Protecting Human Rights: Countering Criminalization of Homelessness and Promoting Constructive Alternatives Tristia Bauman, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, D.C., DC Daniel Levy, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Washington, DC, DC Professor Sara Rankin, Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, WA Since 2012, both the federal government and international human rights monitors have agreed that criminalizing homelessness violates our constitutional and human rights obligations, and is the least effective way to address homelessness. This session will explore arguments against criminalization and share creative legal, policy, and pro bono strategies for implementing alternatives.
nlchp.org Illegal to be Homeless The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities
nlchp.org
Number of U.S. Cities With Bans 16% Increase 3% Decrease 20% Increase 34% Decrease nlchp.org 160 Changes in Number of Cities with Bans Focused on Particular Public Places 140 2011 2014 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Ban on Camping in Particular Public Places Ban on Loitering, Loafing, or Vagrancy in Particular Public Places Ban on Begging in Particular Public Places Ban on Sleeping in Particular Public Places
Number of U.S. Cities With City-Wide Bans 60% Increase 35% Increase 25% Increase No Change nlchp.org Trends Show Overall Increase in City-Wide Bans 70 60 2011 2013 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ban on Camping in Public, City-Wide Ban on Loitering, Loafing, or Vagrancy in Public, City-Wide Ban on Begging in Public, City-Wide Ban on Sleeping in Public, City Wide
nlchp.org Camping in Public 60% increase in city-wide bans on camping in public 16% increase in bans on camping in particular places Camping is broadly defined Examples: Minneapolis, MN Clearwater, FL Orlando, FL Public and private property Creates no homeless zones
nlchp.org Sleeping in Public No change in city-wide bans on sleeping in public 34% decrease in bans on sleeping in particular places Examples: Manchester, NH Virginia Beach, VA Sleeping vs. Camping Impact on health and safety
nlchp.org Begging in Public 25% increase in city-wide bans on begging in public 20% increase in bans on begging in particular places Examples: Lexington, KY Springfield, IL Mobile, AL Need for access to cash City-wide bans vs. bans in particular places
nlchp.org Loitering, Loafing, and Vagrancy 35% increase in city-wide bans on loitering 3% decrease in bans on loitering in particular places Loitering is broadly defined Examples: Newport, RI Wichita, KS Overlap with trespass laws
nlchp.org Sitting and Lying Down 43% increase in laws prohibiting sitting and lying down in public Sit/Lie Laws Examples: Virginia Beach, VA Denver, CO No evidence that sit/lie laws improve economic activity in a community Example: Berkeley, CA
nlchp.org Living in Vehicles 119% increase in laws prohibiting living in vehicles Examples: El Cajon, CA Las Vegas, NV Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, No. 11-56957, 2014 WL 2766541 (9 th Cir. June 19, 2014) Loss of belongings
nlchp.org Food Sharing 9% of cities prohibit sharing food with homeless people Need for food services Expands liability to homeless service providers and volunteers Example: Dallas, TX Ft. Lauderdale, FL
nlchp.org Criminalization Laws are Expensive Temporarily cycles people through costly criminal justice system Providing housing is far more cost effective Examples: Utah Central Florida Exposes cities to expensive litigation
nlchp.org Costs of Criminalization in Central Florida The Cost of Long-Term Homelessness in Central Florida (2014), a report by Rethink Homelessness found: Osceola County spent $6,417,905 over 10 years to arrest and jail 37 individuals (1,250 arrests). Orange County spent $3,509,088 over 10 years to arrest and jail 37 individuals (1,320 arrests). Seminole County spent $1,712,246 over 10 years to arrest and jail 37 individuals (520 arrests). Average annual cost to be homeless (including jail and hospitalizations) was $31,065 per person per year. Providing permanent supportive housing for individuals cost an average of $10,051 per person per year, an annual cost savings of $21,014 per person, or a reduction of 68% per person, per year.
