Navigation Centers: Analysis of Harm on Homeless Individuals and Community Hosts

Homelessness is an issue that is not ubiquitous nor specific to any region in the United States. It ravages lives, communities, and tax dollars, uptakes a vast majority of police services in areas with high rates of homelessness, and consistently is described as a top issue for residents in Colorado, Washington, California, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Many scholars have written articles on the benefits of shelters, navigation centers, and other homelessness services; but tend to neglect the negative impacts these institutions have on surrounding neighborhoods. In many instances, negative attributes are claimed to have “no statistical weight” or have “no supporting evidence”, but if that were the case, why are neighborhoods surrounding these services consistently airing their concerns on social media, news articles, and to their local governments? Is the lack of research on these negative effects a method of cherry picking data to support government efforts to find solutions to homelessness that time and time again fail or underperform? Without a full, honest, and well researched argument displaying both the positive and negative aspects of homelessness resources, proposed homelessness action plans inherently create division and reinforce the systematic view of homeless individuals as problems that need to be addressed. Until we understand the negative impacts of shelters, navigation centers, and other homelessness initiatives on both the communities they exist in and homeless individuals themselves, we will not be able to appropriately or effectively help our homeless neighbors into a successful or prosperous future. 

Colorado has the highest rate of homelessness in the southwest United States, with over 14,400 experiencing homelessness on any given night. Within the Metro Denver region, at least $481.2 million is spent annually on shelters, services, emergency response and healthcare for individuals experiencing homelessness (Common Sense Institute Colorado, 2021). For a population ranging from 4,171 to 10,428, these expenditures equate to a range of $41,679 per person to $104,201 per individual experiencing homelessness in the City of Denver. In comparison, the per-pupil spending in K-12 schools in Denver Public Schools in 2019 was $19,202 for a total school population of 87,644 (Common Sense Institute Colorado, 2021). Consistently, shelters and beds for homeless individuals remain underused, with an average of 150 beds empty for individuals and 495 beds empty for families (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2023). This suggests there is some underlying reason why over 4,400 individuals and 311 families slept outside in Colorado when there were beds available for some individuals and all families. In 2015, San Francisco opened its first Navigation Center to address needs for its 9,784 homeless individuals (Denver Metro has 10,054) and proposed these centers would not merely provide beds, but a route out of homelessness (Herring, 2021). After engaging with homeless individuals and spending 9 months living on the street, Herring found that unfortunately, after a few months of being open, the navigation center did not reduce the number of encampments nor reduce policing of homeless individuals. Rather, the number of camps and emergency calls increased since the opening of the center, not because the shelter had failed in servicing homeless individuals, but because it was bringing more homeless individuals to the area with no room within the center to house them (Herring, 2021).

As the Denver Metro area moves to more solutions like navigation centers to address homelessness, communities are generally, at first, pleased with the different approach that seems holistic and offers long term solutions. These claims have yet to be proven in the Metro area, however. In Lakewood, a Navigation Center opened in 2024 has sparked complaints of increased crime rates since opening, with some community members reporting that their life had been threatened on multiple occasions (Lakewood Informer, 2024). In Denver, a navigation center opened at the former Double Tree Hotel location has seen a 2,900% increase in emergency and first responder calls and a 317% increase in crime since its opening in 2024 (CBS News Denver, 2024 and Public Crime Map Database, 2023-24) and has recently been the location of a double homicide, resulting in increased security measures (Denverite, 2024). Despite these reports and public data statistics, proposals for new navigation centers, such as the one in Arvada, largely deny claims that any negative outcomes are seen with their implementation. In a presentation from the City of Arvada from September 17, 2024, they claim that navigation centers are successful and have been implemented in several cities, including Lakewood and Denver (City of Arvada, 2024). These grandiose claims have not been corroborated with any data nor studies that include the voices of homeless individuals or housed individuals in the community. In a similar model of navigation center implemented in Tacoma, a suburb of Seattle, participants completed a survey after 30, 60, and 120 days of staying in the center. In this survey, it was determined that there were no significant improvements to individual’s mental or physical health, quality of life, or perspectives on their next steps (University of Washington, 2018). Survey participants showed no improvements to the experience of drug use, substance related harm, or overdose, despite a lower rate of self-reporting drug use. Despite these results, the conclusions presented alongside them described the center as a positive endeavor that supports health-related changes and the reduction of substance abuse; a clear misrepresentation of the results they acquired from residents. These findings suggest that navigation centers do not improve the livelihoods of homeless individuals as they claim, nor do they reduce crime rates or encampments. 

In San Francisco, 6 months after the opening of its first navigation center, city officials reported that it had “exceeded all expectations” through its creative and attractive model that assisted “chronically homeless” and “shelter resistant” citizens. Concurrently, the center did nothing to improve visible homelessness and saw an increase in 911 calls and homeless complaints, despite city promises (Herring, 2021). This failure of the navigation center’s social policy resulted in increased policing and efforts by the sanitation department, which then had devastating physical, mental, and financial effects on the homeless population and created conflict within their community (Herring, 2021).  The navigation center’s goals were then rolled back to create the illusion of success, which it still fails to achieve. Even today, most persons entering the center are returning back to the streets with even more refusing to enter at all (Herring, 2021). Since the failure of their social program, the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) stopped tracking exit outcomes altogether, further reducing the availability of accurate data available regarding navigation centers (Herring, 2021). Most homeless individuals describe navigation centers as “a pit-stop… a break from the street… [that gives] them a chance to relax and take their mind off taking care of their camp all the time,” (Herring, 2021). As the navigation centers failed, so did the conditions for those utilizing their services, resulting in shortened stays, watered down services, and pathways to housing reduced. Years later, most no longer find navigation centers adequate and refuse to enter altogether. 

In conclusion, the lack of relevant data that does not support the implementation of navigation centers does not mean that it does not exist, it simply hasn’t been recorded by the city governments that implement the centers. Navigation centers have been shown in several cases to harm not only the community they are implemented in, but the very people they aim to serve, with many individuals reporting no improvement to their health, mindset, substance abuse, or housing situation. Police resources are stretched thinner as navigation centers are established, call rates increase dramatically, and reports of crime explode. Homeless individuals remain in encampments at the same rate, living in unsafe and unsanitary conditions both inside and outside the centers, but they face much more policing as a result of the centers as well. Officers and sanitation workers are more easily allowed to confiscate tents and enforce anti-homeless laws with the presence of navigation centers, a decision supported by the Martin v. Boise rulings in 2014 and 2018. Based on these impacts, it is both dishonest and disingenuous for any city government to indicate that navigation centers are only positive and will benefit the community they are executed in. In the future, city governments and navigation centers alike should place a greater emphasis on collecting and sharing data that is honest, truthful, and encompasses areas for improvement. Transparency will improve community trust and relationships, but more importantly, it will improve the services and outcomes for the very people we are claiming to serve.