South Middlesex Times

When the Supreme Court upheld anti-camping laws enacted by Grants Pass, Oregon, on June 28, it opened the door for cities nationwide to criminalize homelessness. The 6-3 ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson overturned previous lower court decisions that deemed it cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to penalize those sleeping in public who are unhoused.

The decision was a disappointment for Emmy Tiderington, an associate professor in the Rutgers School of Social Work, who was among the 57 social scientists to share their published research and recommendations on homelessness in an amicus brief with the country’s top judges prior to their ruling. Rather than deterring homelessness, Tiderington says research shows that fining and jailing those who are homeless will only exacerbate the growing problem – costing taxpayers even more in the process.

The social work expert discussed with Rutgers Today how the ruling could impact addressing homelessness in the region.

"Our brief said anti-homeless laws harm individual health. And when you arrest people for being homeless, you also make it harder from them to get out of homelessness. They may have to pay fines, face jail time and have a criminal record, which can make it harder to find and pay for housing and cause someone to lose a job," Tiderington explained.

She added, "We also made the point that laws like the ones in Grants Pass serve no penological purpose. They are not a deterrent to future homelessness and don’t 'reform' a person into not wanting to be homeless. The research shows criminalization is ineffective and counterproductive. It is often a huge waste of taxpayer money and just sends people through this institutional circuit which we all end up paying for."

Tiderington expressed concerns about the decision: "I think it was a missed opportunity to make monumental changes in homelessness policy nationwide. A decision against Grants Pass could have put pressure on lawmakers to provide the resources that communities need to actually end homelessness rather than giving communities’ permission to take the easy road and arrest their way around the problem."

As a social worker whose research focuses on homelessness, Tiderington recommended alternative solutions: "It’s not rocket science. We have decades of research that have outlined best practices. To end homelessness, you need affordable housing and the ability to target the right resources to the right groups at the right time."

She continued, "With encampments, the focus should be on connecting people to services and responses that divert 911 calls from law enforcement to alternative first responders. Some unhoused people may need eviction prevention resources just once to keep them off the streets and they may never need to touch the system again. Others who have higher needs and whose homelessness is chronic may need permanent supportive housing to keep them housed."

Highlighting international examples, she noted: "Finland has essentially ended homelessness with a much smaller GDP. If they can do it, the United States can certainly do it too. We just do not have enough resources and political will to scale these interventions to the level of need."

Regarding how this ruling will impact New Jersey and New York where unhoused populations are rapidly rising, Tiderington stated: "This really is an opportunity for states – including New Jersey and New York – because nothing in the SCOTUS ruling prohibits state and local government from enacting state laws protecting those who are unhoused. It’s not a mandate to penalize people who are unhoused. It’s up to states now to figure out how they want to deal with this issue."