IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/povpop/v10y2018i2p159-176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Implications of a Punitive Approach to Homelessness: A Local Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Wilking
  • Susan Roll
  • David Philhour
  • Peter Hansen
  • Holly Nevarez

Abstract

Cities large and small are increasingly using public safety policies to address local concerns about homelessness. In 2013, Chico, California, followed suit by passing several ordinances, most notably, a “sit‐lie” ordinance that prohibits individuals from sitting or lying in commercial districts and other public spaces. Broadly, this article explores the implications of this punitive approach to homelessness. Specifically, relying primarily upon arrest data extending over six and a half years, we explore how enforcement of the sit‐lie ordinance affected arrest rates of homeless individuals, as well as the geographic location of those arrests. Our expectations are supported—arrests of homeless individuals increased significantly in the “post sit‐lie” period, and the location of arrests clearly shifted away from the downtown area. Finally, given economic motivations of the ordinances, we estimate the costs to city law enforcement of policing the homeless population and find that costs are nearly twice as large as police department estimates. 不论是大城市还是小城市,都越来越多地采取公共安全政策处理有关无家可归的问题。 2013年,加利福尼亚州的奇科市就此问题也跟着出台了一些法令,其中最引人注目的是 “禁止坐躺” (Sit‐lie)法令,该法令禁止人们在商业区和其他公共场所随地就坐或躺下。概括而言,本文将探讨这种惩罚性措施对无家可归者可能造成的影响。具体而言,本文将主要对超过六年半的逮捕数据进行分析,以探讨 “禁止坐躺” 法令的执行是如何影响无家可归者的被逮捕率及其被逮捕的地理位置。我们的预期也得到了证实 ——在 “禁止坐躺” 法令出台期间,对违反这一法令的无家可归者的逮捕大幅上升,并且逮捕地点明显远离了市区。最后,考虑到该法令的经济动机,笔者预估了城市执法机关对无家可归者进行治安管制的成本,并发现该成本几乎是警察部门预估的两倍。 Las ciudades, tanto grandes como pequeñas, están utilizando más y más políticas de seguridad pública para abordar temas locales que tienen que ver con el desamparo. En 2013, Chico, CA siguió este ejemplo al aprobar varias reglas, más notablemente, la regla de “sentar‐acostar” que prohíbe a los individuos sentarse o acostarse en distritos comerciales y otros espacios públicos. En general, este documento explora las implicaciones de esta aproximación punitiva para el desamparo. Específicamente, el apoyarse primordialmente en datos de arrestos que se extienden a más de seis años y medio, exploramos cómo la acción policíaca de la regla “sentarse‐acostarse” tuvo un impacto en la proporción de arrestos de individuos sin hogar, así como también la ubicación geográfica de esos arrestos. Nuestras expectativas están sustentadas – los arrestos de los individuos sin hogar incrementaron significativamente en el periodo después de la regla “acostarse‐sentarse” y la ubicación de los arrestos claramente se mudó fuera del área central de la ciudad. Finalmente, dadas las motivaciones económicas de las reglas, estimamos que los costos para la ciudad de la acción policíaca en contra de la población desamparada, y encontramos que los costos son el doble de lo que estima el departamento de policía.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Wilking & Susan Roll & David Philhour & Peter Hansen & Holly Nevarez, 2018. "Understanding the Implications of a Punitive Approach to Homelessness: A Local Case Study," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 159-176, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:159-176
    DOI: 10.1002/pop4.210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.210
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pop4.210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weingast, Barry R & Moran, Mark J, 1983. "Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(5), pages 765-800, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    2. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    3. Lehr, William & Sicker, Douglas, 2017. "Communications Act 2021," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169478, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    4. Michael Makowsky & Thomas Stratmann, 2014. "Politics, unemployment, and the enforcement of immigration law," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 131-153, July.
    5. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    6. Karen Maguire, 2013. "Drill Baby Drill? Political and Market Influences on Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing in the Western United States," Economics Working Paper Series 1401, Oklahoma State University, Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business, revised Apr 2013.
    7. repec:wvu:wpaper:09-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Yoshiharu Oritani, 2010. "Public governance of central banks: an approach from new institutional economics," BIS Working Papers 299, Bank for International Settlements.
    9. Joshua Hall & Amanda Ross & Christopher Yencha, 2015. "The political economy of the Essential Air Service program," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 147-164, October.
    10. Bellò, Benedetta & Spano, Alessandro, 2015. "Governing the purple zone: How politicians influence public managers," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 354-365.
    11. B. Zorina Khan, 1999. "Legal Monopoly: Patents and Antitrust Litigation in U.S. Manufacturing, 1970-1998," NBER Working Papers 7068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Susan R. Smart, 1994. "The Consequences of Appointment Methods and Party Control for Telecommunications Pricing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 301-323, June.
    13. Bozeman, Barry & Jung, Jiwon, 2017. "Bureaucratization in Academic Research Policy: What Causes It?," Annals of Science and Technology Policy, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 133-214, May.
    14. Jamie Bologna Pavlik & Maria Tackett, 2022. "The Effect of Presidential Particularism on Economic Well-Being: A County-Level Analysis," Public Finance Review, , vol. 50(2), pages 135-168, March.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "The Role of Direct Democracy and Federalism in Local Power," IEW - Working Papers 209, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Thomas Braendle & Alois Stutzer, 2013. "Political selection of public servants and parliamentary oversight," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 45-76, February.
    17. Adam R. Fremeth & Guy L. F. Holburn & Richard G. Vanden Bergh, 2016. "Corporate Political Strategy in Contested Regulatory Environments," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 272-284, December.
    18. Facchini, Giovanni & Testa, Cecilia, 2021. "The rhetoric of closed borders: Quotas, lax enforcement and illegal immigration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    19. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution," IEW - Working Papers 167, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Hansen, Wendy L & Prusa, Thomas J, 1997. "The Economics and Politics of Trade Policy: An Empirical Analysis of ITC Decision Making," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 230-245, May.
    21. Miltos Makris, 2003. "Administrative Bureaus with Standard Operating Procedures," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 03/062, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:159-176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1944-2858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.