Rethinking the policing of homelessness: navigating the urban ‘game’ as social peacekeepers

ABSTRACT

This paper considers interactions between police and individuals experiencing homelessness, a fundamental aspect of contemporary urban dynamics. The challenges and vulnerabilities faced by the ‘street population’ intersect with policing priorities in ways that prompt re-evaluation of conventional policing methods. Beginning with an exploration of existing research, Section 1 analyses police interactions with the street population, illuminating the complexities, challenges, and outcomes of these encounters. Section 2 takes an ethics-based approach to scrutinise the implicit assumptions and values underpinning traditional policing. By dissecting the moral implications of these encounters, the paper underscores the necessity for an alternative framework grounded in compassion, empathy, and social welfare. Section 3 considers the potential for a paradigm shift in policing methods concerning the street population towards community-based strategies, restorative justice practices, and collaborative partnerships between police and social service providers. By combining research findings, ethical considerations, and potential strategies, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of these interactions, ultimately seeking to enhance the well-being of people experiencing homelessness and promote community harmony. By challenging existing paradigms and advocating for a more empathetic and socially conscious approach, the paper strives to ignite meaningful transformations that address the complex dynamics between police and the street population.

KEYWORDS:

• Homelessness
• policing
• ethics

Introduction

Interactions between the police and individuals experiencing homelessness constitute a critical and complex aspect of contemporary urban dynamics. The ‘street population’ face numerous challenges and vulnerabilities, which intersect with the activities and priorities of policing in various ways, particularly due to the complex interplay between illegal activities, homelessness, systemic disparities, and methods of survival (Hein 2011, Ee and Zhang 2022). The nature of these encounters can have profound implications not only for the individuals involved but also for the well-being of the larger communities of which they are part.

Current research in police-public interactions predominantly revolves around Procedural Justice Theory (PJT), which posits that perceiving these interactions as fair fosters public trust and police legitimacy (Walters and Bolger 2019). PJT emphasises that people interacting with police should have the opportunity to express their views, expect fair and unbiased decisions from officers, demand respectful treatment, and believe that the police's intentions are trustworthy. While research largely supports PJT (Walters and Bolger 2019), debate over its limitations persists (Martin and Bradford 2020). Notably, PJT research has primarily focused on the ‘general public’, and often not those who have most contact with police (Kyprianides et al. 2021a). Relatedly, the ‘encounter’ central to PJT, as understood within the field of criminology, has typically been portrayed as a singular, isolated event involving one or a few ‘citizens’ and one or a few officers, without considering historical or contextual factors (Kyprianides et al. 2021a). This paper concentrates on the marginalised and disconnected homeless population (Fitzpatrick et al. 2011), whose interactions with the police are influenced by multiple factors that preceded the interaction and which will shadow its implications as they ripple forward from it (Braga et al. 2019). These can include multiple previous interactions, often between the same set of individuals, and the frequent presence of others within the same interaction (e.g. other members of the street population and other professionals, such as outreach teams) (Stuart 2015, Sanders and Albanese 2017).

Traditionally, policing the street population relied on conventional methods and practices aimed at maintaining public order and enforcing the law (Cooper 2016, Robinson 2019). However, an emerging body of research has shed light on the limitations and ethical issues associated with these approaches (Watts et al. 2018, Braga et al. 2019, NPCC 2022, Goodison et al. 2023). This paper explores the significance of interactions between the police and the street population, and in doing so identifies a need for a nuanced ethical evaluation of these encounters. By critically questioning the underlying assumptions and values that guide traditional policing methods in this arena, we aim to challenge prevailing practices and propose alternative approaches that prioritise compassion, empathy, and social welfare.

Section 1 analyses police interactions with the street population, and the complexities, challenges, and outcomes of these encounters, highlighting that traditional enforcement-focused policing strategies are inadequate for addressing the complexities of homelessness. Our argument is underpinned by research findings that highlight the high levels of offending among the homeless that are not effectively addressed by current police interventions, the importance of procedural justice in fostering cooperation, and the necessity of changing the living situations of the homeless to impact their offending behaviours. In Section 2 we draw upon existing studies and our own research findings to scrutinise four issues that stem from the current misalignment between police practices and the homeless community's needs: the police’s limited effectiveness in handling homelessness on their own, the typical actions they resort to, the reasons behind these actions, and the effects these actions have on people experiencing homelessness. We contend that instead of relying on punitive measures, police should adopt the role of social peacekeepers, working in partnership with community-based initiatives, restorative justice practices, and collaborative efforts with social service providers. These alternative policing strategies are explored in Section 3, in which we argue for a foundational shift in the ethical framework guiding police interactions with the homeless – from an ethics of justice to an ethics of care and recognition. This new approach emphasises empathy, understanding, and communication, aiming to transform policing into a supportive service that contributes positively to resolving the broader social challenge of homelessness.

In this paper, we draw on various theoretical frameworks and models of policing, alongside ethical frameworks to bridge the gap between documenting existing practices and advocating for an evolved policing model. We provide evidence and discussion around current practices to establish a baseline understanding of how the homeless population is currently engaged by police. Building on this foundation, we advocate for a significant shift towards a partnership-based form of policing. This advocacy is grounded, first and foremost, in acknowledgement of the shortcomings of purely enforcement-focused approaches. We seek to reintegrate the concept of social peacekeeping into the discourse on policing and homelessness, and we propose an ethical framework for policing that combines an ethics of care and recognition with procedural justice principles. This synthesis offers a comprehensive perspective on fostering respectful and effective communication between police and homeless communities, marking a significant advancement in both theory and practice.

Our overarching argument is that policing strategies should transition from enforcement-focused approaches, which exacerbate the challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness, to a social peacekeeping role that emphasises partnership, support, and an ethics of care and recognition. This shift would enable policing to contribute positively to addressing the complexities of homelessness through collaborative, empathetic, and communicative methods.

