Two Texas Cities Took Radically Different Approaches to Homelessness — and Saw Radically Different Results
For three weeks in 2025, the city of Austin spent roughly $830,000 to clear hundreds of homeless encampments and 1.35 million pounds of debris. The cleanup took place from October 21 to November 8, with city staff, nonprofit workers, and EMS personnel clearing 669 sites.
Of the 1,212 homeless people the city encountered, 181 went to shelters, 87 were connected to services, and 109 later returned to encampments. The city argued its goal was to move Austin residents into shelter before the height of winter.
At the same time, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered another encampment sweep campaign without informing Austin officials. By October 21, Gov. Abbott announced that state troopers had cleared 48 camps and arrested 24 Austin residents.
City officials often call these operations “encampment sweeps.” Advocates and many people forced to move describe them as raids — because the impact is sudden displacement, loss of belongings, and increased danger.
Homeless Strategy Officer David Gray expressed concern about Gov. Abbott’s order, citing the dangers posed by a lack of coordination in homeless encampment sweeps. He explained that the city had not received adequate communication on the state’s efforts before they moved in. As a result, many residents displaced by state troopers failed to receive adequate information about where else they could go.
As for the sweeps initiated by Austin itself, Gray emphasized “outreach and voluntary connections to services” in place of strict enforcement of city orders to remove encampments. Gray said that “it was critical that we weren’t just going in telling people to grab what they can, and we were going to come and clear out the encampment. We wanted to make sure that everybody had an opportunity — in fact, several opportunities — to get connected to shelter and services.”
The Dark Side of Encampment Raids
But while Austin’s efforts to humanize an encampment sweep may sound encouraging, they do not tell the full story.
One housing advocacy organization, VOCAL-TX, deeply criticized the raids, arguing that even seemingly “compassionate” sweeps can endanger the individuals forced to leave.
“Sweeps and even the threat of sweeps do nothing to solve homelessness,” said Eli Cortez, an organizer with the nonprofit. “They merely push people into more dangerous hiding spots like creek beds, where risk of injury or death is high.”
Patricia Barrera, a representative for the Housing Strategy Office, noted that many people were unable to accept city assistance due to restrictions on bringing pets, along with couples left stranded due to gender-segregated facilities. These individuals were simply asked to relocate, with nowhere to turn.
During the Austin-enforced sweep, the city arrested 22 individuals, many of whom were tied to existing warrants, while issuing 71 formal notices for illegal activity, including public camping and drug paraphernalia possession.
These arrests and notices illustrate the failure of encampment sweeps to solve homelessness. $830,000 later, zero long-term solutions were adopted. Instead of finding housing solutions, the sweeps have arrested people who have nowhere else to turn but to sleep on the street.
Moreover, the decision to move forward with an encampment sweep tells a deeper story of a failing narrative on solutions to homelessness. With greater education about the downsides of encampment sweeps, Austin could achieve far better outcomes for its homeless residents and the city’s well-being.
A History of Housing Encampment Sweeps
The sweep came largely in response to a failed referendum in October by Austin residents. The plan, called Proposition Q, would have funded millions in homeless services, among other social spending measures, while raising city property tax rates by more than 20%. With a failed vote, the city could not afford additional housing services. Instead, based on a ban on public camping restored by voters in 2021, city officials were required to carry out the sweep.
Austin’s encampment sweeps are not new to the city. In February 2025, Austin proposed a $1.2 million plan dedicated solely to clearing homeless encampments, in addition to a 10-year, $350 million plan to “effectively end” homelessness in the city.
City officials claim the sweeps are an efficient method to reduce the effects of homelessness. But many more studies suggest that these sweeps cause significant trauma and are ineffective at changing outcomes for homeless individuals.
According to a study by the University of Colorado Anschutz, homeless sweeps and the trauma they inflict reduce the life expectancy of those experiencing them by up to 20 years. A further study in Denver showed that sweeps are actually correlated with increased crime by causing further instability to those displaced.
If Homeless Encampment Sweeps Are Not the Answer, What Is?
Less than 200 miles north of Austin, Dallas has chosen not to sweep its homeless residents away. Instead, it has worked alongside advocates and city officials to adopt a multi-pronged approach to ending homelessness. Since 2021, Dallas’ housing initiative has housed close to 17,000 people, resulting in a 28% decrease in rough sleeping and a 24% overall decrease in homelessness. In Dallas’ downtown area, the city has declared an official end to unsheltered homelessness.
Unlike in Austin, where even city officials expressed concern over the lack of coordination, a critical component of Dallas’ success has been its partnerships with local nonprofits and churches. With their help, volunteers and workers have partnered to provide daily outreach, housing-focused services, and personalized care.
For Austin Street Center, a Dallas-based nonprofit, working with the city before a sweep takes place is critical. If the city sees clearing an area as a priority, CEO of Austin Street Daniel Roby argues that Dallas must ensure the individuals living there “have access to the resources they need.” Before a planned sweep, Austin Street will meet daily with residents of the encampment to understand their needs and offer further professional care when necessary.
During daily outreach, workers remind homeless residents that, while they cannot sleep outside, they do have adequate alternatives, including a shelter bed that leads to a pathway to long-term housing. Other workers from a church-based organization, Stewpot, reach out to homeless residents and strategize one-on-one to help them find jobs and housing opportunities.
Dallas’ solution understands that solving homelessness cannot be a one-sided approach. Instead, it requires serious consideration from business stakeholders, government officials, nonprofits, and the voices of the people the city seeks to house. By adopting an approach that tackles homelessness from multiple angles, Dallas has seen an end to rough sleeping that can last.
A Solution That Impacts More Than Just Homelessness
And the impacts of reducing homelessness have not simply applied to housing. In an area once avoided by businesses for its violent crime, downtown Dallas reported a 26% decrease in crime in the first half of 2025.
CEO Sarah Kahn of Housing Forward, a church-based nonprofit in downtown Dallas, argues that when housing organizations work with the city and surrounding businesses, comprehensive solutions are possible.
Less homelessness means more tourism, more business, and cheaper solutions for everyone involved. Money is not wasted on periodic encampment sweeps. And recidivism rates of people imprisoned time and again for simply living on the streets drop.
A Narrative Change
Ultimately, Dallas highlights the power of a narrative.
In one city, encampment sweeps are supported by voters because they believe they will reduce crime, clean up the streets, and increase business investment. In another city, street sleeping has been eradicated in its downtown, crime has dropped, and encampment sweeps are no longer present, backed by a belief that an end to homelessness is achievable through comprehensive efforts to serve homeless Americans.
As voters, we carry the burden of understanding the actual impact of encampment sweeps. Austin’s approach to housing has taken hold because voters believe that encampment sweeps are effective and housing services are not. But Dallas shows us that trusting evidence-based solutions to homelessness produce humanizing, long-term solutions for homeless Americans and the cities they inhabit.