributed to this article.