Section 1: research on police-street population interactions

This section summarises the findings of research conducted on interactions between the police and the street population, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).¹ As part of this project, we conducted an ethnographic study that involved observing and shadowing policing patrols, and embedding ourselves within the homeless community, to gain insights into the interactions between the police and people experiencing homelessness. We also administered a survey to 200 members of the street population, aiming to gather their perspectives and experiences. Additionally, we conducted interviews with both senior and operational police officers who were responsible for policing the street population.

Observations and interviews

We used ethnographic methodologies to study a specific street population in an inner London borough. This population included individuals with histories of homelessness, substance use disorder, sex work, and imprisonment. The study was conducted in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to focus on an ‘isolated community’ with strained relations and policing issues marked by conflict or questions of legitimacy.

To conduct the research, the first author embedded herself within the community through three main avenues: a charity providing street outreach to support people experiencing homelessness, the MPS Street Population Engagement Team, and directly within the homeless community itself. Over six months, totalling approximately 180 h, the first author shadowed multiagency and charity outreach patrols and spent time with the street population to observe their everyday lives and experiences. This immersive approach allowed for the collection of verbal data via interviews, visual observations of daily life and police interactions, and participant-generated content like photos and diary entries. Through collective thematic analysis, we processed this rich data set, focusing on identifying recurring themes and theoretically significant issues (see Kyprianides et al. 2021a for more details on the methodology employed).

Survey

In addition to the qualitative programme of work, we conducted a survey with 200 individuals experiencing homelessness in London, focusing on their views of the police, including aspects of procedural justice, legitimacy, and police effectiveness in general and towards street-specific behaviours. The questionnaire also explored compliance with laws related to minor crimes (e.g. shoplifting), street-specific activities (e.g. begging), and serious crimes (e.g. robbery), as well as perceptions of the risk of police detection and punishment. We applied statistical models to examine compliance in these areas, investigating both direct and indirect effects of police procedural justice on legitimacy and compliance, and the role of perceived police effectiveness and deterrence in motivating compliance (see Kyprianides et al. 2021b, 2021c for more details on the methodology employed).

The data from this project has contributed to several publications involving the current authors. The observational and interview data informed a study on the application of PJT in understanding police interactions with marginalised communities (Kyprianides et al. 2021a). Additionally, the survey data was instrumental in two separate analyses: one exploring the dynamics of social identity, legitimacy, and cooperative behaviour between ‘general population’ and ‘street population’ samples (Kyprianides et al. 2021b), and another investigating compliance behaviours within the street population (Kyprianides et al. 2021c). In the current paper, though, we synthesise the collected data across the project to highlight three significant findings that emerge from the comprehensive analysis.

Homelessness, policing and crime

Three pivotal findings emerged from the research project outlined above (Kyprianides et al. 2021a, 2021b, 2021c), each of which undergird the current paper.

The first finding is that despite the commitment of significant police resources to addressing the offending behaviour of people living on the streets, the street population engage in very high levels of offending that are barely amenable to police intervention. Our survey (Kyprianides et al. 2021c) indicated that participants ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ engaged in low-level (e.g. shoplifting and vandalism; 40%), street-population specific (e.g. begging and anti-social behaviour; 50%), and higher-level (e.g. burglary and violence; 26%) criminal activities.² This level of offending behaviour clearly warrants some sort of ‘official’ state or governmental response – but should this be a police response? What options do the police, specifically, have for responding to the offending behaviour of people living on the streets?

In the realm of police interventions aimed at reducing or preventing crime, the landscape is largely dominated by two key approaches. The first is centred around trust-building and legitimacy-based policing (Tyler 2023). The second approach is deterrence (Nagin 2013). While there are notable exceptions, such as problem-solving strategies, these two frameworks largely guide contemporary discourse on how police actions can effectively mitigate crime by influencing the behaviour of individuals they encounter.

Previous research conducted in various contexts has shown that procedural justice is closely linked to legitimacy, and legitimacy, in turn, is associated with compliance (Walters and Bolger 2019). However, we found that procedural justice and legitimacy did not motivate compliance within this particular context. This was largely because engaging in unlawful activities was crucial for survival on the streets. The participants in our research faced the pressing need for money to secure food, accommodation, and substances to alleviate the stress and despair of their situation. While being treated with dignity and respect was important to them, the necessity to offend to meet their basic needs overshadowed any potential effect of procedural justice.

By contrast, deterrence-based policing strategies did appear to influence compliance among the street population: but only in relation to what might be termed vagrancy laws. We found evidence indicating that police actions could create a perceived risk of punishment, deterring offending by leading people experiencing homelessness to believe that the police were effective in addressing crimes specific to their group, such as street drinking and begging. However, deterrence-based strategies seemed to have minimal impact on involvement in ‘broader’ criminal activities, in which many also engaged, such as shoplifting and burglary. The perceived risk of punishment generated by police in these cases was unrelated to reported offending behaviour.

Neither procedural justice nor deterrence strategies, then, significantly affected minor or more serious crimes that were not directly associated with life on the streets. While deterrence-based policing may alter behaviours related to offenses directly linked to homelessness, such as violations of vagrancy laws, it does not extend the same level of influence over more serious or unrelated criminal activities, thereby delineating a clear distinction in the effectiveness of such strategies based on the nature of the crime. It appeared that for this group of individuals, most of whom regularly interacted with the police, alternative approaches to addressing their crisis-related offending and other behaviours must primarily be sought beyond established modes of policing in this context, which as we discuss below focused, perhaps inevitably, on deterrence. Despite significant police resources being directed towards managing the offending behaviour of the street population, these efforts have had limited success. A purely enforcement-centric approach is therefore likely to be at the very least inadequate to addressing offending behaviour among this group, hinting at the need for alternative strategies that go beyond traditional policing methods to address the root causes of such behaviours.

The second finding is that procedural justice is still important because it fosters inclusion and cooperation. Despite the lack of any apparent link between procedural justice, legitimacy and offending behaviour, our research found that procedural justice played a significant role in shaping cooperative behaviour among members of the street population (Kyprianides et al. 2021b). When respondents felt they were treated fairly by officers, they were more inclined to assist the police by providing information, for instance. Additionally, even amongst this extremely marginalised population, the experience of procedurally just policing was associated with a stronger sense of inclusion and belonging within society (Kyprianides et al. 2021b). This finding carries important implications for the mental health and well-being of a group of individuals who typically endure feelings of degradation and exclusion, a point we return to below.

