In 2024, almost 19,000 Iowans experienced homelessness.[1] Of those, 38% were under 18 years of age and 42% were between ages 25 and 54.[2] Additionally, 52.8% of those experiencing homelessness identified as female,[3] and 68.8% were part of a multi-person households.[4] This calculation includes people staying in emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and the homes of family and friends.[5] Homelessness can be visible, referring to people who are sleeping or living outdoors or in public places, or invisible, referring to people who live in temporary, emergency, or unsuitable housing, and need a safe, secure home.[6]

The following post outlines how the criminalization of homelessness operates generally and in Iowa, to the detriment of those experiencing homelessness. Then, this post explores homeless courts as an innovative model that already exists within the context of the U.S.’s criminalization of homelessness. Finally, it argues that homeless courts could transform Iowa’s response to homelessness.

Defining the Criminalization of Homelessness

To dissuade conduct, many states rely on criminalization by assessing behavior, and making certain behaviors criminal acts that can be punished by the government.[7] In general, the criminalization of homelessness occurs at the state and local government levels. [8] By prohibiting specific activities, like sleeping, eating, and sitting in public spaces,[9]  people are criminalized for experiencing homelessness. States may also make illegal: camping or sleeping in vehicles, panhandling (also called ”begging” or ”cadging”) ,[10] or loitering, defined as standing or waiting “idly or without apparent purpose.”[11] For such violations, individuals may be punished. Examples of punishments include fines and fees, being arrested, held in jail, and incarcerated.[12] Police officers may also seize or disperse personal property.[13] One woman said, “police come and take everything, my tent, [and] my blankets . . . .”[14] 

Consequently, the criminalization of homelessness can have a lasting impact, as interactions with the criminal justice system may appear on a person’s permanent criminal record. Conduct appears during background screening by potential employers, property managers for rental housing, and home loan or mortgage lenders.[15] These violations then create “barriers to becoming re-housed and finding employment.”[16] For example, people who have been incarcerated are three times as likely to be housing insecure, making them at greater risk of homelessness.[17] Often referred to as the cycle of homelessness, criminalization is criticized by scholars as a self-perpetuating cycle of housing insecurity whereby homelessness leads to criminalization, which leads to homelessness.[18] Research also indicates that those with criminal court or incarceration-related fines and fees can trigger or exacerbate financial hardships.[19] This financial pressure is relevant, as financial insecurity and housing insecurity are often cooccurring.[20]

Iowa Anti-Homelessness Statutes, Policies and City Ordinances

The Iowa Legislature has not passed significant legislation criminalizing homelessness. However, in recent years, certain bills have been introduced. For example, an Iowa bill designating homeless shelters as “Drug-Free Zones” increases penalties, including fines and years in prison, for those convicted of crimes within the zone.[21] Additionally, shelter staff could face criminal penalties and emergency shelter organizations could be stripped of their state funding.[22] In 2025, the Iowa Senate passed a bill that promotes bans on ”unauthorized public camping” and attempts to redirect funding from ”Housing First” programs.[23]

In Iowa, criminalization occurs locally. For example, the City of Des Moines passed bans on camping and sleeping in public spaces.[24] Dubuque, Davenport, Cedar Rapids and Ankeny have ordinances forbidding sleeping in public areas, while Iowa City forbids individuals from being in city parks overnight.[25] For violations, individuals can be fined, arrested, or face misdemeanor charges.[26]

Homeless Courts Offer a Path Forward

Homeless courts are an innovative model that already exists within the context of the U.S.’s criminalization of homelessness. These courts divert individuals experiencing homelessness from the criminal justice system and towards community services.[27] They utilize the justice system, and identify those who would otherwise face punishment (fines, fees, or imprisonment), and provide alternative means for sentencing in partnership with local nonprofit and housing organizations. [28]  Homeless courts provide an alternative framework to punishments associated with the criminal justice system. [29]  This model has evidence-informed best practices, but is flexible to permit specific, community-based interventions. Nationally, there are about 50 homeless courts operating in 21 states.[30] 

Homeless Courts are specialized courts, that provide alternative sentencing to the traditional criminal courts.[31] This program is voluntary, meaning the individual must opt in to participate.[32]  In Homeless Court, an individual’s “sentence” is to complete specific, community programming as an alternative to fines, fees or incarceration.[33]  Court sessions can take place in a courthouse, or in alternative sites that make them more accessible to homeless populations, like on-site at an emergency homelessness shelter.[34] Upon completion of specific, personalized programming or conduct, individuals present “proof of participation” before a homeless court judge.[35]  At which time, most cases are dismissed, resulting in no fines or fees or incarceration.[36] 

This model is highly collaborative and relies on local community organizations that offer dedicated housing security or related programming, such as financial education or community health centers.[37] Community organizations' partners may include human service providers, crisis intervention teams, local police and prosecutors’ officers, municipal agencies, as well as case managers in the courthouse or in the community.[38]

Homeless Court Case Studies 

The San Diego Homeless Court Program, located in California, was the first homeless court in the U.S. [39] The program resolves misdemeanor cases and some low-level felonies.[40] Once an individual’s case is pending in the criminal justice system, the person signs up with a homelessness service provider and works to create a personal plan.[41] The service provider is then responsible for reporting progress to a public defender, with the public defender submitting the participants with completed plants to the court.[42] Court sessions are then held monthly, at a local homelessness shelter, where participants present proof of their completed services and advocacy letters from the service provider.[43] A majority of cases are then dismissed, removing obstacles to future housing, employment and public benefits.[44]

