NORTHAMPTON, MASS – The criminalization of homelessness remains a pressing issue in the U.S., with local jails functioning as de facto shelters for those without stable housing, according to a new report authored by the Prison Policy Initiative.
PPI claims approximately 205,000 unhoused individuals are booked into jails annually, often for minor infractions such as trespassing and petty theft, and suggests this approach not only worsens the hardships faced by unhoused people but also places a heavy financial strain on local governments.
Unhoused individuals are disproportionately subjected to repeated incarceration, the Prison Policy Initiative reports, with more than 40 percent experiencing multiple jail bookings in a single year.
In contrast, PPI adds, only 20 percent of housed individuals or those with unknown housing status face similar rates of rebooking, underscoring how jailing unhoused people fails to address the underlying causes of homelessness.
The length of incarceration also differs significantly based on housing status, said the Prison Policy Initiative, which found unhoused individuals have a median jail stay of 14 days, compared to just four days for housed individuals.
The report maintains the disparity is largely driven by unaffordable cash bail, which disproportionately impacts those already struggling with financial insecurity.
Racial disparities further compound the issue, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, noting Black individuals comprise 40 percent of all bookings of unhoused people, despite making up only 31 percent of total jail bookings.
PPI insists this overrepresentation highlights systemic inequities in housing access and law enforcement practices.
The charges levied against unhoused individuals often stem directly from their housing status, added Prison Policy Initiative, and notes property crimes and drug-related offenses account for a significant portion of arrests among the unhoused population.
Rather than investing in supportive services, many jurisdictions continue to rely on punitive measures that deepen cycles of poverty and incarceration, PPI asserts.
The criminalization of homelessness ultimately fuels a cycle of instability, the Prison Policy Initiative found, and stresses the urgent need for policy reforms centered on housing-first strategies rather than punitive responses.
PPI recommends redirecting resources from incarceration to social services, which can provide lasting solutions and help break the cycle of homelessness.
What I’m in favor of is criminalizing criminal behavior. And not cleaning up after yourself (leaving garbage). And pooping outdoors without digging a deep hole first. And camping in places that are illegal or a nuisance. Or drunk/drugged in public. Or selling drugs. Those of us near where they oft decide to camp or act out shouldn’t be responsible for what society has refused to handle.
I understand your frustration on that, but actually criminalizing most of that behavior, especially when there are non-criminal roots for it, is a very expensive approach. Jails are expensive solutions and not well suited for actually addressing the problems that lead to homelessness and the nuisance behaviors you are citing.
There’s nothing “expensive” about saying, “you don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here”. (Bartenders do it all the time at 2:00 a.m.)
In other words, don’t camp where you’re bothering other people. The same laws apply to everyone, in regard to that.
There’s literally millions of acres of public land. Some people make that work (e.g., Slab City).
Wrong. You can’t disappear people. So if you tell them they can’t stay somewhere, you have to find them a place to stay. Jail is very expensive as far as places to stay.
” . . . you have to find them a place to stay”.
Not according to the latest court ruling.
But again, there’s lots of places for them to stay – other than jails or in a local park, etc.
Remember it’s not just places to stay – it’s places to stay with access to food and services.
You’re upping the ante, so to speak. But seriously, that’s why they congregate where they can get food and services.
In any case, there are populations of “semi-homeless” people living out in areas where they’re not bothering anyone else. Some of the more-capable ones make travel videos, etc. But others just keep to themselves (and pay for food using whatever government payments they receive). Are you familiar with Slab City?
Also, the homeless have always been around in urban areas. But they used to at least “try” to be relatively invisible, in regard to where they set up camp.
My idea is to house them in places where it’s less-expensive. And if they don’t like that, then I’d refer to the bartender’s line that I cited above.