You are on page 1of 6

We

appreciate the continued focus on homelessness by the law school, yet this report and its finding in
many instances is incorrect or misleading. Denver’s multi-faceted approach to addressing homelessness
is making a difference in the lives of our residents. We have housed thousands of people, have helped
thousands more avoid the loss of their home through eviction support, have increased the number of
shelter beds and have improved the quality of services. We launched innovative new programs like
Denver Day Works, co-responders and Social Impact Bond financed housing for those experiencing
homelessness. We support creative options like tiny homes, modular homes and ADUs. And we are
constantly looking at new and better ways to serve people experiencing homelessness.

University of Denver
• Our report recognizes the Denver Day Work and Social Impact Bond financed housing programs,
stating “[b]oth programs are commendable efforts towards assisting Denver’s homeless
population. In light of these early successes, the city should work to apportion more funding into
these and similar programs geared towards assistance.”
• At the same time, the report goes on to address shortfalls in the Social Impact Bond effort,
sharing that “while commendable in housing 250 chronically homeless individuals, [the
program] does not acknowledge or accommodate for the fact that there was an increase of 224
chronically homeless individuals last year alone.”
Bottom Line: Lifting people up with services that, though commendable, fall short of the need, and at
the same time pushing people down with laws that criminalize homelessness, does not warrant praise
without critique. Too High a Price Two acknowledges Denver has made some good efforts to address
homelessness, but points out, rightfully, that those efforts pale in comparison to the harm perpetrated
against the city’s homeless residents through move on orders, tickets, and jail time.

Here’s a look at the Report Vs. Reality:

Report:
“The number of emergency shelter beds cannot accommodate Colorado’s homeless population. In all
three cities we surveyed, none provide enough beds to meet the needs of its homeless populations. In
Colorado Springs, the number of year-round shelter space can only accommodate 38% of El Paso
County’s homeless population. Boulder has even fewer resources, with only enough beds for roughly
25% of its homeless population. Denver doesn’t fare better, with the 2017 Point-in-Time count
indicating that on a given night, nearly 1,000 homeless people sleep on the streets.”

Reality:
This conclusion is both inaccurate and misleading.

The report uses regional point-in-time numbers to compare Denver County-only shelter beds. In Denver
County, the 2017 Point In Time identifies 544 unsheltered persons – not 924 which is the regional
number. Using the regional PIT numbers to assess the shelter capacity provided in Denver presumes
that City of Denver is responsible for also sheltering people from Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield,
Jefferson, Douglas, and Boulder Counties.
o PIT for Denver:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/mdhi/pages/231/attachments/original/1498773251/2017-PIT-
County_Denver.pdf?1498773251
o PIT for 7 county region:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/mdhi/pages/93/attachments/original/1498775558/2017-
Metro-Denver-PIT-Final.pdf?1498775558

Denver shelters upwards of 1,700 people a night, with some capacity to accommodate more. Outreach
teams, Search and Rescue and DPD all work to connect people not just to shelter, but also to housing
and other resources every day and every night in Denver. There are a small cohort of people
(approximately 544 according to the PIT referenced above) who do not access shelter for personal
reasons – but not because of a lack of space. The City has consistently demonstrated a willingness to not
just add space, but to work toward outcome solutions that help people move out of homelessness –
rather than measures that keep them in that state. This includes housing – as opposed to sheltering –
nearly 3,000 people in 36 months – many directly from the streets.

University of Denver
• It is correct that the Report used the metro-wide number of people on the street, but even so,
using PIT information is always an underestimate. To make that distinction invites further
discussion. That broader discussion leads to the conclusion that the situation is far worse than
Univ. of Denver reported:
o The PIT count reports that it does not count “children, youth, and adults sleeping in
motels, people sleeping on couches, people in institutions, etc. . .. the survey is a
snapshot and an undercount of homeless and at-risk populations.”
• Example: The 2017 PIT count of homeless youth in Colorado was 763, but a
homeless youth estimate was 2,058 under the McKinney-Vento act count for
2015-16. See https://bit.ly/2wmTsVO
o People are left out of the shelters for a variety of reasons: to not expose themselves to
contagious illnesses; concern their belongings will be stolen; inability to sleep in
crowded, noisy spaces (such as due to mental illness, PTSD, and other trauma);
limitations on belongings that can be brought to a shelter; inability to sleep with
partners; prohibition on pets; being on a “no admit” list. Denver dismissing these as
personal reasons is indicative of just how insensitive the City is to lived experiences of
homelessness.
o The PIT count of 544 unsheltered people is in addition to the 1,165 people counted in
shelters on the night of the count. The statement that Denver “shelters upwards of
1,700 people a night” fails to express clearly how often and how easily that number of
people can be accommodated. Just as Denver may claim I-25 is able to provide transit to
all who need it, the efficiency and ease of use of both shelters and highways decrease
rapidly with heavy use.
• As an example of the inefficiency when demand is highest, Denver was, in 2016,
shuttling “more than 300 homeless men and 100 homeless women to and from
an overnight shelter near I-70 in Montbello [from Park Avenue downtown in
Denver].” http://www.westword.com/news/huge-denver-homeless-shelter-
near-aurora-will-close-7589749

