Criminalising homelessness is not just cruel: it’s costly, too

An officer from the Sheriff's Department and a social worker walk the homeless encampment in Anaheim, California in February 2018. Image: Getty.

Increasingly, local laws punish Americans who are homeless.

By severely restricting or even barring the ability to engage in necessary, life-sustaining activities in public, like sitting, standing, sleeping or asking for help, even when there’s no reasonable alternative, these laws are essentially persecuting homeless men, women and children.

As law professors who study how laws can make homelessness better or worse, we encourage cities, suburbs and towns to avoid punishing people who live in public and have nowhere else to go. One big reason: these “anti-vagrancy laws” are counterproductive because they make it harder to escape homelessness.

Many paths to not having a home

Why do at least half a million Americans experience homelessness at any time?

Researchers find that most people who become homeless have nowhere to live after being evicted, losing their jobs or fleeing an abusive partner.

Many emergency homeless shelters are perpetually full. Even those with beds to spare may enforce rules that exclude families, LGBTQ youth and people with pets.

And when homeless people can stay in shelters, often they may only spend the night there. That means they have to go somewhere else during the daytime.

More laws

As the number of people facing homelessness increases, local residents are demanding that their elected officials do something about the homeless people they encounter in their daily lives. The leaders of cities, towns and suburbs are often responsive.

But more often than not, municipalities don’t address the underlying problems that cause homelessness by, say, providing sufficient permanent housing, affordable housing or shelters with minimal barriers to entry. Instead, criminalising homelessness is growing more popular.

Over the last decade, city-wide bans on camping in public have increased by 69 percent while city-wide panhandling bans rose by 43 percent, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

Advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union frequently challenge these laws in court. Judges often strike down such laws on the grounds that they violate constitutionally protected rights, such as the freedom of speech or due process.

Still, more and more communities keep trying to outlaw homelessness.


Criminalising homelessness is ineffective

Not only do we and other legal experts find these laws to be unconstitutional, we see ample evidence that they waste tax dollars.

Cities are aggressively deploying law enforcement to target people simply for the crime of existing while having nowhere to live. In 2016 alone, Los Angeles police arrested 14,000 people experiencing homelessness for everyday activities such as sitting on sidewalks.

San Francisco is spending some US$20 million per year to enforce laws against loitering, panhandling and other common conduct against people experiencing homelessness.

Jails and prisons make extremely expensive and ineffective homeless shelters. Non-punitive alternatives, such as permanent supportive housing and mental health or substance abuse treatment, cost less and work better, according to research one of us is doing at the Homeless Rights Advocacy Project at Seattle University Law School and many other sources.

But the greatest cost of these laws is borne by already vulnerable people who are ticketed, arrested and jailed because they are experiencing homelessness.

Fines and court fees quickly add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars. A Sacramento man, for example, found himself facing $100,000 in fines for convictions for panhandling and sleeping outside. These costs are impossible to pay, since the “crimes” were committed by dint of being unable to afford keeping a roof over his head in the first place.

And since having a criminal record makes getting jobs and housing much harder, these laws are perpetuating homelessness.

Joseph W. Mead, Assistant Professor, Cleveland State University and Sara Rankin, Professor of Lawyering Skills, Seattle University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Home-working and uncertainty: How will coronavirus affect jobs around the country?

A quiet commute: the M8 motorway in Scotland. Image: Getty.

This week’s unprecedented announcement by the Prime Minister on how we need to live our lives over the coming weeks and months will have profound impacts up and down the country. The geography of this will vary depending on the structure of different local economies. This blog looks at three areas where this will play out – self-employment, the ability to work from home, and the rise of remote working.

Self-employed people in the North and Midlands are more likely to be in insecure, lower-paid roles at high risk from economic shocks

The economic impact of Coronavirus on self-employed people has received a lot of attention in recent weeks. And while the Chancellor stepped in to extend Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) to this group and people working on zero-hour contracts, they still stand to lose almost two-thirds of their current earnings.

Britain’s self-employed population is disproportionately located in London; of the almost 5 million self-employed people across the country, almost a million live in the capital. London accounts for just over 15 per cent of all workers in the UK, but for approximately 20 per cent of all self-employed people. Along with Worthing and Brighton, almost one in five people in work are self-employed in the capital. 

In contrast, self-employment is way less popular in other parts of the country: in Gloucester and Hull, for example, less than 7 per cent of people are self-employed.

But while cities in the North and Midlands might have lower rates of self-employment, those who are self-employed in these places are more likely to be in precarious situations. Of all the self-employed people in Burnley and Blackburn, only two in ten also have access to additional income as employees.

By contrast, four in ten do in Cambridge. In addition to that, they are also more likely to be in lower-skilled, lower-paid occupations, such as in the hospitality, personal care and transport sectors, meaning they are more vulnerable to economic shocks.

Share of self employed people that are self employed only. Image: Centre for Cities.

Cities in the Greater South East are more likely to be able to shift to working from home

The Prime Minister asked those who can work from home to do so. But how likely is this across the country?

The jobs that could be more easily done from home – such as consultants or finance – are concentrated in cities in the Greater South East (see the figure below). Assuming some sectors could completely shift to home working if necessary, up to one in two workers in London could shift to working from home. Meanwhile in Reading, Aldershot and Edinburgh over 40 per cent of workers could too.

On the other hand, less than 20 per cent of all workers in Barnsley, Burnley and Stoke could work from home, suggesting the economies of many northern cities are likely to be hardest hit by a complete lockdown. Manchester, Leeds, Warrington and Newcastle are the exceptions as they have a higher share of jobs that could shift to home-working, reflecting the slightly different structure of their economies compared to other northern cities.

Estimate of workers that could work from home 2018. Image: Centre for Cities.

Once Coronavirus has peaked, face-to-face interaction will continue to be more important than ever

The arrival of Coronavirus has sparked debate in the comment sections of newspapers about the benefits of home working.


This is nothing new. In the late nineties the death of distance was declared by many because of internet-driven improvements in communications. And yet, despite their further advancement since, jobs (particularly high-skilled ones) have continued to cluster in cities.

This is because of the benefits that cities offer – such as face-to-face interaction. While this might seem intangible, no doubt many readers who have been grappling with trying to communicate with colleagues working from home in recent days will now be all too aware of the benefits of being in the same room as their team. So, while technology no doubt makes this strange period a little easier than it would otherwise have been, by the end of it we are likely to be reminded of the value of face-to-face meetings to help us get things done.

Elena Magrini is a senior analyst at the Centre for Cities, on whose website this article originally appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.