The FWD #212 • 744 words
A recent Supreme Court decision enables local governments to criminalize their unsheltered residents.
Last month in the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments can legally enforce penalties against unhoused individuals for being present in public spaces. This decision overturns previous rulings by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in this case and in Martin v. City of Boise, which had placed limits on such enforcement when individuals had no alternative shelter.
This ruling marks a significant shift in how the law views the rights of unhoused individuals, as well as the government’s power to regulate public spaces. Citing their need for “latitude and flexibility” to address homelessness, many local government representatives—including the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties—actively lobbied for this outcome.
Housing and homelessness practitioners, however, argue that anti-encampment ordinances and similar measures undermine housing rights, and may lead to increased criminalization of homelessness. That would swing the door wide open to punish people for their status, rather than their actions.
What the research tells us: criminalization worsens the problem.
Ethics aside, significant research makes it clear: criminalizing homelessness is ineffective.
Criminalizing homelessness creates an expensive and ineffective cycle that moves unhoused individuals between the streets and the justice system, rather than addressing their core needs for housing, employment, or services. Enforcement actions can lead to the loss of crucial personal items, including forms of identification necessary for many things, including crucial temporary shelter.
Criminal records resulting from these policies make it even harder for individuals to secure jobs, benefits, or housing, thereby worsening their situation and complicating efforts to overcome homelessness. Finally, implementing these policies is expensive, diverting valuable public funds towards law enforcement and incarceration instead of more constructive solutions.
Criminal convictions, even for minor crimes, can make someone ineligible for federally subsidized housing. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), the local administrators of federally subsidized housing programs, have broad discretion to make their own policies regarding the eligibility of people with criminal records, and many PHAs use exclusive policies that prohibit anyone with a criminal record—even for minor offenses—from receiving assistance.
Lengthy periods of incarceration under laws criminalizing homelessness can also harm a person’s ability to access or maintain housing. Incarceration beyond 90 days can cause even someone who has been without access to housing for years to lose their status as “chronically homeless”, and the prioritization for housing supports that often come along with it. Incarceration and criminal arrest warrants can also cause Social Security benefits to be suspended, a crucial source of income for many.
What the research tells us: housing saves lives— and taxpayer dollars.
Those who work in housing know that criminalization is not the answer. That’s clear in each of these responses to the Grants Pass decision from housing and homelessness organizations across the nation:
- National Low Income Housing Coalition
- Housing Assistance Council
- Enterprise
- Corporation for Supportive Housing
- National Alliance to End Homelessness
- National Homelessness Law Center
- National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
- Virginia Housing Alliance
So what can we do to address this growing issue? We can look at existing examples of housing initiatives that work.
Evidence continues to mount that the “housing first” approach, which provides permanent shelter before any other intervention, effectively disrupts the cycle of homelessness. Investments in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) have historically helped decrease the numbers of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness, improve housing stability, and lead to better health outcomes for vulnerable populations.
But the real kicker here is that housing remains by far the most cost-effective solution to homelessness. That’s true everywhere, and especially so in Virginia. Reporting on PSH outcomes to the General Assembly in 2020, the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS) found that state hospital costs for a cohort of 809 persons decreased by 76% after they spent one year in PSH.
What’s the bottom line?
This decision effectively pushes unhoused individuals out of sight, making it harder for them to access essential services. Criminalization inflicts further hardship on these individuals while failing to address the core issues of homelessness. The ruling enables local authorities to sidestep meaningful solutions, particularly the creation and maintenance of affordable housing, in favor of short-term actions with long-term consequences.
Our advice to local governments looking to explore their newfound authority? Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
For more resources on how to talk about this issue, please visit the Housing Not Handcuffs Communication Toolbox.