Bottom Line: the suggestion that Denver has sufficient shelter capacity and it is only people making
personal choices to sleep outside is willful blindness to the issue.

Report:
“Denver’s use of move-on orders has skyrocketed at an alarming rate. In 2016 alone, Denver law
enforcement made contact with over 5,000 people in move-on encounters. Denver police increased its
contact with homeless individuals through the use of street checks by 475% in the span of three years.”

Reality:
This is misleading. Although the number of street checks pertaining to individuals contacted for
unauthorized camping has indeed increased by 475% from 2014 to 2017, this represents an internal
documentation procedure. The number of move on orders to transients increased from 2,613 in 2014 to
2,764 in 2017 which is 151 or approximately 5.8%. During the same time period, the number of move
on arrests dropped by 0.35%.

That said, reaching out to people experiencing homelessness and offering them shelter, food, clothing
resources and other life-sustaining items is far from a nefarious activity. It is a vested interest in the City
that we check on those who stay out in the elements to ensure that they do not suffer severe injury or
even death as a result of exposure to the elements or, as unfortunately is far too often the case, drug
overdose. DPD officers carry Naloxone which can reverse an opioid overdose and save a life. In addition,
through the Crisis Co-Responder program, DPD officers can request a mental health professional to
assist on-site an individual experiencing a mental or behavioral health concern and connect them to
mental health or treatment services. Police checks may also invite more people experiencing
homelessness to report on crimes against them - correlation, not causation.

Univ. of Denver:
• We are relaying the data given by Denver government – the City does not state above what the
“changes to internal documentation procedure" means. Our data request to them was perfectly clear.
(We have attached our data requests and responses for you).
• Further, the 475% increase has been reported before by you in Westword – and it appears this is the
first time Denver is refuting the numbers reported.
• While some officers may offer assistance to people, a Denver Homeless Out Loud survey has shown that
this is far from the norm and is, rather, the exception. In fact, less than one in five people experiencing
homelessness shared that they had even been asked if they needed services when contacted by police,
but more than four in five were told to move along (see figure from The Denver Camping Ban, A Report
From the Street (Apr. 3, 2013)).
• The city of Denver’s narrative ignores that there is a current class action suit against the city that
has survived the city’s motion for summary judgment, and that the suit originated because
police and contractors for the city were taking homeless peoples’ belongings, including cold
weather gear when it was snowing. http://www.westword.com/news/videos-of-denver-police-
taking-blankets-from-homeless-have-gone-viral-8582970
• Further, Denver was using money donated to help people experiencing homelessness to fund
the sweeps in which their belongings were taken. http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/06/30/city-
used-homeless-donations-to-assist-with-homeless-sweep/
• The city of Denver confuses the issue in bringing up the opioid crisis in an attempt to legitimize move on
orders. Officers carrying remedial medication for opioid overdoses is a different story entirely from
forcing individuals to move on. It would be helpful to know how many times approaching people to issue
move on orders led to a life-saving use of Naloxone.
• Similarly, conflating the availability of mental health professionals with issuing move on orders
that force people to move from one space deemed illegal to rest to another space the city
deems illegal to rest does not lessen the harm to those forced to move on. As shared in our
report, a woman experiencing homelessness described being forced to move on and the
resultant lack of sleep as torture: “I have to get up every time a cop comes by and take my
blanket from underneath me and make sure I’m not covered up . . . it’s torture. I can’t even
think straight because I haven’t slept.” If city officials would like to improve the mental health
outcomes for people experiencing homelessness, they should allow people to get sleep that is
uninterrupted by police.

