Homeless Loitering a Crime No More
As the unemployment rate hovers around ten percent in the United States and an increasing number of people are left unable to afford housing; the issue of homelessness and a larger, visible homeless population are presenting themselves to society anew. Some portions of society have decided to term this issue a blight and pursued the criminalization of homelessness. There is a social problem in many cities where the case of the homeless population loitering has become a substantial issue. This policy topic is to address the issue of homeless populations loitering and the fact that it has become a crime in many cities by dealing with laws and resources for the homeless population.
This policy topic specifically incorporates four social work values as described in the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics. This policy incorporates the value of service as it is designed to “help people in need and to address social problems” (The Association, 1999). This would be met in helping people by providing additional safe places and shelter for the homeless population; also in addressing the social problem of the criminalization of homelessness by dealing with the laws.
The social work value of social justice would be incorporated as the policy addresses laws that local governments have set up. This would entail repealing certain current laws, enacting new laws, and changing the practices of cities and businesses. This policy would also address societal thoughts and stereotypes directed toward the homeless population.
Dignity and worth of a person is a necessary aspect of all social work endeavors. This social work value is incorporated by the decriminalization of the homeless population loitering. In this respect a person would not be treated as a criminal and perhaps be viewed as a person of worth by standards of society. By keeping more of the homeless population out of the criminal system this will create opportunities for them to build “socially responsible self-determination” (The Association, 1999).
The importance of human relationships is incorporated in this policy in that were loitering decriminalized the homeless population and the housed population would have a higher frequency of interaction. With the creation of day centers increased social worker and the homeless population interaction could culminate in possible collaborative ventures.
Laws criminalizing the loitering of the homeless population are vast throughout 48 of the United States; controlled by local governments and businesses. “Through the passage of possibly unconstitutional laws, the "selective enforcement" of existing laws, arbitrary police practices, and discriminatory public regulations, people experiencing homelessness face overwhelming hardships in addition to their daily struggle for survival” (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2004). These communities have laws that forbid sleeping, sitting, sharing of food, and standing for too long a period of time. These communities have set a “process of legislating penalties for the performance of life-sustaining functions in public” (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2004).
Other communities create Business Improvement Districts and subsequently create limits on private and public space for the good of a business district. However, “regardless of the number of ordinances passed, homeless people still must eat, sleep, and survive in public because often no alternative is available to them” (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2004). A publication created to help law enforcement officers deal with the homeless population has guidelines that negatively affect the homeless population by deterring loitering. It states cities should, “include central armrests on benches, slanted surfaces at the bases of walls, prickly vegetation in planter boxes, and narrow or pointed treatments on tops of fences and ledges. However, some observers of public spaces argue that the way to lessen the impact of loitering homeless people is to construct even more desirable sitting environments to attract more legitimate users, thus decreasing the ratio of homeless to legitimate users” (Chamard, S. 2010). Other cities have used the presents of business security guards to ask the homeless to “move along”.
Still, several communities have set up task forces to aid in decriminalizing homelessness including: Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Fort Lauderdale. These task forces include such acts of advocacy as city attorney policies and programs, police protocols, police training, and referral programs to social services programs (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2004).
Several groups can be seen as stake holders in the work of this policy. The homeless are the primary stakeholders. They would be impacted by the policy primarily by decriminalization of loitering and the ability to “preform life sustaining functions in public” (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2004). Businesses will be affected either by the stigma of the homeless in public places or by increases traffic that may lead to sales. Pedestrians will be affected by being put in a position to deal more closely with the homeless population. Law enforcement will be affected in that they will have an increased opportunity to pursue crimes that are causing harm to society. Social service agencies will be affected in that they may need to create new programs and may be in need of skills as they are working with a more empowered homeless population. City planners and governments will be affected in that many laws and policies will be reevaluated, repealed, and created.
In reviewing the policy with the five layer policy analysis model each aspect will bring complex issues. I have little experience with policy as it relates to decriminalizing the homeless loitering. Perhaps the most challenging aspect for me will be the economics. It is reported, “federal spending for people who are homeless increased every year in the last decade, more than doubling to over $5 billion. This spending includes both targeted dollars in homeless-specific federal programs and the estimated spending for people who are homeless and using nontargeted federal programs” (Hombs, M. 2011). I am aware most issues are moved by the economics of a matter, but it is an aspect that I do not have much experience with. The political factors that will influence this policy that I am aware of are: lobbying for change of law, creation of public programs, or funding for private programs. I have little experience in the political realm. In dealing with the ideological factors, I have some experience in dealing with the homeless population and the stigma that some communities hold. I believe changing businesses’ and the public’s attitudes towards the homeless population may be a significant challenge as many view them as a menace to organized society. Social movements to support this policy are beginning already. I am aware that California has a proposed Homeless Bill of Rights that is gaining support. I am also unaware of social welfare history that deals specifically with homeless loitering, though, I think the vagrancy laws of the past might relatable.
This policy could measure outcomes by these factors including: cost, quality of life, number of homeless deaths, crime rates, and number of homeless individuals in a community. Cost would be measured by state and local governments’ revenue for policy enactment, as well as local businesses income gains and losses. Quality of life could be measured by a set of standards or by surveys of individuals before and after policy enactment. Crime rates could be measured by local law enforcement agencies before and after policy enactment. The number of homeless in a community can be measured during homeless point in time counts before and after policy enactment. While these factors are multifaceted they would be a good starting point for outcomes of the policy.
Depending on the anticipations of specific outcome findings the policy will be approached differently. Were it measured by the amount of homeless on the streets a different approach and different outcomes will be desired; that is it would tend to be more removal based. If this was the case the policy would alter dramatically; meaning the types of measurements used are fundamental to having a policy oriented toward the social worker and implementation of the social work core values.
References
Chamard, S. (2010). Homeless encampments. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services.
Hombs, M. (2011). Modern homelessness a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Washington, D.C.: The Association.
Illegal to be homeless: The criminalization of homelessness in the United States : Illegal to be homeless
2004 report. (2004). Washington, D.C. (1012 14th St., NW, Suite 600, Washington 20005):
National Coalition for the Homeless.