nlchp.org Criminalization Laws Do Not Work Collateral consequences of criminalization Criminal records Loss of photo identification and other needed belongings Employment Housing Public Benefits Access to justice barriers
nlchp.org Criminalization Laws are Illegal Majority of legal challenges to criminalization laws resulted in positive outcomes 100% of challenges to anti-food sharing laws 71% of challenges to anti-camping or anti-sleeping laws 66% of challenges to panhandling laws Laws are sometimes upheld as reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions Considerations for litigation KEY CONCLUSION: Criminalization is a losing strategy for cities
nlchp.org Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization Devote more resources to affordable housing and needed services Examples: National Housing Trust Fund Miami-Dade County s Homeless and Domestic Violence Tax Improve efficient and effective service delivery Examples: Housing First in Utah 25 Cities Initiative Improve Police Training and Practices Example: Homeless Outreach Team in Houston, TX Improve Transition Planning from Jails and Hospitals Example: Respite care in Philadelphia, PA
nlchp.org Contact Information Tristia Bauman Senior Attorney tbauman@nlchp.org 202-638-2535 ext. 102 www.nlchp.org
BELL v. CITY OF BOISE
PARTIES: Plaintiffs: Homeless individuals in Boise, Idaho Originally 6 plaintiffs Maintaining contact with client population is difficult Currently 2 plaintiffs Plaintiffs have been homeless for years. Both have been cited on nights they were prevented from entering shelters. They cannot afford the fines and have faced short-term incarceration. Defendants: City of Boise, Boise P.D., and Police Chief Motion to Dismiss Boise P.D. and Boise Police Chief
CITY ORDINANCES: Camping Ordinance It is unlawful to use any of the streets, sidewalks, parks or public places as a camping place at any time, or to cause or permit any vehicle to remain in any of said places to the detriment or public travel or convenience... Disorderly Conduct Ordinance Anyone occupying, lodging or sleeping in any building, structure or place, whether public or private, or in any motor vehicle without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession or in control thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor
CLAIMS: Case History (1 st Amended Complaint) Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments 1983 and Declaratory Judgment Act Eighth Amendment (2 nd Amended Complaint) It is cruel and unusual to punish homeless people for sitting, lying, or sleeping outside when they cannot comply with the law (shelters are full) Because the ordinances violate the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act ( 1983 claims dismissed)
PRECEDENT: Robinson v. California In 1962, the Supreme Court rule that criminalization of involuntary conduct violates the Eighth Amendment The CA statute at issue made it illegal to be addicted to narcotics Powell v. Texas later reiterated that the criminalized conduct must be involuntary (and public intoxication is voluntary) Jones v. City of Los Angeles (vacated per settlement) In 2006, the 9 th Circuit held that a city ordinance criminalizing sleeping in public was unconstitutional because there was not enough shelter space available and sleeping is an unavoidable act Districts courts have since split in cases with similar facts
FACTS: Number of Homeless People in Boise: PIT Count There are around 400 homeless individuals Number of Beds in Homeless shelters (300-350) Expert testimony: only 300 emergency shelter beds Shelter testimony: approximately 350 beds Boise Rescue Mission religious 258 beds (148 beds for men; 110 for women) 80 mats Never report being full Interfaith Sanctuary non-religious 96 beds (74 for men; 22 for women) Almost always full
BOISE RESCUE MISSION: BRM is a religious institution BRM states that its primary objective is to introduce everyone to Jesus Christ BRM gives preference for beds to those willing to participate in religious programming Timeout rules: women can only stay 30 nights, and men can only stay 17 nights before they must either enroll in religious programing or leave for at least 30 days.
ARGUMENT: Homeless people in Boise are being cited for sleeping in public when the shelters are full Factual disputes regarding number of homeless people in Boise and number of beds in shelters Alternatively, if the shelters are not full, the beds in the religious shelter should be discounted BRM s mission is religiously oriented. Homeless people cannot stay at BRM if they have not enrolled in religious programing after 17-30 days. Either way, some are excluded from shelters Disabilities and mental illness can cause involuntary actions that prevent certain homeless people from being accepted at shelters
THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?
The Crime of Homelessness
The Crime of Homelessness
HRAP Focus on Washington Homeless Rights Advocacy Project (HRAP) at SU School of Law Korematsu Center Collaborations with Berkeley, NLCHP, community organizations Data collection, research, analysis on 4 topics Street level surveys Student written work vetted with experts, culminating in oral presentations to panels of experts
HRAP Policy Brief Topics 14-15 Survey of Washington Ordinances & Enforcement History of Criminalization Intersectionality of Homelessness & Other Marginalized Groups Cost Analyses: Incarceration vs. Alternatives
Survey of Washington Ordinances Research and assembly of live link chart 72 most populous cities; 53% of state population Break down by city and by type of prohibited conduct General analyses of the Washington data (trends, ranges) Comparisons with California and national data
Survey of Washington Enforcement Public records requests served on higher offense cities (currently top 6) Number of citations, fees, duration of incarceration, demographic data for offenders General analysis of evident enforcement trends Incorporate into Washington ordinance survey analysis
History of Criminalization National, statewide, and local history of criminalization Similarities between criminalization of the homeless and other (since rejected) efforts to remove marginalized communities from sight Legal and policy precedent and support
Intersectionality of Homelessness & Other Marginalized Groups National, statewide, and local survey of demographic statistics Overlay of homelessness and other marginalized groups, such as racial minorities, physical and mental disabilities, LGBTQ Legal and policy precedent and support
Cost Analyses: Incarceration vs. Alternatives National, statewide, and local analysis of data Criminalization is more expensive, less effective than alternatives Policy support
Coordinated Mobilization of Academia to Advance Policy Advocacy Identify specific policy advocacy focus E.g., the criminalization of homelessness Collaborate with national, state, local organizations Identify academic partners Collaborations across different academic institutions Lawyering skills, clinics, legal writing (sociology, criminal justice) Integrate the class experience Schedule monthly strategic calls to discuss research Comment on each other s work and share materials Publish policy briefs
How Can You Get Involved? 1. Help administer surveys 2. Join the Washington Anti-Homeless Criminalization Campaign steering committee (WHACC) or start your own 3. Review HRAP policy briefs 4. Become a HRAP partner 5. Consider replicating methodologies to determine scope of criminalization in your jurisdiction rankins@seattleu.edu