Adam Catrambone

CAS 138T
3/28/16
Rights for the Pennsylvanian Homeless
In 2014, approximately 580,000 individuals, almost 0.2% of the entire population, were
homeless (State of Homelessness, 2015). Though the homeless do not form the majority of
those in poverty, homelessness is one of povertys severest symptoms. Whether these people are
temporarily homeless, having been forced into homelessness by recent financial problems, or are
chronically homeless, having been so for years, they face problems on a variety of fronts
(Chronic Homelessness, 2016). Currently, both the governmental and charitable programs in
place in the United States focus on the concept of Housing First, which provide the homeless
with immediate personal independent housing, separate from any shelter (Cohen, 2015). These
programs are inducing a significant decrease in overall homelessness (Swarns, 2008). However,
the combination of these programs is not a perfect solution; it leaves many of the homeless
unaided. These individuals are faced with all the problems of living homeless, which have only
increased with the growing trend towards the criminalization of homelessness in the United
States (Bauman, et al., 2014). The creation and implementation of a Homeless Bill of Rights for
the state of Pennsylvania would ensure homeless individuals have access to public spaces and
protection against discrimination for lack of address and other personal factors, and thus would
optimally improve the quality of life of homeless individuals within the state.
The existent aid programs in the United States do not adequately address these in-themoment problems of those living without homes. The United States focus on so-called Housing
First programs do allow some homeless individuals the opportunity to vastly improve their lives.
Research has shown such programs to be vastly superior to halfway houses and drug or mental
health treatment at getting people to overcome homelessness (Padget, et al., 2006). Despite the

success of these programs, a majority of homeless people still remain so (State of

Homelessness, 2015). Housing First initiatives are also being crippled by funding problems that
prevent them from achieving the necessary scale to significantly help the homeless (Cohem,
2015). Solutions for more immediate problems are also failing. Even with the current reduction
in homelessness, there are still too many homeless people for homeless shelters to aid. In 2014,
while approximately 400,000 of homeless Americans did live in shelters, an additional 180,000
did not (State of Homelessness, 2015). Both the unsheltered, and to a lesser but still significant
extent the sheltered, are still facing the same problems. The homeless need food, shelter from
weather, medical care, and, most importantly, a way to stop being homeless (Discrimination,
2014). Many homeless do not adequately receive any of these.
Beyond the issues that any homeless individual must address to survive, current policies
create unnecessary challenges. New legislation has restricted where unsheltered homeless can
frequent and reside. The ability to live in certain areas with optimal shelter and location is very
important for the quality of life of homelessness individuals (Holland, 2015). From 2011 to 2014,
there was a 50% increase in the number of cities with municipal bans on camping or sleeping
outside (Mach, 2015). Current laws can even prevent individuals and organizations from helping
the homeless. For instance, laws have been put into place that ban public feedings of individuals,
with the intention of preventing aid for the homeless (Haynes, 2012). Even in cases where the
homeless are not faced with legislation directly against them, there tend to not be any legal
protections that might help them. There have been no national or Pennsylvanian laws that protect
the homeless from discrimination. The only major court case to address this, which occurred in
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, ruled that it was illegal to discriminate against the
homeless under the 8th and 14th amendments. However, the case was settled out of course upon

appeal and this decision was vacated, not affecting law on any leve;(Weinstein & DiMassa,
2006). On account of all of these problems, in 2014, the United Nations Human Rights
Committee criticized American homelessness policy, referring to it as cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment (qtd. in Aberra, 2014). Changes have to be made in Pennsylvania to
address these issues.
State and local legislation makes Pennsylvania especially inhospitable for the homeless.
At the moment, the Pennsylvanian homelessness rate, while lower than the national average, is a
still large 12 per 10,000 residents. (Previti, 2015). There are over 15,000 homeless individuals in
the state and this population is not going away; while between 2013 and 2014, the overall
number of homeless individuals in the United States decreased by 2.3%, the homeless population
in Pennsylvania increased by 1.6% (State of Homelessness, 2015). Perhaps in backlash, certain
Pennsylvanian cities have instituted laws that add to the criminalization of homelessness. In
2012, Philadelphia banned public feedings of more than three individuals, though exceptions
were made for practically all types of public feedings such as sanctioned city events and family
picnics. Only charities that provided aid to the homeless were affected. The church groups that
fed the homeless sued and it was eventually ruled in the state Supreme Court that the groups had
the religious freedom to provide aid (Haynes, 2012). However, this is only a partial solution;
many charitable organizations are not religiously affiliated, and this decision would also not
cover many examples of individual aid. Allentown, Pennsylvania, also stands out in its severe
legislation against homelessness. The city has laws both banning living in vehicles and camping
anywhere in the city, which can be used to prosecute the homeless (Mach, 2015). Thus, the
Pennsylvanian homeless population requires legal intervention in their favor.

