Dr. Jonathan Greene: The different ways of managing homelessness

In this video, Dr. Jonathan Greene explores the two approaches states use for dealing with homelessness. One way, he notes, is through providing supports and programs such as Housing First. The other way is by enforcing state mechanisms to move people who are visibly experiencing homelessness out of public view. Dr. Greene argues that removing these individuals from public view affects how we as a society understand homelessness. He explains that we need to consider issues of enforcement, such as tearing down encampments, in relation to human rights. These include the right to use public space in ways that may not be socially approved, and the right to be homeless in the way one chooses in the absence of safe, adequate, and secure housing alternatives. Dr. Greene concludes by discussing a legal decision from the United States that says if a city cannot provide shelter for people experiencing homelessness, they do not have the right to subsequently criminalize them. This video is 5:10 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Dr. Sean Kidd: What is the criminalization of homelessness?

In this video, Dr. Sean Kidd argues that criminalizing homelessness is the outcome of our society’s tendency to stigmatize and label people who experience homelessness as being dangerous. He notes that there are policies and laws that serve to formally criminalize people, such as provincial Safe Streets Acts, that allow for ticketing people who are panhandling in public. Dr. Kidd explains that there are also informal methods of criminalization, such as through the additional attention people experiencing homelessness receive from police and security guards. He notes that these encounters may result in charges for loitering, vagrancy, or trespass. Dr. Kidd concludes that the long-term outcomes of criminalization can serve as barriers to exiting homelessness, such as by limiting access to housing and employment, and producing a record of incarceration that emerges in job searches. This video is 3:13 in length and has closed captions available in English.

One of the most prominent examples of criminalizing homelessness is the increased attention people receive from police when they are visible on the street. We saw this, for instance, with the video of the man in the fountain. Police targeting or profiling occurs primarily for those who are more street-involved than hidden. Recall from the previous section that not all individuals who experience homelessness are street-involved but that those who are, tend to be visible and engaging in money making activities like panhandling and squeegeeing in highly populated urban spaces. The visible nature of this kind of homelessness draws increased police attention and response.

People who are visibly homeless receive increased police attention not because of their actions, but because of where they are doing them. For instance, bathing is not an action that draws police notice but bathing in a fountain does. Drinking beer with friends in a private residence does not generally attract police attention but drinking in a public park does. In a study of 547 adults who were experiencing homelessness and had mental illness, Kouyoumdjian et al., (2019) found that in the year before the study 56% of the participants had police interactions and that the odds of interacting with the police was 47% higher for people who were homeless than housed. Further, the reasons for these police interactions were for acts of daily living (like showering), being victimized, mental health assessments, and suicidal behaviour (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2019). These findings show that there are increased police encounters and that they are not related to criminal behaviours.

Increased police interactions can have negative implications for people who experience homelessness. For instance, they may fear calling the police or emergency services if they are a person who uses drugs and are experiencing, or with someone experiencing, a drug overdose (Collins et al., 2019). For young people, in particular, coming into contact with the law has long-term repercussions that continue even after they have left the streets (Quirouette, Frederick, Hughes, Karabanow, & Kidd, 2016). Young people may find themselves trapped by circumstances that are created by the state’s response of criminalizing homelessness and increasing police enforcement (Fast & Cunningham, 2018). In the next two videos we see this clearly as Dr. Jacqueline Kennelly and Dr. Tyler Frederick, both researchers who focus on youth homelessness, each independently discuss the snowball effect police interactions have on these young people.

Dr. Jacqueline Kennelly: What is the criminalization of homelessness?

In this video, Dr. Jacqueline Kennelly argues that people experiencing homelessness, such as youth, are disproportionately targeted by police because they are visible on the streets. She notes that these individuals often get an accumulation of minor charges that convert into criminal sentences, records, and jail time. Dr. Kennelly warns that young people leaving correctional institutions are vulnerable to getting caught in a snowball effect, in that they are imprisoned and then released with no housing or money and end up continuing their experience of homelessness. This video is 1:11 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Dr. Tyler Frederick: Criminalization through social profiling