Finding 2 therefore underlines the importance of procedural justice. By showing that procedural justice – treating people with fairness, respect, and dignity – fosters inclusion and cooperation, this serves as a segue into discussing alternative policing models. It highlights the value of building positive relationships between the police and people experiencing homelessness, suggesting that approaches which prioritise these elements could be more effective in addressing the complex issues faced by this population.

The third finding is that from a specifically policing perspective the only way to address the offending of people living on the streets is to change their situation. Individuals within the street population had the capacity to, and indeed experienced a certain level of, trust in the police. They could recount instances of procedurally fair encounters with officers, and they often believed that the police were effective in apprehending criminals. However, despite these sentiments, their trust and perceptions did not often translate into compliance or self-regulation. Regardless of how they perceived or interacted with the police, many engaged in offending on an almost continuous basis. This persistent non-compliance stemmed from the fact that adhering to the law would deprive them of the necessary resources for survival. This fundamental reality profoundly influenced how people living on the streets responded to police activities, as well as the types of policy interventions that could effectively address their behaviour (Kyprianides et al. 2021a).

Changing the circumstances of the homeless thus seems central. Simply addressing the symptoms (offending behaviour) without tackling the underlying causes (homelessness and its associated challenges) is insufficient. We argue below that this indicates that policing strategies need to evolve to not only manage but also contribute to resolving the broader social issue of homelessness, implying a move towards more collaborative approaches that can support individuals in changing their situation.

The core message here seems to be that it is unlikely there is a police-centric solution to offending behaviour within this group. As we describe below, promotion of collaborative police and social services interventions, along with multi-agency initiatives, should aim to modify the circumstances faced by people experiencing homelessness rather than solely focusing on their offending behaviour. While the police may well have a role to play in this, particularly in identifying individuals or locations requiring interventions, long-term and even short-term solutions must be delivered through services that liberate those living on the streets from the psychological, social and physical challenges and entrapments they face. Yet despite this, police have, and seem very likely to continue to have, a lot of interaction with people living on the streets. This poses a fundamental question. When police are interacting with the street population what should they do? What aims should they seek to achieve, and what means should they use? These seem, to us, to be primarily ethical questions, and it is to these issues we now turn.

Section 2: policing the homeless: an ethical dilemma

In this section, we scrutinise four issues that stem from the current misalignment between police practices and the homeless community's needs: the limited effectiveness of police in handling homelessness on their own, the typical actions they resort to, the reasons behind these actions, and the effects these actions have on people experiencing homelessness.

Policing limitations in homelessness interventions

The presence and, frequently, behaviour of people experiencing homelessness challenges the police to reconsider their societal role, the alliances they form, and the activities they engage in (Kleinig 1993). Many might view the homeless as responsible for their plight, unwilling to exert the effort to overcome challenging circumstances. However, this perspective is undoubtedly a significant distortion. The perception that criminal or self-destructive behaviours are prevalent among people experiencing homelessness is misleading. Such behaviours, when present, are typically responses to the adversities of homelessness, rather than inherent characteristics or the root causes of their situation (Baile 2019). The homeless serve as a manifestation of the wider society's failure to effectively address the local and broader individual and social factors at play (Crisis 2022), including the interconnectedness of unlawful activity, homelessness, structural inequality, and survival strategies (cf. Hein 2011, Ee and Zhang 2022).

The police, unable to solve but tasked to mediate systemic failures, stand at the nexus where homelessness impacts social life. An illustration of the challenges faced by the police emerges from one of the participants in our research. When asked if he would like to write a diary, keep a journal, or provide some other written contribution to the project, Budgie wrote a poem that captures eloquently the reality of living on the streets:

‘Playing the game’

Life on the streets is like playing a game,

only trouble is nobody’s rules are the same.

Everyone’s after the same piece of cake,

if you get to eat depends on the decisions you make.

Play the game well and you’ll have a good day,

make the wrong move could get you to pay.

Be alert and stay on your toes,

what could happen god only knows.

Keep your home and a roof over your head,

life out here you could end up dead.

No one’s immune it can happen to us all,

even the mighty have been known to fall.

So there’s a few lines, that somehow rhymes.

To bid you a very good day,

Play a good game and you will never have to pay.

Budgie, street poet, born to be free (4 August 2019)

Budgie's account exemplifies the predicament faced by the police, who are called upon to address a complex issue (‘nobody’s rules are the same’); a game with very high stakes for those involved – people can and do die on the streets of London. Police encounters with people experiencing homelessness are marked by risk and uncertainty, largely stemming from poverty, exacerbated by labour and housing market issues and individual factors such as specific demographic, personal, and social support attributes (Bramley and Fitzpatrick 2018). The picture Budgie paints – seen within its structural and institutional context – would again seem to be one that police officers and organisations are ill-equipped to deal with on their own.

Recognising the limitations that leave police ill-equipped to effectively address homelessness on their own, it becomes pertinent to examine the actions they currently take in the face of such challenges. What strategies are employed by police, and how do they utilise their limited toolkit in managing homelessness?

Approaches to policing the homeless

The discussion on police actions towards homelessness raises key questions: whether police should focus on removing homeless individuals from public spaces, strictly enforce public regulations, or take on a more social service-oriented role, providing support and working with other agencies to offer assistance. We outline three distinct approaches to police work, derived from Kleinig (1993), and how they manifest in relation to the homeless population.

