On July 24, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets”, which aims to address homelessness across the United States through controversial measures.
The order suggests a strategy that involves shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings under the guise of humane treatment, utilizing civil commitment.
However, this approach is not novel or compassionate, nor is it supported by substantial evidence.
Historically, the institutionalization of people with mental illness has resulted in deplorable conditions.
In 1970, nearly 370,000 individuals resided in state and county psychiatric hospitals, with places like Bryce Hospital in Alabama exemplifying the dire circumstances.
Bryce, which housed around 5,000 patients, had only three psychiatrists on staff and was often criticized for its horrific conditions, reminiscent of a warehouse rather than a medical facility.
While treatment methods have improved over the decades, the widespread assumption that involuntary hospitalization yields benefits beyond crisis stabilization remains unsubstantiated.
On the contrary, evidence points to a “revolving door” phenomenon, where individuals frequently cycle in and out of the system without long-term solutions.
Essentially, without robust community resource connections upon discharge, involuntary hospitalization serves merely to postpone the inevitable.
Bryce Hospital currently holds only 268 adult beds, reflecting the national trend of deinstitutionalization aimed at providing community care, which has largely failed to materialize.
Consequently, many individuals with mental health issues find themselves incarcerated, as the three largest psychiatric facilities in the U.S. today are jails in Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago.
As of 2020, state and county psychiatric hospital beds had dwindled to fewer than 32,000—a staggering drop of over 90% since 1970.
This shortage raises significant concerns regarding Trump’s prospect of institutionalizing homeless individuals, especially given the lack of political will to create quality inpatient facilities.
Moreover, the order claims to offer “humane treatment,” yet this assertion is contradicted by substantial Medicaid cuts in recent years.
While “civil commitment” is referenced regarding mental health treatment, the order simultaneously encourages criminalization via measures such as banning “urban camping.”
This combination effectively positions jails and prisons—ill-equipped for treatment—as the default response to homelessness.
The military’s involvement in addressing homelessness, particularly in Washington D.C., further demonstrates the impracticality of this strategy.
Advocates of public safety may argue that such measures are necessary, but this view fundamentally misunderstands the situation.
The reality is that incarcerating significant numbers of unhoused individuals would alleviate only a fraction of crime.
Reports indicate that crimes associated with the homeless population make up less than ten percent of overall crime rates in cities like Los Angeles.
In 2020, amidst a peak homeless population of about 40,000, only 33 homicides involved a homeless suspect or victim.
The potential impact of treating psychotic and mood disorders suggests only a modest reduction in interpersonal violence, estimated at around four percent.
However, if homelessness itself is treated as a criminal offense, as suggested by recent Supreme Court rulings, then the dynamic shifts dramatically.
President Trump’s approach appears to endorse a more punitive stance—essentially suggesting a blanket solution of incarceration without consideration for rehabilitation or support.
An additional glaring issue with the executive order is its directive to cease support for effective “housing first” programs.
This approach focuses on swiftly securing housing for homeless individuals, paired with supportive services that do not require sobriety or treatment compliance as prerequisites.
Threshold requirements often seen in other programs tend to exclude those most in need, inadvertently erecting barriers to essential support services.
Research shows that “housing first” initiatives not only prove cost-effective but also yield extensive benefits for participants that quantitative measures often overlook.
A 2022 review indicated that investing in “housing first” saved government entities $1.30 for every dollar spent, due to reduced healthcare and legal system expenditures.
Moreover, the intrinsic values of stable housing—such as privacy, security, and comfort—have lasting positive effects on individuals that evade numerical assessment.
While the executive order does express intent to expand mental health and drug courts, the broader implications of the policies it proposes raise significant ethical and practical concerns.
In conclusion, the measures outlined in President Trump’s executive order largely reflect outdated and discredited strategies rather than progressive solutions to the pressing issue of homelessness.
image source from：latimes
