The Criminalization of Homelessness

• Legislation that makes it illegal to sleep, sit, or store personal belongings in public spaces in cities where people are forced to live in public spaces;
• Selective enforcement of more neutral laws, such as loitering or open container laws, against homeless persons;
• Sweeps of city areas where homeless persons are living to drive them out of the area, frequently resulting in the destruction of those persons’ personal property, including important personal documents and medication; and
• Laws that punish people for begging or panhandling to move poor or homeless persons out of a city or downtown area.

Another trend is increased city efforts to target homeless persons indirectly by placing restrictions on providers serving food to poor and homeless persons in public spaces.

Jefferson Street Bridge A Hotspot Of Controversial Actions - By Steve at Stone Soup Station, September 26, 2007

Accept it: Downtown homeless here to stay - Opinion by Ernesto Portillo Jr., Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.07.2007

Despite city ordinance, do-gooders continue to feed homeless - By Jerome Burdi |South Florida Sun-Sentinel, October 7, 2007

A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of homelessness in U.S. Cities -

Excerpts from the Executive Summary by the National Coalition for the Homeless and The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

Criminalization Measures Are Bad Policy and Violate Constitutional Rights

These practices that criminalize homelessness do nothing to address the underlying
causes of homelessness. Instead, they exacerbate the problem. They frequently move
people away from services. When homeless persons are arrested and charged under these measures, they develop a criminal record, making it more difficult to obtain employment or housing. Further, criminalization measures are not cost efficient. In a nine-city survey of supportive housing and jail costs, jail costs were on average two to three times the cost of supportive housing.

Criminalization measures also raise constitutional questions and many of them violate the civil rights of homeless persons. Courts have found certain criminalization measures
unconstitutional:

• For example, when a city passes a law that places too many restrictions on begging, free speech concerns are raised as courts have found begging to be protected speech under the First Amendment.
• When a city destroys homeless persons’ belongings or conducts unreasonable searches or seizures of homeless persons, courts have found such actions violate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Courts have found that a law that is applied to criminally punish a homeless person for necessary life activities in public, like sleeping, violates that person’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment if theperson has nowhere else to perform the activity.

Laws that do not give people sufficient notice of prohibited conduct or allow for arbitrary enforcement by law enforcement officials can be unconstitutionally vague. Courts have found loitering and vagrancy laws unconstitutionally vague. In addition to violating U.S. law, criminalization measures can violate international human rights law. The United States has signed international human rights agreements, many of which prohibit actions that target homeless people living in public spaces.

Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization

While many cities engage in practices that exacerbate the problem of homelessness by
pursuing criminalization measures, more constructive approaches do exist in some cities around the country. The following examples can serve as more constructive approaches to homelessness:

• Broward County, FL. The Taskforce for Ending Homelessness, Inc., a not-for-profit agency that provides outreach, education, and advocacy services for the homeless population in Broward County, has partnered with the Ft. Lauderdale police department to create an outreach team made up of police officers and a civilian outreach worker who is formerly homeless. In its five years of operation, the Homeless Outreach Team has had over 23,000 contacts with homeless individuals and has placed 11,384 people in shelters. Estimates suggest that there are at least 2,400 fewer arrests each year as a result of the Homeless Outreach Team.
• Pasadena, CA. The Pasadena Police Department and the Los Angeles Department of Health have partnered to form the Homeless Outreach Psychiatric Evaluation (HOPE) Team. The program created three teams of mental health and law enforcement officials to provide compassionate assistance to persons in need of mental health assessment and services.
• Ohio. In Ohio, the three largest cities, Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, fund teams of trained workers to go out under the bridges and visit the encampments near the rivers to assist those outside the service system. The critical component to the success of these programs is that they do not put a lot of restrictions on the assistance that they are offering and offer help at nontraditional hours when other services are closed, providing a vital link between mainstream services and a population that resists congregate living.
• Washington, DC. The downtown business community in Washington, D.C., created a day center for homeless people who may not have anywhere to go during the day when shelters are closed. Through the Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District, business owners fund this day center that can serve up to 260 people per day, with indoor seating, laundry, showers, and a morning meal.
• San Diego, CA. In 1989, a public defender from San Diego created the nation’s first Homeless Court Program, which is a special monthly Superior Court session held at local shelters for homeless defendants to resolve outstanding misdemeanor criminal cases. Homeless courts expand access to the judicial system and assist homeless defendants by addressing outstanding warrants and criminal offenses to remove barriers to benefits, treatment, housing, and employment.

Recommendations

Instead of criminalizing homelessness, city governments, business groups, and law
enforcement officials should work with homeless people, providers, and advocates for
solutions to prevent and end homelessness. Cities should dedicate more resources to more affordable housing, shelters, and homeless services. To address street homelessness, cities should adopt or dedicate more resources to outreach programs, such as the ones highlighted in this report. Further, cities and states can set up programs to help homeless individuals apply for federal benefits to which they are entitled but may not be receiving, such as Supplemental Security Income benefits for disabled individuals, food stamps, or the earned income tax credit. Business groups can play a positive role in helping to address the issue of homelessness. Instead of advocating for criminalization measures, business groups can put resources to solutions to homelessness, such as the Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District’s day center. The federal government can also play a role in encouraging cities to pursue more constructive approaches to homelessness. Federal funding for homeless and poverty programs should be conditioned on local government agreement not to punish homeless persons for conduct related to their status. As criminalization measures move people away from services, make it more difficult for people to move out of homelessness, and cost more due to incarceration and law enforcement costs than more constructive approaches, cities would be wise to seek constructive alternatives to criminalization. When cities work with homeless persons and advocates toward solutions to homelessness, instead of punishing those who are homeless or poor, everyone can benefit.

Click here to read the full report.