The proposed Homeless Bill of Rights would follow similar laws passed or proposed in
other states, guaranteeing the homeless certain rights that are, at the moment, either lacking in
legislative support or altogether ignored. The first of the three overarching rights involved would
include the right to access public spaces. This right would be twofold; it would both prevent
discrimination against the homeless in their access to public spaces when compared to other
citizens, and would guarantee them access to public spaces such as parks and sidewalks, where
currently they might be considered loitering or trespassing. The second major idea of the bill of
rights would distinctly and specifically provide the homeless with protection against
discrimination, by the government, businesses and individuals, on account of their position. This
would include discrimination both on account of their lack of address and other factors, such as
general appearance. Finally, the law would guarantee that charitable organizations and
individuals would have the right to provide aid to the homeless. The first American Homeless
Bill of Rights was passed in Rhode Island in 2012, and similar laws exist in Illinois and
Connecticut (Pew Center, 2012). By giving the homeless these rights, Pennsylvania will be
removing barriers that prevent the homeless from living and eventually leaving homelessness.
Obviously, the homeless require space in which to reside. Public areas are traditionally a
much safer place for the homeless, as private areas could result in charges of trespassing and
possibly even violent confrontations with property owners. In Pennsylvania, utilization of private
property is even harder than in many states. A method by which the chronically homeless can
eventually attain a living space lawfully is through the legal principle of squatters rights, a form
of adverse possession that allows individuals who occupy land without permission of the
negligent owner to attain ownership of the land provided that certain criteria are met. One of
these criteria is a length of continual inhabitance. While in some states the length of this period

can be as low as five, Pennsylvania requires a period of 21 years, the second longest in the
country (Doskow, 2016). Thus, public lands are an important resource for the homeless. As the
homeless are by definition without any source of shelter, having the guarantee of legal and
indefinite access to habitable land would be very useful. Traditionally, the largest concerns with
such a proposal involve the fear highly visible homeless individuals, especially panhandlers,
could disrupt public traffic. However, people tend to almost entirely ignore the homeless
(Mitchum, 2014). Begging is and has been legal in a majority of American cities, and does not
dramatically affect life there (Wiltz, 2015). In fact, awareness of homelessness as a serious
problem has been shown to be correlated with increased sympathy and a desire to help the
homeless, including a belief that the government should aid the homeless (Agans, 2011). Thus,
any additional exposure to homelessness could in fact increase support of the policy. The
Pennsylvania Homeless Bill of Rights will thus help to ensure some stability for the homeless
without unduly harming the surroundings.
Pennsylvania is desperately in need of legislation to the homeless from discrimination in
other forms. One way in which the homeless can be discriminated against when applying for jobs
or apartments, which oftentimes have requirements for a personal address. Obviously, any form
of employment is very important in leaving homelessness behind. Current policy does nothing to
stop businesses from putting up these barriers. Quite often, homeless individuals will even be
kicked out or barred from accessing businesses (Keyes, 2014). However, businesses arent the
only groups which can discriminate the homeless. It is important that government documents
accept either a lack of address or a homeless shelter as an address. For example, currently a first
time Pennsylvania-issued drivers license requires two documents that can verify an address. The
listed examples include lease agreements and utility bills, both of which a homeless individual