In this video, Dr. Tyler Frederick explains that social profiling, like racial profiling, is the idea that certain people have visible markers or characteristics that increase police attention and interest in them. He notes these individuals have higher rates of police contact, not because they commit crime but because they are deemed to be out of place, such as youth congregating in the park or a person who appears to use drugs. Dr. Frederick argues that once a person is criminalized there is a snowball effect that can result in them receiving charges and having their liberty taken away even before they are found guilty of any offense. As a result, some people who are street-involved in urban settings develop a skill for blending in and not attracting police attention. This video is 6:13 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Police interactions with people who appear visibly homeless and/or experiencing mental illness need to be framed within larger structural issues related to the lack of affordable housing, people living in extreme poverty, and the associated stigmas that they face (Frederick, O’Connor, & Koziarski, 2018). Additionally, factors such as race, gender, and class intersect in ways that may diminish a person’s belief that the police are fair and equitable in their practices (Nichols, 2018). The police are often used as a tool for regulating people’s behaviours in public spaces, with some activities being deemed acceptable and others resulting in sanctions. While laws do not explicitly prohibit people from being unhoused, they are used indirectly to punish the behaviours that are more commonly undertaken by people who are street-involved.

We see a clear example of this with the criminalization of people engaged in sex trade work, particularly when it is street-based in nature. Sex trade work is often stigmatized (Benoit et al., 2018, 2020) and people who engage in it are at increased risk of being victimized as a result of the work they do (Baumann et al., 2019). Safety and well-being are pressing concerns for these workers (Magnan-Tremblay, Lanctôt, & Couvrette, 2020) and they use different strategies for navigating violence and stigma (Orchard et al., 2019), but these strategies do not generally involve going to the police. Research conducted with sex workers in five Canadian cities showed that of those who had experienced violence or confinement while working, only 17% reported it to the police, choosing instead to turn to peers for support (Crago, Bruckert, Braschel, & Shannon, 2021). Krüsi et al., (2016) who have studied sex trade work in Canada write that despite police rhetoric of protecting sex workers and prioritizing their safety, they have found people are commonly denied their citizenship rights for police protection by virtue of being in a “risky” occupation. Sibley (2020) further notes that the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act [Bill C-36] demonstrates Canada’s part in a global trend that shifts the state’s attention away from regulating sex work and instead puts forth a carceral agenda.

In much the same way that sex trade work is criminalized, so too are the behaviours that many people who are unhoused and street-involved engage in. We see this through legislation that punishes behaviours like panhandling and squeegeeing as money-making activities. Ontario has the reprehensible title of being the first province to adopt the Safe Streets Act in 1999, followed by British Columbia in 2004 (Chesnay, Bellot, & Sylvestre, 2013). These provincial pieces of legislation are used to ticket people who engage in aggressive panhandling, solicitation of a captive audience (such as people waiting in line for a bus or at an ATM), and the seldom enforced unsafe disposal of glass, needles, and used condoms. Tickets are given out under these laws and if they are not paid, subsequent fines go up and people may face imprisonment for a term not more than six months. In the next two videos, Dr. Tyler Frederick and Dr. Erin Dej discuss the Safe Streets Act as a form of criminalizing homelessness.

Dr. Tyler Frederick: What is the criminalization of homelessness?

In this video, Dr. Tyler Frederick defines criminalization as a policy choice to address a particular social issue, such as substance use, sex trade work, or homelessness, by using the criminal justice system as a primary response. He explains that the criminalization of homelessness often results in policies and laws that target practices associated with homelessness, such as Safe Streets Act legislation that is used to ticket people for panhandling with the potential of jail for accumulated unpaid fines. Dr. Frederick compares these to historical vagrancy laws that gave police authority over people who they deemed to be out of place. He notes that we are currently also seeing more subtle forms of criminalization, through the banishment of people from public places like parks and transit, through selective enforcement of trespass laws that move people along. This video is 4:43 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Dr. Erin Dej: What is the criminalization of homelessness?

In this video, Dr. Erin Dej explains that the criminalization of homelessness refers to the ways that people who are experiencing homelessness become involved in the criminal justice system, largely for activities that housed people would not, because they receive more attention from the police. She provides examples such as standing on the sidewalk, being intoxicated, or urinating in public after being denied entry into a public washroom. Dr. Dej argues that the criminal justice system is an inefficient and unethical tool for managing homelessness. She points to the absurdity of legislation, such as Safe Streets Acts, that ticket people for being so poor that they have to ask others for money. She notes that receiving multiple tickets can have detrimental long-term outcomes that keep people entrenched in homelessness. Dr. Dej concludes that criminalization efforts are led by vocal members of the public whose intention is not to solve homelessness, but rather to remove it from public sight. This video is 6:29 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Dr. Bill O’Grady: What is the criminalization of homelessness?