Law enforcement

Police may favour a direct enforcement approach to homelessness for several reasons: it fits traditional views of police duties (Bowling et al. 2019), avoids the ethical complexities of homelessness (Adams 2017, Goodison et al. 2023), and offers clear legal grounds for action against public behaviours like sleeping, begging, or public drinking, disproportionately affecting people experiencing homelessness (Adams 2017, Robinson 2019). Such laws provide a basis for immediate legal actions, responding to pressures from local authorities and businesses concerned about the perceived negative impact of homelessness on public spaces. As one police officer that participated in our research put it:

We have laws that predominantly target rough sleepers, those addressing street drinking, and sleeping outside private premises – it's the straightforward approach, isn't it? Such police action removes them from the public's sight, and we are frequently urged to do exactly that by the public. I can't say I always agree with such police action, but at least it's a clear-cut decision of arrest or non-arrest compared to attempting to find tailored support for each individual's needs. Then, hopefully, at the point of arrest, the right authorities step in to try and help these people.

The police, by focusing solely on their law enforcement role, can limit their interaction with people experiencing homelessness to clear legal violations, positioning themselves as ‘neutral’ and leaving moral decisions to policy makers. However, this stance overlooks the nuanced reality of police work, where officers exercise discretion, especially for minor offenses, and the approach ignores the complex challenges faced by the homeless. Such enforcement can unfairly burden the homeless, who may have little to lose from arrest (Cooper 2016, Sanders and Albanese 2017, Goodison et al. 2023). Police officers, as individuals and enforcers, often recognise the harshness of strict regulation enforcement against the needy, leading them to sometimes overlook violations in favour of compassion (Police Executive Research Forum 2018), highlighting a disconnect between a purely enforcement-focused approach and the realities of homelessness. After an interaction with a member of the street population, one police officer who took part in our research remarked:

He’s a good bloke … honestly, I have hope for him, he wants to get off the street. It’s the ‘friends’, the people he hangs around with who just all smoke crack and inject. He probably is begging right now but I won’t put him down as begging. You are still entitled to your own opinion. I want to see the good in each and every one of them. Other police officers just want to see them arrested away from the street. If I didn’t agree with the arrest, I can question it and I can record it in my own report, that documents my own point of view.

Order maintenance

Expanding the police role from strict law enforcement to broader order maintenance broadens the strategies for addressing street homelessness. This approach allows for temporary ‘crackdowns’ on activities like begging or sleeping in public, the use of legal tools such as tickets, fines, court orders, or sentences like community correction orders and ‘anti-social behaviour orders’ to manage or deter the activities and movements of homeless individuals (Adams 2017, Sparks 2018).

The order maintenance approach, while similar to enforcement in some aspects, differs in its treatment of homelessness as more disruptive than criminal (Sparks 2018). It involves using laws, like park hours, to limit homeless presence, but often finds these measures inadequate. Police actions, such as area ‘sweeps’, are typically driven by complaints from businesses and the public, aiming not to punish or deter but simply to remove the homeless from certain areas.

Building on the discussion of order maintenance and enforcement approaches in managing homelessness, Beckett and Herbert (2009) delve into the challenges of urban poverty and homelessness in American cities, highlighting the adoption of ‘zero-tolerance’ and ‘broken window’ policing tactics aimed at removing ‘disorderly’ individuals from public spaces. Focusing on Seattle's pioneering role in this trend, they critique these policies for merely creating the appearance of solving urban disorder while being costly, ineffective in reducing crime, and neglecting the root causes of urban poverty. Interviews with those banished under such policies reveal the added hardships and obstacles to achieving self-sufficiency these measures impose on the homeless population.

The ‘order maintenance’ approach thus leads to segregation, specifically in the sense of enforcing policies that result in the separation, exclusion, or marginalisation of certain groups within society (Watts et al. 2018). Indeed, societal attitudes and policies towards homelessness often reflect a disconnect from the issue's reality. The focus on aggressive policing to manage visible symptoms of homelessness, rather than addressing its underlying causes, is not only morally questionable but also ineffective (Braga et al. 2019). Such strategies ignore the basic needs of the homeless population, which cannot simply be legislated or policed away.

Once again, for these reasons and others police officers often feel uneasy about adopting order maintenance approaches. As people dealing directly with the homeless population, they understand that in many cases people experiencing homelessness require compassion and support. They should not be viewed as challenges to be overcome but rather as members of the community in need of assistance and understanding (Police Executive Research Forum 2018, Watts et al. 2018). During a conversation with a police officer, he expressed his dissent from what he saw as the prevailing public sentiment that tends to regard individuals experiencing homelessness not as community members in need of support, but rather as issues to be resolved:

They are human beings … I think that what people don’t realise is that these rough sleepers and people like them who are locals here, this is their area, this is where they were born. This is where they live. You come and build all this posh stuff where they live and expect them to leave.

‘Social peacekeeping’

The social peacekeeping approach, encompassing a social work component, presents a more nuanced understanding of the police's role. As ‘social peacekeepers’, police responsibilities extend beyond crime prevention and apprehending criminals. They function as social coordinators, perhaps akin to referees in a game, facilitating the smooth flow of social interactions rather than solely focusing on catching rule violations. When infractions create an unreasonable advantage for one party or unduly disadvantage another, the police have a justifiable reason to intervene. On this account, the police role encompasses the alleviation of burdens faced by the homeless as well as those they impose on others, while aligning with other social values and objectives (Kleinig 1993)

At the most basic, police as social peacekeepers might deal with the issues presented by street populations, when their activities impinge on the rights of others, by targeted collaborative enforcement, including arrest or move-on powers if necessary, in conjunction with collaboration with homelessness support agencies to encourage engagement with available services (NPCC 2022). In some ways, this can be seen as a form of community policing, a partnership between the police and the community, including its homeless members, that aims to address social issues that generate crime and disorder. Instead of simply driving away the homeless, the police, in collaboration with the community and/or relevant organisations, strive to identify both short- and long-term solutions to address the challenges faced by the homeless population (NPCC 2022). Notably, multi-agency initiatives are gaining traction in the UK, where the police collaborate with voluntary sector organisations to collectively tackle homelessness. This includes pairing police officers and local authority enforcement officers with outreach teams to identify and engage rough sleepers, providing them with necessary support (Stuart 2015, Sanders and Albanese 2017, NPCC 2022).

