“Homelessness isn't a policing issue, until it is” A Mixed Methods Study on the Role and Decision Making Processes of the Police and Outreach Workers in Responding to Homelessness

Law enforcement officers are frequently tasked with addressing and responding to public safety and community concerns related to issues of homelessness. While interactions between law enforcement and individuals experiencing homelessness occur frequently, issues of homelessness also span public health, policy, and housing spheres. Because of this, several communities in the United States also lean on outreach workers to address issues of homelessness. Recent research has described both law enforcement officers and outreach workers as street-level bureaucrats. Both groups grapple with unique shift demands, lack of supervision, burnout, and issues such as turnover, all while leveraging their personal knowledge and connections to make decisions on a case-by- case basis.In two studies, this dissertation explores the role of the police and outreach workers in responses to issues of homelessness. This is important to address because there is evidence that these two groups have a high degree of contact with individuals experience homelessness and have similar decision-making processes. Yet, they are largely siloed from one another making it difficult to generate policies related to issues of homelessness that are informed by both groups. In study one, responses to close- and open-ended responses (N = 1,163) drawn from a survey distributed to law enforcement personnel are analyzed, merged, and interpreted. The second study of this dissertation is an ethnography of outreach workers in Maricopa County, Arizona. The collective findings from these two studies underscore a remarkable similarity between outreach worker and law enforcement decision making, as well as a growing need to strengthen the relationships between these two groups to support longer-term solutions. Co-created training guides and events can be constructed to enhance the relationship between these two groups and to support mutually beneficial outcomes. Portions of this research were supported by a Law and Science Dissertation Grant, via the National Science Foundation, award SES-2016661 to Arizona State University. This project was also supported by Arizona State University’s Graduate College and Graduate Student and Professional Association’s Graduate Research Program Award. The findings and conclusions are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the National Science Foundation or Arizona State University.