Programs can also focus specifically on lower-level criminal offenses. The Flint Genesee homeless court, located in Michigan, focuses on low-level misdemeanors, traffic fines, and warrants.[45] Supplemental activities a participant engages in are also focused on removing barriers to housing and self-sufficiency.[46] This program is partnership between the local Court, Prosecutor, County Sheriff, local police department, parking agencies, and the Flint/Genesee Continuum of Care, a collaborative of emergency shelters and housing service agencies.[47]

Where San Diego’s and Flint’s program centers community organizations, the Downtown Austin (Texas) Community Court focuses on case management within the court system. [48] In collaboration with the Austin Police Department, court case managers are the ones who complete street outreach activities to connect with the city’s homelessness population. These same individuals are those who share about available services.[49] Any “homeless individual who has a history with the court is eligible” for the court-based community management services.[50]

At the Iowa State Level: Homeless Courts Offer New Path Forward

The U.S. criminal justice system is complex. As a result, significant criminal justice reform is burdensome and resource intensive, while criminalization continues to have an immediate impact on the housing security of individuals and families. This indicates that the most feasible reforms may be constrained by the existing model of criminalizing homelessness.[51]

Inaction is insufficient. Iowa has a current need to address the criminalization of homelessness. With 18,000 Iowans experiencing homelessness in the last year, these same people are likely to be co-impacted by the criminal justice system.[52] This post does not seek to advance a stigmatized view of those experiencing homelessness as inherently criminal, or personally predisposed to criminality. Instead, this post underscores that due to the criminalization of basic human activities, like sleeping or sitting in public places, an Iowan experiencing homelessness is at higher risk of contact with the criminal justice system.[53] As a result, criminal conduct resulting from homelessness is a result of institutional design, rather than a personal or moral failing.[54] It is also of note that individuals experiencing homelessness are also at greater risk than those who are housing secure to be victims of a crime.[55]

Rather than criminalizing homelessness and relying on the perceived deterrence effect of fines and possible imprisonment, Iowa should implement homeless courts. Homeless courts are diversion programs, meaning they allow certain offenders, who engage in specific crimes, to engage in “alternative supervision and services” to the traditional criminal justice system.[56] Homeless courts have the advantage of plugging in to the existing criminal justice system, and use local judges to adjudicate “sentence” or “punishment.”[57] Balancing the institutional limitations that criminalize homelessness with the need for personalized interventions, homeless courts have emerged as an evidence-informed model and alternative to criminal sentencing. 

As a result, Iowa homeless courts should use alternative sentencing models that replace fines and fees, which many housing-insecure people cannot afford, and incarceration, which increases the risk of future homelessness upon exit.[58] Instead, Iowa homeless courts convert punishments, which are a hallmark of criminalization, towards personalized supports to assist them in gaining access to stable housing, economic stability, ongoing education and healthcare access.[59] To help illustrate this model, Iowa shelters and service agencies may identify people who are homeless with criminal proceedings.[60] Case workers work with an individual’s self-sufficiency goals, like securing housing or maintaining employment, and then present information indicating progress towards or completion of these goals to the homeless court.[61] Judge “converts” criminal sentences like fines/jail time to reflect progress toward personalized goals (such as community service, individualized meetings with counselors, education, etc.)[62] Result is no “actual” fines paid or jail time served, decreased administrative costs for corrections (short-term) and shelter (long-term).[63] This holistic, interdisciplinary approach is critical because Homeless Courts respond to the realities that individuals require stable foundations and having met their basic needs met is a greater deterrence to engaging in “criminal” conduct than traditional criminal conduct.[64]

Homeless courts seek to address underlying homelessness, rather than subsequent criminalized conduct by integrating multiple organizational actors. Iowa homeless courts can be plugged into existing community support services, as they are in San Diego and Flint, to leverage case workers who are already present and familiar with local communities, their resources, and cultural dynamics. Homeless courts also build on existing legal infrastructure, combining local courts, prosecutors’ officers, police departments, with existing health, supportive service, and emergency shelter services. Through coordinated care efforts, homeless courts can lead to direct reductions in homelessness, improved resource sharing among organizations rather than siloing and replication of resources, and enhanced communities’ social fabric. Along with improved efficiency, homeless courts offer a new path forward that emphasizes human dignity and autonomy. This model involves voluntary participation by individuals experiencing homelessness, leading to greater self-sufficiency, personal empowerment as individuals set and achieve goals, and greater housing security. 

Iowa communities also have demonstrated interest in establishing homeless courts. Sioux City is establishing Iowa’s first homeless court program.[65] This program is focused on resolving “misdemeanor offenses, and warrants.”[66]  To do so, the court, local shelters, service agencies, prosecutors, and public defenders will “provide a community-based alternative” to the courtroom.[67]  Case managers from a local supportive service agency will work with individuals to set self-sufficiency goals. Upon successful completion of the program, the court may dismiss the case and remove fines and fees.[68] Like the Flint, Michigan model,[69] this interdisciplinary collaborative aims to divert people from the criminal justice system. 

Rethinking Homelessness and Justice 

Ultimately, the way a society responds to homelessness reflects its broader values. Criminalization frames homelessness as a problem of behavior, deserving punishment. In contrast, approaches like homeless courts recognize it as a condition shaped by systemic factors; one that requires compassion, coordination, and investment. Long-term solutions will likely require broader changes, including stronger housing policies and a shift toward recognizing housing as a fundamental right. But in the meantime, homeless courts offer a meaningful step forward. Homeless courts represent a shift from punishment to possibility, from cycles of instability to pathways toward security. For Iowa, embracing this model could mark the beginning of a more effective response to homelessness—one that acknowledges not just the scale of the problem, but the dignity of those experiencing it.