During our fieldwork, we found numerous instances of collaboration between police officers, local authority enforcement teams, and outreach personnel. As one police officer put it:

Policing the street population in this London borough involves a multiagency hotspot team made up of us [police officers], as well as community presence officers and charity outreach workers. When we are here our remit is to protect the outreach team, so I sort of see my job as looking after their little crew. We tend to follow behind the group so, you know, this is new for us, normally we would be leading in front of everything. But it works. Of course we’ll jump in and protect or make arrests in instances of violence or anti-social behaviour, but, most of the time, we are simply here to make sure the outreach patrol runs smoothly.

Our data further highlighted the impact of collaboration between police and charity workers on the treatment of people experiencing homelessness, showing encounters could be more supportive and focused on aiding individuals to leave street life by connecting them with outreach services. However, the differing roles and goals of police and non-police actors added complexity to these interactions. For example, an incident involving confrontation between police and a self-harming, drug-affected man in a playground, escalated due to health risks and resistance to police commands. An outreach worker's intervention, focusing on support and the promise of help, defused the situation without an arrest (Kyprianides et al. 2021a, p. 678). This case underscores the value of combined efforts between various authorities in effectively navigating the multifaceted challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness.

The observable potential for changing agendas was also evident in the way police officers discussed their reasons for stepping back when charity workers were around:

It’s like ‘good cop, bad cop’ – with [the charity] we are ‘good cop’, without them we are ‘bad cop’. We hold back when [the charity] is present so that we don’t interfere with their role … 

An important proviso here is of course, then, that this still involves enforcement, and comes with the risk that police activity within such partnerships blurs rapidly into the types of order maintenance sketched out above. Nonetheless collaborative activity, on paper at least within the current policy in England and Wales, would seem prima facie a better option than the alternatives.

This begs a further question – what if the best form of police engagement with the homeless population is no engagement? Perhaps it is simply inappropriate to expect police to deal with the multiple and complex needs presented by many people living on the streets; indeed, the ‘solutions’ offered by police (moving on, arrest, etc.) are only likely to make these worse. From a ‘defund’ perspective, the best way to deal with this issue is to channel resources into other, more appropriate, services (Vitale 2021). While we have some sympathy with this stance, we do not believe it is feasible at the present point in time. Given the very significant constraints – in terms of finance, capability and other factors – faced by other service providers, and more broadly the systemic pressures generated by the current economic crisis and, longer term, the withering of the welfare state, homelessness, or more precisely the symptoms and indeed causes of homelessness, is almost inevitably something police officers will both encounter and be asked to deal with. A reimagining of public safety and support, beyond traditional policing, is essential to address the root causes and manifestations of homelessness effectively.

Having outlined the types of actions that can be taken by police in their encounters with the homeless, we now consider the underlying rationale for these behaviours. What are the motivations and systemic pressures that drive police officers to rely on specific strategies?

Why police officers behave the way they do

Our observations and the existing literature suggest that the primary police response to homelessness tends to be law enforcement (Cooper 2016, Adams 2017, Sanders and Albanese 2017, Robinson 2019, Goodison et al. 2023) and order maintenance (Sparks 2018, Watts et al. 2018). While enforcement-based strategies targeting homelessness tend to be perceived as punitive, the factors driving the implementation of these laws or practices – within the wider set of possibilities that are subject to police discretion – are more intricate than simply an intention to punish individuals experiencing homelessness. Various social, political, and economic factors contribute to the adoption of enforcement-based approaches (Johnsen et al. 2021).

These include, first, insufficient awareness of alternative methods to address homelessness, leading to a reliance on law enforcement as a default solution (Adams 2017, NPCC 2022). A police officer who participated in our research articulated the following perspective:

It’s a vicious cycle, you know … They do something ‘bad’ that is considered a criminal offence. They get arrested, they get a fine they can’t pay, they’re back on the streets only to start that cycle again. Sometimes I wonder why the government relies on us to ‘do something’. Can’t they come up with a better solution? That’s why these joint police-charity hot spot patrols are better. If we can get them off the streets and into care, then maybe we can help break that cycle.

The inference drawn here suggests that there may be additional forces or officers who are unaware of these patrols and alternative approaches beyond traditional law enforcement methods to tackle homelessness.

Second, and as our participant alluded to, there is the public and/or political pressure on government officials and police to ‘do something’. Pressure to address homelessness stems from community discomfort with visible poverty, perceived aggression among the homeless, and business concerns about begging and rough sleeping impacting establishments (Adams 2017). As an illustrative example of the pressure police face in addressing visible homelessness, one police participant expressed the following sentiment:

We get complaints about rough sleepers all the time, shop owners and just people in the neighborhood complaining that this guy’s back begging again and bothering my customers, or this guy is scaring my children, they shouldn’t be seeing needles blah blah blah … 

Third, there seems to be a widespread belief that enforcement is necessary to encourage people experiencing homelessness to engage with available services (Robinson 2019). Consider the ‘hot spot patrols’ described by one of our police participants. These patrols consist of a collaborative team comprised of both police officers and outreach workers. The police officer believed that enforcement plays a crucial role in motivating individuals to utilise the available services:

This is without [the charity] patrol. There has to be an enforcement element for this project to really work. Otherwise we’ll have people telling [the charity] that they will engage but they have no intention to and then spend 7–8 months the whole summer using drugs and, you know, other street activity. So we’ve got an enforcement team, we’re an enforcement patrol … We’ll issue community protection notices, written warnings, any interventions that we might do.

Fourth, policy developments within and around policing can contribute to, again, perceived requirements to ‘do something’. For example, the ‘broken windows’ theory in policing (Kelling 1999), posits that addressing minor disorder (such as begging) can prevent an escalation into more serious criminal activity. ‘Zero tolerance’, ‘quality of life’ and aggressive order maintenance modes of policing, which stem in large part from broken windows, prioritise the kinds of minor disturbances often associated with the homeless population as a means of reducing major crimes (and, indeed, as something simply undesirable that needs to be controlled) (Adams 2017). While these types of policies have rarely been formally adopted in UK policing, the rhetoric of zero-tolerance is frequently deployed (Newburn and Jones 2007).

