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.
