Anti-homelessness legislation
[7] According to the charity Crisis, this law has increased council efficiency via more proficient services, including fewer families being placed into expensive emergency accommodation.
(Scotland) Act 2003 was legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament that set the goal of providing permanent residence to those deemed unintentionally homeless.
This order made it so that, unless exceptional circumstances were present, any familial unit including children or an expectant mother was not placed in "unsuitable temporary housing".
These regulations require local authorities to assist homeless people in a variety of ways, including help in adjusting to a new living situation, debt counseling and managing a personal budget.
[11] This is as a result of the insertion of having no distinction between the idea of 'priority' and 'non-priority' homeless, this creates an opportunity for anyone houseless to be entitled to at least temporary, and usually permanent accommodation.
[12] The 1987 McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act: A change created by the amendments of 1992 was the creation of the Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Support program (or ACCESS); this program was created in order to assist the homeless people who had both serious mental illness issues, as well as substance abuse problems and lasted a total of 5 years.
They may face potential legal repercussions such as fines and jail time for seeking shelter in vehicles (Tennessee) and "loitering".
[15] Although the court's opinion in Jones v. City of Los Angeles (see above) was vacated, the result suggests that criminalizing homelessness may be unconstitutional.
Similarly, in response to growing reports of hate crimes, some state governments have proposed the addition of "people experiencing homelessness" to their hate-crimes statutes.
[22] Another study in California found that people experiencing extreme poverty face apathy, disrespect, and discrimination from police enforcing anti-homelessness laws, resulting in a reluctance to seek services and to engage with outreach when offered.
[36] Anti-homeless spikes were installed in London, England, and New York City in order to make homeless activity more difficult.
[38] Critics of anti-homeless architecture claim that it targets an already vulnerable population, and that it hides the effects of homelessness, rather than meaningfully addressing it.
The majority of U.S. residents surveyed also think that homeless people make neighborhood worse, and that their presence brings down the profitability of local businesses.