Here, policing of homelessness is shaped by broader objectives and community pressures for strict enforcement. Acknowledging these dynamics is key to fostering community awareness about homelessness, aiming to move from punitive responses to compassionate solutions. Research (e.g. Petit et al. 2019) indicates a positive shift in public perceptions towards homelessness, showing an increase in supportive attitudes over recent years, suggesting a potential for more empathetic and understanding approaches to homelessness across European societies.

With a clearer grasp of the rationale behind current policing behaviours, our focus now shifts to the tangible impact these strategies have on people experiencing homelessness. What are the real-world consequences of police actions for those living on the streets?

The impact of policing on the homeless

Police activity in relation to homelessness falls in reality across the three ideal types sketched out above. Law enforcement, order maintenance and social peacekeeping occur simultaneously, in varying combinations, and in different social and geographic spaces. To what explicit or implicit end is such activity directed, however? While consideration of whether an approach ‘works’ is a necessary part of evaluating it, ethically or otherwise, the different approaches would seem to have different, and perhaps incommensurate, notions of success.

When assessing the effectiveness of policing aimed at regulating public spaces, the primary emphasis often lies on ‘tidying up the streets’ (Berk and MacDonald 2010). This narrow perspective relies on quantifiable indicators such as reductions in the numbers of individuals sleeping rough or begging in the local vicinity, as well as a fall in complaints related to homelessness. Indeed, as articulated by a member of the MPS Street Population Engagement Team that took part in our research:

We’ve been quite successful with the street population in [this borough]. Numbers of rough sleepers have dropped … and as a result we’ve received less complaints from local shop owners regarding anti-social behaviour etcetera.

Clearly, this formulation and evaluation of enforcement-based approaches occludes entirely their impact on the individuals experiencing them – and they carry inherent risks that can jeopardise the well-being and safety of people experiencing homelessness. They may result in the exclusion of these individuals from safe spaces, disrupt established relationships with support services, or even force them into more harmful situations. For instance, analysing data from two surveys conducted among people experiencing homelessness in Colorado regarding their encounters with ‘quality of life’ policing, alongside an examination of police records pertaining to interactions, citations, and arrests of people experiencing homelessness, Robinson (2019) found that a majority of the homeless population experienced heightened difficulties, increased stress, and diminished safety subsequent to the implementation of ‘quality of life’ policing measures. These measures encompassed laws that limit the actions of people experiencing homelessness in public spaces. This point was captured by a charity outreach worker who participated in our study:

The police tell my clients that they can no longer be around this area, and that there will be consequences should they be found around here. But how are they supposed to come and see me if they can’t be here? All the work we’ve done with them just gets lost. They need to start from scratch in the next place.

Furthermore, a wider body of research from the United States explores police encounters as ‘stressors’, connecting intrusive and/or procedurally unfair police practices to adverse health and well-being outcomes among those who have been policed (Alang et al. 2021). Individuals exposed to negative interactions with the police are more likely to experience poorer mental health outcomes compared to those who have not faced such encounters. These outcomes include a higher prevalence of delusional mood, paranoia, hallucinations, psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Moreover, studies focusing on how the policing of drug markets impacts the behaviour and health of drug users (Small et al. 2006) point to additional outcomes. It seems evident that there is a connection between police activity and well-being, at least within the context of the US. A homeless participant who took part in our research articulated the following:

It’s just stressful. I’m trying to make money begging with one eye on whether they’re coming to catch me. And every time they catch me it’s worse. It’s as if all of our run-ins accumulate into one.

Finally, adverse interactions between police and homeless populations can erode trust and legitimacy in police, leading to counterproductive outcomes and potentially fuelling deviant behaviours due to perceived inequitable treatment. This erosion of trust and legitimacy, crucial for effective policing, threatens the relationship between the community and police (Jackson et al. 2012). The ethical, normative, and political importance of these concepts suggests that practices like stop-and-search and the policing of public spaces may harm police-public relations more than they benefit policing objectives, raising questions about their overall impact.

After considering the significant impact of current policing strategies on homeless individuals, it becomes imperative to seek alternative methods that may offer more promising outcomes.

Section 3: rethinking policing methods

Acknowledging the limitations inherent in the police's current role highlights the need for a reimagined approach to policing homelessness. We now turn our attention to what actions police should ideally take, proposing alternative strategies that align more closely than current practice with the idea that police should be social peacekeepers.

Towards social peacekeeping: innovative strategies in policing

Community-based approaches

Homelessness demands a comprehensive, community-focused response, moving beyond traditional methods to engage community members, service providers, and government agencies in collaborative solutions. These community-based strategies leverage local insights and resources to develop targeted interventions, emphasising empowerment, inclusivity, and the creation of sustainable solutions that address both the symptoms and root causes of homelessness (Bessel 2019). They also aim to strengthen social bonds and counteract isolation by fostering a sense of belonging, supporting social integration through networks, mentorship, and community events (Bessel 2019). Despite their benefits, these approaches face challenges such as sustaining long-term engagement, ensuring inclusivity, and requiring coordination with broader supportive services and policies to effectively address homelessness (Bessel 2019).

Restorative justice practices

Restorative justice practices have gained recognition as an innovative approach for addressing crimes committed by individuals experiencing homelessness (Pointer 2016), focusing on accountability, dialogue, and healing rather than punishment. These practices aim to uncover and address the root causes of homelessness, encourage individual and community healing, and work towards lasting solutions. By emphasising the repair of harm and restoration of relationships, restorative justice offers a holistic and transformative method, diverging from traditional punitive approaches.

Within the criminal justice system, it provides avenues such as victim-offender dialogues and community conferencing to divert homeless individuals from the cycle of arrest and incarceration, promoting personal growth, responsibility, and mutual understanding among all involved parties (Costello et al. 2009). Additionally, restorative justice can be integrated into community responses, with initiatives like restorative circles facilitating open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving among the homeless, community members, and service providers. This fosters inclusion, belonging, and support, crucial elements for overcoming homelessness (Costello et al. 2009).

