Harsh Realities for Criminalizing Homelessness

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Kamille Stevens, Moses Reynoso Colin & Vanessa Lopez-Littleton
September 13, 2024

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that cities can fine or arrest unsheltered individuals who camp in public areas despite there being no space available in local shelters, which has significant implications for the rights and dignity of those affected. This decision overturns previous protections and allows cities to enforce laws against sleeping in public areas, even when there are not sufficient shelter beds available for those experiencing homelessness. It fundamentally shifts the legal landscape and creates a troubling precedent.

Before overturning the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson states like California used the initial ruling to block cities from enacting anti-homelessness laws. Unsheltered individuals could sleep in certain public areas without worrying about legal repercussions. Now that these protections are gone, cities can impose fines and make arrests, effectively penalizing individuals for their living situations that are often linked to their social, economic or health condition. The ruling states that these ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment clearing up confusion that previously protected homeless people from penalties when no shelter was available

As a result of this change, the dignity of homeless individuals is likely to be severely impacted. Criminalizing homelessness can lead to increased stigmatization and lengthening of criminal records, which could have a direct impact on their employability. These effects will make it harder for individuals to reintegrate into society by impacting their financial capability and further perpetuating a cycle of poverty and marginalization, which will directly impact their sense of self-assurance. Penalizing homeless individuals for sleeping in public spaces will increase their stigmatization and marginalization. This shift reinforces societal views that homelessness is a criminal issue rather than a social and economic one.

In the short term, this ruling will likely increase the number of fines and arrests of individuals experiencing homelessness, which could cause additional strain on the legal system as courts will be expected to rule on these as criminal cases. The enforcement of encampment bans will require police resources, which can diminish their capacity to respond to other emergencies. In addition, encampment sweeps lead to further displacement of homeless individuals. Oftentimes, important items, like birth certificates, photo IDs and sentimental items, are lost during these sweeps. Those displaced by them have to move further away from essential resources such as shelters, medical centers and food banks. This constant displacement makes it difficult to retain basic necessities like toiletries, clothing and medicines, which further compromises their health and well-being.

There are also concerns related to the health and safety of those experiencing homelessness. Being forced to move away from resources to areas with limited access to health care services, meals and other health and safety resources contributes to negative health conditions and outcomes. Further, those experiencing homelessness age 30 percent faster than their housed counterparts because they face heightened risks due to reduced access to support services and increased exposure to the elements and toxic chemicals.

In the long-term, this ruling may further entrench homelessness. The increase in criminal arrests will contribute to a vicious cycle of homelessness, fines, arrests, jail time and recidivism. Individuals caught in this cycle become repeat offenders, leading to additional barriers that make it more difficult for them to secure employment and housing. As they accumulate criminal charges and debt, the cycle is perpetuated, making it increasingly challenging to escape their circumstances.

Public health concerns will also intensify as long-term displacement and instability lead to worsening health outcomes for both unsheltered individuals and the surrounding communities. This is due to an increased strain on emergency services and public health systems. States can expect to see an increase in healthcare costs due to the prevalence of preventable illnesses related to homelessness.

Economically, the costs associated with policing, processing fines and jailing homeless individuals will lead to increased state expenditures, potentially diverting funds from programs that could address the root causes of homelessness. Additionally, as access to resources decreases, the severity of health issues will rise, driving up state healthcare expenditures. A 2021 Urban Institute Study found the housing-first approach of providing housing and case management not only addressed the root cause of chronic homelessness but was also one-third of the cost of policing homelessness.

Similar to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, not all cities will respond like Grants Pass and use this as an opportunity to further police homelessness. However, the effects of those cities that do choose to will be felt by surrounding communities. If neighboring cities decide to provide additional support, those cities can expect an increase in their homeless population as more individuals are pushed out of cities like Grants Pass. Conversely, cities like Grant Pass can expect increased expenditures due to related costs. For instance, the cost of policing homelessness is three times more expensive than providing housing and case management.

This ruling is profoundly consequential for many individuals and communities. Public service professionals will need to work with law enforcement, social service organizations, and other entities to ensure that unsheltered individuals are not revictimized by the system. The ultimate goal should be to ensure that everyone has access to a safe, affordable place to stay.

---

Author: Kamille Stevens is a senior student at Cal State Monterey Bay, majoring in Collaborative Health and Human Services with a concentration in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management. Her interests include solutions for homelessness and reducing forced displacement due to gentrification. Stevens may be reached at [email protected].

Author: Moses Reynoso Colin is a senior in the Collaborative Health and Human Services (CHHS) major with a concentration in Public Administration, attending Cal State Monterey Bay. Reynoso has an interest in policies that affect underrepresented communities as well as social justice. Reynoso can be contacted at [email protected].

Author: Vanessa Lopez-Littleton, Ph.D., RN, is Interim Dean of the College of Health Sciences and Human Services and Professor of Public Administration and Nonprofit Management at California State University, Monterey Bay. Her research interests include social determinants of health and racial equity. Dr. Lopez-Littleton may be reached at [email protected], DrVLoLil.Com or @DrVLoLil

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...