would likely not have (Pennsylvania, 2016). Finally, anti-discrimination laws would also help
to provide protection against violence against the homeless. Such violence is surprisingly
common, with 472 instances of violence, including 169 murders against the homeless by the
housed, having occurred in the US between 1999 and 2005 (Hard, Cold Facts, 2006). This
would allow such violence to be prosecuted as a hate crime, establishing a greater penalty for the
perpetrators and potentially discouraging such attacks. Ultimately, it would be relatively easy to
prevent discrimination against the homeless by instituting such legislation.
The homeless have a need for aid beyond what the government can and has provided. As
stated above, shelters and soup kitchens are overcrowded (Overcrowded Homeless Shelters,
2011). Given that the government has shown that it cant provide for all the homeless, others
must take up the slack. As shown by what happened in Philadelphia, however, local laws can
impede the efforts of charitable organizations to help. By providing protections to the groups
ready and willing to provide aid, the government can help the homeless without having to spend
any of its own money. Secondly, it should be noted that many of the protections the bill of rights
would provide, especially those against discrimination, would require the affected individuals to
take up a case in civil court, which would traditionally be almost impossible for a homeless
individual. However, activist groups can and have taken on cases on behalf of homeless
individuals (Pew Center, 2012). In Rhode Island, which has already passed a similar bill of
rights, the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless has been especially active in using this
power (Implementing, 2016). Thus, the bill of rights would also aid other charitable
organizations in helping the homeless.
Some have supported dealing with the homeless currently not being aided by other
programs by actually increasing laws that hinder the homeless. This approach is based on the

notion that a significant portion of the homeless have chosen to live in that manner; thus,
homelessness would be able to be curbed if it was deincentivized. However, most homeless
individuals are not driven into it by choice. A survey of homeless individuals found that a steady
job was desired by almost all respondents; they are just unable to obtain one (Linn & Lillian,
1989). Secondly, even current homelessness isnt very desirable; for instance, the mortality rate
of the homeless in Philadelphia is four times that of the average without substance abuse playing
any significant role (OConnell, 2005). Another factor which renders any such criminalization
infeasible is the cost. The expense for the police and courts, when holding, trying, and
transporting the arrested homeless is very large (VanLandingham, 2005) A study carried out in
central Florida revealed that the public costs involved in handling the homeless consist mainly of
covering the salaries of police officers for arrests involving nonviolent offenses. The cost of
pursuing these cases was greater than paying for the housing of all the homeless individuals
would have been (Santich, 2014). Thus, pursuing an alternative strategy of decreasing
homelessness by deincentivizing it would be both ineffective and costly.
Another method of addressing the homeless individuals who are not currently receiving
aid is supporting the de-facto segregation of them into specific designated areas. For instance, socalled tent villages inhabited by the homeless can be encouraged spring up. While the local
governments will often crack down on such settlements, they can also be involved in their
existence (Farley, 2007). While homeless villages can help homeless individuals in the short
term, homeless villages do not act to dissuade homelessness. Lindsay Roberts, the executive
director of a Coalition for the Homeless for a Floridian bi-county area considering the creation of
a homeless village, compared similar programs to sending [the homeless] to reservations to
live and such villages to gulag[s] (qtd. in Mahoney, 2007). The city of Portland, Oregon

officially recognizes a homeless camp called Dignity Village. As part of the process of legalizing
its existence, its location was specifically moved well away from downtown Portland, almost
completely isolating its homeless residents (Kershaw, 2003). By providing an environment
isolated from other areas, homelessness can be prolonged, as individuals are separated from
other sources of employment or aid. More importantly, homeless individuals living in areas with
high numbers of other homeless tend to have a higher likelihood of death (ODonnell, 2005). The
crowded conditions of a tent village allow disease to easily spread, and any sick individuals
would often be far from any emergency room which could provide medical aid (Hard, Cold
Facts, 2006). Thus, creating official homeless villages does little to improve the conditions that
unsheltered homeless face.
A state-wide Homeless Bill of Rights should be passed in order to address the problems
that the unaided homeless population must face in their day-to-day lives. Current programs,
while effective for those that they can help, still leave many homeless individuals stuck in
homelessness. The proposed bill of rights would both ease the lives of homeless individuals,
shielding them from unfair and discriminatory treatment, and allow some to overcome their
homelessness. At the same time, the bill would have a negligible cost and would actually save
the state money. Rhode Islands similar bill helped to facilitate a drop in the homeless population
from 4,868 to 4,447 in the year after the bill was passed (Bogdan, 2014); the last time that
homelessness hadnt increase significantly was five years prior (Rhode Island, 2014). The
Pennsylvanian Homeless Bill of Rights will ideally achieve similar effects within this state and
set a precedent for improved treatment of the homeless.