However, implementing restorative justice in the homelessness context faces challenges, including the complexity of homelessness itself, influenced by structural factors like housing affordability, poverty, and systemic inequities (Costello et al. 2009). To ensure sustainable outcomes, restorative justice must be supported by services, access to affordable housing, and policies addressing these systemic issues, alongside training initiatives to build the capacity of all stakeholders involved in restorative practices.

Collaborative partnerships between police and social service providers

The development of collaborative partnerships between police agencies and social service providers has emerged as a strategic response to homelessness, highlighting their potential to address the multifaceted nature of this issue comprehensively (Hipple 2016, Mosley 2021, NPCC 2022). These partnerships are designed to bridge the gap between the criminal justice system and social support networks, aiming to meet the complex needs of individuals experiencing homelessness, facilitate access to essential services, and lower recidivism rates. Police play a pivotal role by identifying homeless individuals and connecting them to relevant social services, thereby building trust and enabling access to critical resources such as shelter, healthcare, and substance abuse treatment (Hipple 2016). Meanwhile, social service providers offer specialised knowledge and support in areas like housing, employment training, and counselling, working alongside police to create customised support plans (Hipple 2016, NPCC 2022).

The integration of services from both sectors addresses root causes of homelessness by providing holistic support and care, with an emphasis on reintegration, skill-building, and long-term stability for those affected. For these collaborations to be effective, they require careful planning, coordination, and communication, with established shared goals, protocols, and joint training to ensure a cohesive approach and to bridge any gaps in understanding between sectors (Mosley 2021). These partnerships should also embody principles of equity, respect, and cultural sensitivity to effectively cater to the diverse needs and experiences of the homeless population, illustrating a unified commitment to addressing and combating homelessness.

The success of community-based approaches, restorative justice, and police-social service partnerships depends on adopting a new ethical approach. The next section will argue for an ethics of care and recognition, which focuses on understanding and dialogue, to improve police interactions with the homeless. We will discuss how this shift could make these new strategies more effective and change policing to be more empathetic and interactive.

Prioritising an ethics of care and recognition

It seems to us that, in as much as they involve the police (and most inevitably do), the success of the alternative strategies and interventions outlined above relies on a shift in the ethical focus of policing across two distinct yet related dimensions. First, from an ethics of justice towards an ethics of care (Boates 2001), and second an evolution towards a framework of recognition-based justice and communicative ethics (Honneth 2004, Houston 2009). Central to both are the ways police officers think about and act in relation to those they encounter.

The behaviour of police officers is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including organisational culture, societal norms, training, individual beliefs, and the broader context in which they operate. Especially in interactions with vulnerable groups, there appears to be a need, only partially recognised by efforts such as the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics (2014) to reconsider policing methodologies by prioritising an ethics of care, in contrast, or at least in addition, to the prevailing emphasis on an ethics of justice.

The ethics of justice prioritise fairness, impartiality, and adherence to established rules and procedures. Police officers guided by this ethical framework may prioritise enforcing the law and maintaining order as their primary duty. Their actions are often based on legal statutes and protocols, aiming to treat all individuals equally under the law. This perspective emphasises consistency, objectivity, and the principle that nobody is above or below the law. However, a strict adherence to an ethics of justice can sometimes lead to situations where officers focus on policing responses and punitive measures without considering the broader context or the individual circumstances of those involved. This can result in a perception of police as being overly harsh or lacking empathy, particularly in cases involving vulnerable populations such as people experiencing homelessness.

The ethics of care, on the other hand, emphasises empathy, compassion, and relational ties. Police officers who adopt this ethical approach prioritise understanding the unique needs and circumstances of individuals they encounter. They may seek to address underlying issues, provide support, and establish positive relationships. Within the context of interactions with people experiencing homelessness, an ethics of care might involve officers taking a more holistic approach when attempting to address problematic behaviours, considering factors such as mental health, substance abuse, and socioeconomic challenges. This approach may lead to a focus on problem-solving, de-escalation, and connecting individuals with appropriate resources rather than solely relying on punitive measures.

It is important to note that these ethical frameworks are not mutually exclusive, and police officers often navigate a complex blend of both perspectives in their work. Ultimately, the behaviour of police officers can vary widely based on their personal values, the prevailing culture within their organisation, and the evolving dynamics of the communities they serve. But efforts to strike an appropriate balance between an ethics of justice and an ethics of care can and indeed should inform many of the approaches discussed above.

Moreover, effective policing of vulnerable communities, such as those experiencing homelessness, requires a shift towards recognising their dignity and understanding the complex issues they face, like mental health challenges, addiction, and poverty. This approach emphasises empathy and respect, advocating for the avoidance of demeaning behaviours and the unnecessary use of force. It also suggests adapting policing methods to support rather than marginalise these individuals, including collaboration with social services and community organisations to provide access to resources and opportunities for growth. Incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives in decision-making and promoting communicative ethics are crucial, fostering a policing culture that values active listening and mutual understanding. This inclusive strategy aims to build constructive relationships and ensure the well-being of vulnerable populations through dignity and respect.

The concepts of recognition-based justice and communicative ethics in policing vulnerable groups are closely aligned with PJT, emphasising fairness, trust, and legitimacy in police-public interactions. PJT underlines the importance of individuals feeling fairly treated by the police to foster trust and encourage law compliance. Recognition-based justice focuses on acknowledging the unique needs and identities of vulnerable groups, advocating for dignity and respect through an understanding of their backgrounds. This aligns with PJT's emphasis on respect and communicative ethics, which prioritises open, respectful communication for ethical interactions and decision-making. In policing vulnerable groups, effective communication is key to building trust and ensuring equitable treatment, allowing for the participation and voice of these groups in line with PJT principles.

