The white paper attempts to link homelessness to over-regulation of the housing market, but in fact dramatic cuts to federal funding for subsidized housing, initiated by President Reagan, led to the birth of modern homelessness. These cuts have never been fully restored under either Republican or Democratic Administrations. Now funding is so inadequate that only one of four people impoverished enough to qualify for help actually receive it.

 

We encourage our audience to be aware of the increased attention the issue of homelessness is receiving on the national stage as the result of President Trump’s focus, and to advocate within their communities to support constructive, non-criminalizing approaches to solving homelessness. See NLCHP’s press releases for our messaging, and, as always, resources such as our criminalization one-pager can be found on our website.

 

Following the Ninth Circuit’s April Martin v. Boise ruling in favor of the Law Center and its partners, Idaho Legal Aid Services and Latham & Watkins, the city of Boise filed its petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on August 22. This petition asked the high court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and Mr. Martin and his counsel now have until October 25 to respond.

The core of the Ninth Circuit’s holding is that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”

 

We know that as a policy matter, housing, not handcuffs, is the best way to end homelessness.  No one wants to see encampments of people forced to live on the streets and alleys of our cities. But contrary to the city’s argument that it needs criminalization as a “tool” for the preservation of public health and safety, cities in fact have a broad range of constructive tools available to them to solve and mitigate the harms of homelessness; criminalization only makes things worse, not better. When communities actually end homelessness, they will find they do not need laws forbidding people to sleep on their streets; no one will need to sleep there.

 

We call on our allies in the field to hold up the positive examples of communities working constructively to end homelessness without the need for criminalization.

 

A recent court settlement in Orange County, California, led by HNH Justice Network member, Carol Sobel not only provided assistance to the in-need people Sobel was representing, but helped establish clearer guidance for what the 9^th Circuit ruling in Martin v. Boise means in practice.

 

Initially, the case was brought to stop the eviction of an 800-person encampment, a group which was able to be brought into shelter and housing through the efforts involved in their defense. The settlement was developed to prevent the recurrence of events like the eviction that started off the case. Under the settlement, not only must adequate shelter space must be provided before any anti-camping laws are enforced, but people experiencing homelessness must be allowed to consult with county health care, social workers or county-contracted service providers as well.

 

A settlement in a similar case in Sonoma County laid out parallel protections, pending the resolution of the Martin case.

This one pager provides an overview of the HNH Campaign and outlines concrete ways for people to get involved. It also includes a fact sheet on the criminalization of homelessness. This tool is useful to share with people who are already familiar with homelessness issues and are looking for more information about the HNH Campaign.

 

We encourage campaign endorsers to link relevant events to the national Housing Not Handcuffs campaign. Please see the guidelines for branding your materials here.