In this video Dr. William [Bill] O’Grady notes that we have begun talking about the criminalization of homelessness within the past 20 years. He explains that criminalization entails using laws to target the activities of people experiencing homelessness and to punish them through tickets, arrests, or removal from public spaces. Dr. O’Grady notes that sometimes existing laws are used, such as enforcing bylaws against camping in parks to remove encampments during the COVID-19 outbreak, and sometimes new laws are passed with the intention of targeting behaviours commonly associated with homelessness. Dr. O’Grady points to the Safe Streets Acts in Ontario and British Columbia, under which people can be ticketed for panhandling or squeegeeing near roadways, bus stops, and ATMs. He explains that most tickets are not paid, which can result in higher fines, jail time, and implications for housing and employment that make exiting homelessness more difficult. Dr. O’Grady concludes by drawing our attention to ongoing initiatives to challenge these pieces of legislation and inform the government that they are not working in the best interest of people experiencing homelessness or the general public. This video is 5:17 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Increased police attention, social and spatial displacement, and the enforcement of Safe Streets Act legislation are all examples of the criminalization of homelessness. The extension of this increased policing and ticketing is that people who experience homelessness are more likely to be incarcerated as a result. Much like the snowball effect, we heard about with youth and police involvement, being incarcerated has a snowball effect on one’s subsequent lack of opportunities. Research from three Canadian cities supports this statement, with the finding that being incarcerated in the 12 months preceding the study decreased a person’s likelihood of being housed in the two years that followed (To et al., 2016). Incarceration also increases the risk of relapse for people who use drugs (Goldman-Hasbun, Nosova, Kerr, Wood, & DeBeck, 2019).

When people go to jail, they often lose whatever social support and housing they may have had, such as a shelter bed or access to a friend’s couch. Even if a person is only in jail because they were panhandling and accrued too many unpaid tickets, they are subject to criminal sanctions and the stigma that goes along with them. Ideally, institutional discharge planning would occur so that while a person was incarcerated and nearing their release date workers would help them to secure housing and supports. Consider, for instance, applying a Housing First approach to help people transition directly out of jail and into housing. While this would be a logical approach, the coordination and lack of involvement in systems planning from the corrections sector are considerable barriers (Roy et al., 2020). What we see instead, in most cases, is that people are released from jail without anywhere to go. In the next video, Dr. Bill O’Grady explains further.

Dr. Bill O’Grady: The need for better discharge planning out of corrections

In this video Dr. William [Bill] O’Grady argues that people are often released from correctional facilities without a discharge plan in place, which increases their risk of experiencing homelessness. He notes that in the 1990s in Ontario provincial halfway houses were abolished, leaving people with no transitional accommodations upon their release. Dr. O’Grady explains that while some organizations, like the John Howard Society, work in this area more needs to be done to support people in finding housing as they exit jails. In the absence of community supports, there is a revolving door between homelessness and incarceration. Dr. O’Grady concludes that more needs to be done to coordinate and integrate services across public systems, such as corrections, health care, and social services. This video is 2:20 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Dr. Naomi Nichols: The criminalization of encampments

In this video, Dr. Naomi Nichols argues that there are many institutions that contribute to the criminalization of young people who spend time on the street because they have nowhere else to go. She notes that most cities have bylaws banning people from sleeping or forming encampments in public places, like parks, and encourages us to ask ourselves where people go when shelters are full. Dr. Nichols concludes that sometimes people are given no choice, and are arrested and sent to jail, which she explains is costly, harmful, and not a solution to the problem. This video is 1:19 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Where do people live, if there is no affordable housing, shelters are full, and being in public risks being ticketed or sent to jail? As a means of securing their own protection and building community, many people who are unsheltered create encampments in public places. You may have seen these encampments in your own community, such as tents set up around City Hall, in public parks, or less conspicuously under bridges. It is also likely you have seen these removed – at times rather violently – by police acting on government orders.

The COVID-19 period demonstrated gaps in our emergency homelessness response, such as shelters being full and unequipped to manage the public health requirements of physical distancing. To protect themselves from the spread of disease and to increase their own safety, many unsheltered and emergency sheltered people opted instead to set up their own temporary housing with others in the same situation. When these encampments are torn down, it is usually justified under the guise of existing by-laws that ban activities like camping in a public park. We see here again the criminalization of homelessness by focusing on the behaviours people engage in publicly, like sleeping, because they have no alternative private spaces.