Works Cited:
Aberra, Selam. "U.N. Human Rights Committee Calls U.S. Criminalization of Homelessness
Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading." NLCHP. National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<https://www.nlchp.org/U.N._Human_Rights_Committee_Calls_U.S._Criminalizatio
n_of_Homelessness_Cruel,_Inhuman,_and_Degrading.pdf>.
Agans, Robert P., Guangya Liu, Mary Jones, Clementina Verjan, Mark Silverbush, and William
D. Kasbeek. "Public Attitudes Toward the Homeless." American Association for Public
Opinion Research Reports (2011): 5934-946. American Statistical Organization. Web. 3
Apr. 2016.
<https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2011/Files/400188.pdf>.
Bauman, Tristia, Jeremy Rosen, Eric Tars, Maria Foscarinis, Janelle Fernandez, Christian
Robin, Eugene Sowa, Michael Maskin, Cheryl Cortemeglia, and Hannah Nicholes. "NO
SAFE PLACE: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities." NLCHP. National
Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place>.
Bogdan, Jennifer. "Survey Taking Stock of R.I.s Homeless Population." Providence Journal.
Janet Hasson, 11 Nov. 2014. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20141111/NEWS/311119987>.
"Chronic Homelessness - Overview." End Homelessness. National Alliance to End
Homelessness, 2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/chronic_homelessness_overview>.
Cohen, Rachel M. "'Housing First' Policy for Addressing Homelessness Hamstrung By Funding
Issues." The American Prospect. The American Prospect, Inc., 27 Jan. 2015. Web. 29
Mar. 2016. <http://prospect.org/article/housing-first-policy-addressing-homelessnesshamstrung-funding-issues>.
"Discrimination and Economic Profiling among the Homeless of Washington, DC." National
Coalition for the Homeless. National Coalition for the Homeless, Apr. 2014. Web. 5 Apr.
2016. <http://nationalhomeless.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/DiscriminationReport20141.pdf>.
Doskow, Emily. "State-by-State Rules on Adverse Possession." Nolo.com. Nolo Press, 2016.
Web. 3 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-state-rules-adversepossession.html>.
Farley, Robert. "Pickets Greet Mayor at Church." Tampa Bay Times. Times Publishing
Company, 8 Jan. 2007. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/08/Southpinellas/Pickets_greet_mayor_a.shtml>.
"The Hard, Cold Facts About the Deaths of Homeless People." Homeless Persons Memorial
Day, (2006): n. pag. NHCHC. National Health Care for the Homeless Council, Sept.
2011. Web. 4 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nhchc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/HardColdFacts.pdf>.
Haynes, Charles C. "First Amendment Center." First Amendment Center. First Amendment
Center, 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 29 Mar. 2016. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/inphilly-parks-churches-fight-to-feed-the-homeless>.
Holland, Gale. "Belongings." Los Angeles Times. Tribune Publishing, 16 June 2015. Web. 05
Apr. 2016. <http://graphics.latimes.com/homeless-possessions/>.
"Implementing the Homeless Bill of Rights." Rhode Island Homeless. The Rhode Island
Coalition for the Homeless, 2016. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.rihomeless.org/Resources/HomelessBillofRights/HomelessBillofRightsIm
plementation/tabid/277/Default.aspx>.