Bottom Line: The report used numbers the city of Denver provided to show an increase in move on
orders, numbers the city now wishes to explain away as not worth paying attention to because of “an
internal documentation procedure” it does not explain. The city further wishes that police telling people
to move on, leading to interrupted sleep and loss of property for people experiencing homelessness, is
actually an act of kindness. That response lacks credibility when faced with evidence that police contacts
in move on orders are more about moving people from that location than offering services.


Report:
“The overall number of anti-homelessness ordinances has increased. Between Denver, Colorado Springs,
and Boulder, there are at least thirty-seven ordinances that criminalize behaviors associated with people
experiencing homelessness. Since Too High a Price was first released, Colorado Springs has added one
new anti-homeless ordinance and Denver Law students found four additional ordinances in Denver.”

Reality:
Some of these “newly discovered laws” are a stretch.

Smoking as a “life sustaining activity”?: It is hard to comprehend the logic of how a no-smoking
ordinance prevents “life sustaining activity” even in the context of homelessness on the 16th Street
Mall. DU has an entirely smoke-free campus. Do the authors believe this is a policy their campus should
review as one that prevents “life sustaining activity” at DU? Regardless, people on the mall aren’t simply
ticketed for smoking but are advised as to where they may go to smoke—typically within a couple blocks
of the no-smoking area. But in short, few would argue that smoking is a “life-sustaining activity.”

University of Denver
• We welcome the city of Denver to point out anywhere in the report where smoking was itself
described as a “life sustaining activity.” Obviously they cannot.
• What our report does say is “Not only does the smoking ordinance further criminalize activities
that a homeless individual must do in public, but it forces individuals off of highly public areas,
such as the 16th Street Mall.”
• We also stand by the data from Boulder that shows homeless people are issued citations for
smoking at 300 times the rate housed people are.
• One of our report authors had an experience just last summer sitting next to a homeless man on
the 16th Street Mall, conversing with him. He experienced security personnel walk up and tell
the homeless man he could not sit on the mall, ignoring the author who was sitting right next to
the man given the warning. While we can all hope that smoking will not be as disparately
enforced, the data from Boulder show otherwise.


Panhandling: People aren’t ticketed for panhandling. That was struck down years ago. You cannot
aggressively or abusively panhandle – which includes harassing and threatening people into providing
donations. The determining factor is not panhandling itself, rather actual menacing behavior occurring
regardless of whether panhandling is also happening. Denver doesn’t enforce on panhandling alone.

University of Denver
• We didn’t report this is a new ordinance.
• We acknowledge that it is good for DPD to decrease the number of citations under this ordinance.
• Aggressively panhandling is not the only way to violate this ordinance, this is a mischaracterization of
the law. Simply being on private property and being asked to leave and then straight panhandling is
enough for a citation.

Trespassing: It is hard to discern what power the City of Denver has in regards to legalizing
trespassing on someone’s private property. If a person is trespassing and a property owner calls it in,
Denver has a duty to enforce the violation. We cannot selectively enforce this based on whether the
person is experiencing homelessness or is housed.

University of Denver
• We did not report that this was a new ordinance.
• We didn’t suggest repealing all trespass laws, but merely pointed out the unbelievably disparate impact
on homeless individuals—who are over 300 times more likely to be cited for trespassing (normalizing
for homeless vs. housed populations).

In General: We would question the application of a “life sustaining activity” to several of the
categories of prohibition attributed to Denver ordinances (i.e. “obstruction of traffic” - is obstructing
traffic a life sustaining activity even in the experience of homelessness? Or is it a safety concern for both
commuters and pedestrians?)

University of Denver

• We agree the “obstruction of traffic” ordinance , §54 – 459, should not have been included in
the list of ordinances criminalizing behavior associated with people experiencing homelessness.
We thank the city of Denver for the correction and will remove it from the Report.1


1
• The obstruction of traffic ordinance states: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle
upon a street other than an alley, in such manner or under such conditions as to leave available less than
ten (10) feet of width of the roadway for free movement of vehicular traffic. (b) It shall be unlawful for
any person to park any vehicle in such manner or under such conditions as to obstruct any drive, path or
crosswalk in any park.

You might also like