Our fragmented approach to public safety

• Author: Maria Ponomarenko
• Position: Associate Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
• Pages: 1665-1679

OUR FRAGMENTED APPROACH TO PUBLIC SAFETY

Maria Ponomarenko*

ABSTRACT

This Essay explores the ways in which the division of funding and responsibil-

ity for various social services across local, state, and federal governments disin-

centivizes sound approaches to societal problems—particularly when it comes to

addressing the needs of the unhoused. Whereas local governments primarily are

responsible for funding and directing the police, most other services, including

housing, healthcare, and substance abuse treatment, are funded and overseen by

other government units. This Essay demonstrates how this fragmentation of

authority has contributed to society’s overreliance on policing and criminal pun-

ishment in addressing the problem of homelessness. First, because fiscal respon-

sibility for various government services is distributed across the various levels of

government, no one government unit may have the financial incentive to depart

from the more punitive status quo. Second, fragmentation creates a familiar sort

of collective action problem: Unless all of the municipalities in a particular

region step up to do their part, the few who do may find themselves carrying the

burden for the region as a whole. Finally, even if all of the actors at various lev-

els of government were equally invested in pursuing a more humane and cost-

effective approach, fragmentation makes it more difficult to mount a coordinated

response to problems that invariably spill over across jurisdictions and policy

domains. This Essay concludes by pointing out that fragmentation may, if any-

thing, be of still greater concern when it comes to the broader project of reima-

gining public safety and redefining the role of the police.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1666

I. WHAT PHOENIX IS (AND IS NOT) DOING FOR THE UNHOUSED . . . . . . . . 1669

II. FRAGMENTED RESPONSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1672

A. Paying for the Unhoused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1672

B. A Failure of Collective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1675

C. The Need for Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1677

III. DEVOLVING DOWN? OR SCALING UP?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1678

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1679

* Associate Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School. I would like to thank the Academy for

Justice at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University for hosting the event that

prompted this paper, as well as the editors at the American Criminal Law Review for their work in bringing this

Essay to publication. I am also grateful to Anna Berglund and Katie McCoy for their terrific research assistance.

© 2022, Maria Ponomarenko.

1665