Kershaw, Sarah. "Home for the Homeless, But Can It Continue?" The New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 04 Oct. 2003. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/us/home-for-the-homeless-but-can-itcontinue.html>.
Keyes, Scott. "Virtually All Homeless People Experience Discrimination." ThinkProgress. Center
for American Progress, 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/21/3429006/homeless-discriminationreport/>.
Linn, Lawrence S., and Lillian Gelberg. "Priority of Basic Needs among Homeless Adults."
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol
24.1 (1989): 23-29. Springer Link. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
<http://sk8es4mc2l.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?
sid=google&auinit=LS&aulast=Linn&atitle=Priority+of+basic+needs+among+homeless
+adults&id=doi:10.1007/BF01788196&title=Social+psychiatry+and+psychiatric+epide
miology&volume=24&issue=1&date=1989&spage=23&issn=0933-7954>.
Mach, Andrew. "Interactive Map: Number of U.S. Cities Criminalizing Homelessness
Surges." PBS. PBS, 13 Dec. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/interactive-map-number-of-u-s-citiescriminalizing-homelessness-doubles/>.
Mahoney, Rebecca. "Resort-style Homeless Village or Leper Colony?" Orlando Sentinel. Tribune
Publishing, 20 Jan. 2007. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-01-20/news/MHOMELESS20_1_volusiacounty-homeless-problem-deland>.
Mitchum, Preston. "Stepping Over 'Them': Why Do We Ignore the Homeless?" Ebony. Johnson
Publishing Company, 13 May 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2016. <http://www.ebony.com/newsviews/stepping-over-them-why-do-we-ignore-the-homeless-302#axzz44FXP9MoA>.
O'Connell, James J. "Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations: A Review of Literature."
National Health Care for the Homeless Council Report (2005): n. pag. NHCHC.
National Health Care for the Homeless Council Report, Oct. 2011. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Premature-Mortality.pdf>.
"Overcrowded Homeless Shelters Nationwide Look For Help This Winter." Huffington Post.
AOL, 25 May 2011. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/overcrowded-homeless-sheltersn_n_803901.html>.
Padgett, D. K., Leyla Gulcur, and Sam Tsemberis. "Housing First Services for People Who Are
Homeless With Co-Occurring Serious Mental Illness and Substance Abuse." Research on
Social Work Practice 16.1 (2006): 74-83. SagePub. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
<http://rsw.sagepub.com/content/16/1/74.full.pdf>.
"Pennsylvania Drivers License and State ID Information." CMU Office of International
Education. Carnegie Mellon University, Jan. 2016. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.cmu.edu/oie/pa-license.pdf>.
Pew Center on the States. "Nation's 1st Homeless Bill of Rights Slow to Cause Change in Rhode
Island." Governing. E.Republic, 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.governing.com/news/state/sl-first-homeless-bill-of-rights.html>.
Previti, Emily. "Homeless Population up in Pennsylvania, down Nationally." Keystone
Crossroads. WHYY, 20 Apr. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.php/local/keystone-crossroads/80681homeless-population-up-in-pennsylvania-down-nationally->.
Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless. "The Real Killer? Homelessness." RI Future. The
Economic Progress Institute, 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 03 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.rifuture.org/the-real-killer-homelessness.html>.

Santich, Kate. "Cost of Homelessness in Central Florida: $31K per Person Each Year." Orlando
Sentinel. Tribune Publishing, 21 May 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-05-21/news/os-cost-of-homelessnessorlando-20140521_1_homeless-individuals-central-florida-commission-tulsa>.
"The State of Homelessness in America 2015." End Homelessness. National Alliance to End
Homelessness, 1 Apr. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-homelessness-inamerica-2015>.
Swarns, Rachel L. "U.S. Reports Drop in Homeless Population." The New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 30 July 2008. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/30homeless.html?_r=0>.
VanLandingham, Gary. Economic Impact of Homelessness Is Significant; Improvements
Needed at State and Local Levels. Rep. no. 05-01. Office of Program Policy Analysis &
Government Accountability, Jan. 2005. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0501rpt.pdf>.
Weinstein, Henry, and Cara M. DiMassa. "Justices Hand L.A.'s Homeless a Victory." Los
Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 15 Apr. 2006. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/15/local/me-homeless15>.
Wiltz, Teresa. "Anti-Panhandling Laws Spread, Face Legal Challenges." The Pew Charitable
Trusts. Pew Research Center, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/11/12/antipanhandling-laws-spread-face-legal-challenges>.