The Texas House Bill 1925 is arguably the most controversial policy enacted by a US state in recent history. The bill was passed by the Texas legislature in mid-2021 and signed into law by Governor Abbott the same year. Following its ratification, it banned homeless camping in public places throughout the state. Specifically, homeless people are prohibited from using public spaces as temporary shelters. This is despite the fact that Texas has a large number of homeless people who, in most cases, have no alternative shelters. This paper summarizes this bill. It uses the 5-E approach to examine the law’s effectiveness, efficiency, ethical considerations, potential alternatives, and recommendations for improvement. The Texas House Bill 1925 is a short-sighted policy that fails to address the root causes of homelessness and imposes unnecessary costs on the local governments.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of this policy is highly dependent on an individual’s perspective on the matter. Primarily, the law aimed to reduce the prevalence of visible homelessness around the state (Oxner, 2021). On this aspect, one could argue that the law was effective since any homeless person is unlikely to take shelter in public places. Consequently, this might lead to a perceived improvement in aesthetics and, to an extent, public safety. However, without offering alternatives to people lacking housing, the law does not solve the issue but merely displaces them from most public areas. Consequently, this displacement might result in the homeless dealing with law enforcement more often, further marginalizing an already vulnerable group. Thus, the policy’s effectiveness depends on the person’s view of the homeless.
Efficiency
Another area where HB 1925 falls short is its efficiency. Texas is not immune to homelessness and thus has a large number of people without housing every night (Fechter, 2024). Conversely, law enforcement agencies within the state have limited resources to combat the issue. Consequently, the criminalization of people without housing overburdens an already struggling criminal justice system. Therefore, this bill sacrificed efficiency for public aesthetics.
Ethical Considerations
The HB 1925 raises serious ethical concerns. Most homeless people are likely to be in that position due to issues beyond their control (NCBI, n.d.). Thus, any government should institute measures to ensure that vulnerable groups receive the necessary support to get back on track. However, rather than offering assistance, HB 1925 punishes Texans for their inability to find housing, regardless of the root causes. Therefore, this approach contradicts social work’s commitment to social justice and self-determination.
Evaluation of Alternatives
HB 1925 ignores several more effective and ethical alternatives. For example, the state could invest in affordable housing solutions and ensure they are adequate to meet the demand (Lee et al., 2022). Moreover, Texas could invest in accessible mental health and addiction treatment. This could help a portion of the homeless dealing with the issue. Finally, it could expand homeless shelters and only impose a ban if those without housing could easily be accommodated (Lee et al., 2022). Such alternatives demonstrate more humane and evidence-based responses to homelessness.
Establishing Recommendations
HB 1925 must be repealed or heavily amended to be more effective, efficient, and ethical. Policy changes should focus on:
- Expanded Affordable Housing: Significantly increasing truly affordable housing, along with rental assistance programs.
- Accessible Services: Improving access to mental health and addiction treatment, emphasizing low-barrier and harm-reduction approaches.
- Collaborative Outreach: Investing in outreach programs that connect people experiencing homelessness with services. Moreover, the state could do more to address the mistrust built by punitive legislation.
Conclusion
HB 1925 is a highly misguided policy on the issue of homelessness. The 5-E approach analysis has revealed that it is ineffective, inefficient, and unethical. In reality, the policy was primarily geared toward improving aesthetics within public spaces at the expense of vulnerable individuals. Hence, Texas should focus on policies that prioritize housing, treatment, and support for people experiencing homelessness. Such an approach is practical and likely to lead to a permanent solution to Texas’ public space aesthetics in the long term.
References
Fechter, J. (2024, January 11). Homelessness in Texas on the rise amid high housing costs, federal estimates show. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/11/texas-homelessness-estimate/
Lee, D., McGuire, M., & Kim, J. (2022). Collaboration, strategic plans, and government performance: The case of efforts to reduce homelessness. Toward a More Strategic View of Strategic Planning Research, 51-67. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003295495-3
NCBI. (n.d.). Dynamics of homelessness – Homelessness, health, and human needs. National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218240/
Oxner, R. (2021, May 28). Texas likely to ban homeless encampments in unapproved public places after bill is sent to governor. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/28/camping-ban-bill-approved/
write