Dej, Sanders, and Braimoh (2021) write, “Law enforcement (e.g., police and by-law) is often brought in to respond to encampments. When this happens, there is a tendency for the political nature of encampments and the conditions that produce homelessness to be overlooked. Such interventions and attempts at managing encampments can create a critical divide and, at times divisive relationship, between the city and law enforcement that negatively impacts community resilience” (pg. 6). In the next video, Dr. Jeff Karabanow reflects on the tent encampments that arose and were subsequently torn down during COVID-19.

Dr. Jeff Karabanow: What is the criminalization of homelessness?

In this video, Dr. Jeff Karabanow explains that the criminalization of homelessness is a perspective of equating the poverty of homelessness with something delinquent, deviant, or criminal. He notes that this often occurs through legislation and bylaws that target people living on the streets and engaging in private acts in public, because they have nowhere else to go. Dr. Karabanow argues that criminalization practices are part of a broader effort to make people who live in public spaces uncomfortable. He points to the removal of tent encampments across the country during the COVID-19 pandemic as one such example where people were made out to be deviant for sleeping outside. Dr. Karabanow concludes by arguing that the only time these encampments should be removed, especially during a pandemic, is when there are immediate and sustainable housing options available. This video is 2:43 in length and has closed captions available in English.

Dr. Bernie Pauly: What is the criminalization of homelessness?

In this video Dr. Bernadette [Bernie] Pauly explains that the criminalization of homelessness means being subject to surveillance by policing or bylaw for actions that would be considered activities of daily living, such as sitting or sleeping in public, because a person has no private place to go. She provides the example of people being ticketed for sleeping outside during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite not having a home in which to isolate. Dr. Pauly notes there is a high financial cost to criminalizing homelessness, as funds go towards policing rather than housing, and that it takes a toll on people’s mental health, ability to sleep, and stress levels. She advocates for alternative responses that connect people to the system, particularly for mental health crises and homelessness, in a way that are non-policing based. Dr. Pauly concludes by explaining that displacing people from encampments is a form of criminalization that portrays people who are trying to survive as being a threat to public safety, and that removing them without housing options is neither a human rights nor health-based approach. This video is 9:31 in length and has closed captions available in English.

As Olson and Pauly (2021) note, encampments are a visible form of homelessness that identify the governmental failures to protect citizens through meeting their basic rights to housing, income, and supports. Tearing these communities down, by enforcing city by-laws, is arguably easier than admitting there is a problem – because if the government admits there is a problem, they are legally obligated to solve it. We need to shift the dialogue away from criminalization and towards the enactment of human rights frameworks. This shift is demonstrated in the National Protocol for Homeless Encampments in Canada, authored by Farha and Schwan (2020). In this document, they discuss the eight principles of recognizing residents of encampments as rights holders, engaging with the residents in a meaningful and participatory way, prohibiting forced evictions, exploring alternatives to eviction, relocating people when needed in a way that is human rights compliant, ensuring encampments are set up to provide basic needs like water and toilets, preserving people’s dignity, and respecting and protecting the distinct rights of Indigenous peoples within encampments (Farha & Schwan, 2020).

The criminalization of homelessness is a violation of human rights committed against people because they lack housing. When we talk about people experiencing homelessness and crime, there may be a tendency to assume these individuals are the ones committing crime. Yet, what the research shows is that people who experience homelessness are at greatly increased risk of being the victims of crime, in large part because they are socially excluded and pushed into unsafe physical spaces. The criminalization of homelessness takes many forms including increased police attention, ticketing as the result of asking people for money, being jailed for not being able to pay fines, and then being released back into the community without proper planning and with limitations that make it more difficult to find housing and employment. Does that seem fair to you?

We can see the criminalization of homelessness at work when we turn on the news and see tent encampments being torn down with government explanations that they pose a risk to public safety. What they fail to mention, is that not having those safe spaces is a much bigger risk to the safety of those living within them. We began and ended this section with discussions about human rights. This seemed to us a necessary thing to do, as human rights are left out of the criminalization approach. We have said before – and will continue to say – that homelessness is not a criminal offense, nor will it be solved with police and handcuffs.

Podcast: What is the criminalization of homelessness? (49:38)

Click the link below to listen to all of the researchers answer the question “What is the criminalization of homelessness?” in audio format on our podcast!

---

 

Listen to “What is the criminalization of homelessness?” on Spreaker