By combining recognition-based justice and communicative ethics police can shift towards a more compassionate and effective approach that aims to address the root causes of issues faced by people experiencing homelessness while promoting safety and security in the community. It also builds trust between police and the vulnerable groups they serve, leading to more cooperative relationships and better outcomes for everyone involved.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented some of the ethical challenges raised by ‘policing the homeless’, and described some of the ways such challenges might be addressed. Specifically, we have argued that policing strategies need to evolve from an enforcement-centric focus to a model of social peacekeeping that prioritises partnership, support, and a shift towards an ethics of care and recognition. We have presented evidence that traditional methods are insufficient for addressing the offenses associated with homelessness and that a more empathetic and communicative approach could significantly improve how the police interact with homeless populations. This approach involves integrating community-based efforts, restorative justice, and collaboration with social services, moving beyond punitive actions to strategies that address underlying causes and work towards sustainable solutions for homelessness.

Due to the lack of UK-specific evidence, throughout this paper, we have engaged with various sets of literature, research and evidence including from the US. It is therefore worth highlighting the difficulty of applying US insights in the UK context, given significant differences in legal frameworks, policing models, and approaches to homelessness. The contrast between the US's punitive measures and the UK's welfare-oriented, community policing approach suggests that effective UK strategies must be tailored to its unique societal and legal landscape. Collaboration between police, social services, and advocacy groups, informed by local conditions, is essential for developing appropriate and effective interventions in the UK (Fitzpatrick et al. 2022).

By way of conclusion we note that there is a tension in the arguments presented that forms from the contrast between two fundamental positions: a view that the street population simply cannot be policed in a way broadly similar to the housed population; and a view that this might, in reality, be possible.

The first perspective posits that while police interventions might be expected under certain conditions to generate meaningful change in the behaviour of people living on the streets, in reality these are likely to rely on continuous enforcement, physical co-presence, arrest and incarceration. The idea that police can generate compliance and other pro-social behaviours without the immediate threat of force is foundational to most conceptualisations of policing in liberal democracies. The ‘effect’ of policing is thought to be delivered not only, or even primarily, by offering an immediate threat of sanction via physical presence (Tyler 2023). If this is in fact all that is on offer, then policing has in some fundamental sense failed (Hough 2020). As described above, this is part of the challenge homelessness proffers to established models of policing; it may be that police cannot generate meaningful behaviour change among these populations other than being physically co-present with them.

It might not therefore be appropriate to expect the police to handle the complex and varied needs of individuals living on the streets. In fact, the actions typically taken by the police, such as moving people along or making arrests, could exacerbate these issues. The ‘defund’ perspective on policing suggests that a better approach to this problem is to allocate resources towards more suitable services (Vitale 2021). It seems to us that this should, ultimately, be the goal. Yet, it is not a viable policy position at the current point in time; nor does it provide any answers in terms of current efforts to address the issues faced and raised by the homeless population. Given the significant limitations in terms of finances and capabilities, that other service providers face, along with wider pressures stemming from the ongoing economic crisis and the gradual reduction of welfare programmes, homelessness and its underlying causes are likely to remain challenges that police officers will inevitably confront and need to address. Attempts to displace the issue into an imagined future not subject to the same challenges will not assist in addressing the ethical quandaries posed by the current circumstances. A more nuanced approach, acknowledging the limitations of current systems while actively seeking to improve and expand support services, is crucial for addressing the multifaceted nature of homelessness and its impact on society.

The second perspective on ‘policing the homeless’ proceeds from this starting point. Police interaction with people experiencing homelessness is inevitable, and it should be possible to conduct these interactions in ways that do not (re)produce negative outcomes for the people involved. We explored three distinct approaches to policing the homeless: law enforcement, order maintenance, and social peacekeeping. Considering the moral quandary presented by homelessness, the social peacekeeping approach is preferable from many different perspectives. Drawing on UK data, Fitzpatrick and Johnsen (2009) argue that enforcement actions, traditionally viewed as harsh, can be ethically complex and, when coupled with supportive interventions, can, under certain circumstance, lead to positive outcomes for behaviours such as begging or street drinking. This perspective highlights the importance of police forming partnerships with social service organisations. Complementing this, Johnsen et al. (2021), through interviews in six UK cities, reveal a gap between the often critical portrayal of enforcement in academic and media discourse and the more varied opinions held by frontline workers and those experiencing homelessness, suggesting a nuanced view of enforcement practices.

In Section 3, we explored innovative strategies rooted in the social peacekeeping approach, focusing on community engagement, restorative justice, and emphasising collaborative efforts between police and social services to effectively address homelessness. These approaches rely on collective responsibility, local knowledge, and a shift from punitive to healing responses, underscoring the need for collaborative efforts, research, and policy support for a more comprehensive, coordinated, and compassionate response to the complex challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness. The social peacekeeping approach, while progressive, has limitations due to its partial reliance on enforcement dynamics. This approach risks maintaining power imbalances and might overshadow the role of non-punitive social services, potentially criminalising socio-economic issues. The challenge lies in balancing police involvement to ensure it supports rather than dominates humanitarian efforts, thereby preserving the dignity of those experiencing homelessness. Recognising these limitations is crucial for developing a support model that prioritises empowerment and well-being over traditional policing methods.

In short, there are ways in which police can be part of the solution, not the problem. Where law enforcement mechanisms are employed to address homelessness this simply adds to the harms already being experienced by the individuals involved. While some might be – indeed are – inclined to encourage police reliance on enforcement measures, it creates further distance, both physically and psychologically, from the essential services and support people require. It adds an additional layer of hardship and complexity to already challenging lives and it burdens the courts and overloads the police. But by re-framing the role of police as social peacekeepers, and stressing the importance of partnership working, police can aid – or at least not hinder – efforts directed toward long-term redress. It should be possible to do this even if officers, as seems inevitable, continue to encounter people living on the streets and provide responses to their sometimes challenging behaviours.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the ESRC [grant number ES/X003434/1].

Notes

1 The project received ethical approval from University College London (UCL), ensuring all data was handled with strict confidentiality. This included the anonymisation of data and, where necessary, the application of pseudonyms to protect participant identities.

2 The reported percentages reflect overlapping categories of criminal activities in which participants may engage concurrently.