The Iowa House passed a measure Wednesday establishing drug-free homeless service zones, setting certain requirements for nonprofits providing these services to remain eligible for state funding.
House File 2584, passed on a 70-21 vote, is a measure establishing “drug-free” zones at shelters and other support facilities providing services to people experiencing homelessness in Iowa. The measure would prohibit the sale or distribution of controlled substances within a 300-foot zone of these facilities, subjecting people charged with drug-related crimes within this zone to higher punishments.
The bill would also create penalties for people operating these facilities, stating that allowing a person to possess or use a substance on facility premises would be subject to an aggravated misdemeanor charge and would make the organization ineligible to apply for state homelessness assistance grants for three years following a conviction.
Several of the speakers at the subcommittee meeting for the bill said the proposal, as initially written, could mean facility operators could be held liable for crimes happening outside of their facility, in nearby residences or businesses. Some providers also said the bill would significantly hurt the ability of many shelters to serve populations in need, as they would face criminal charges if a person brought in or used drugs at a facility without the operator’s knowledge.
Additionally, the bill banned “controlled substances” at large — which would mean drugs listed as controlled substances which have been prescribed to an individual would also not be allowed in these spaces.
The House passed an amendment introduced by Rep. Bill Gustoff, R-Des Moines, that addressed some of the issues. It clarified that “unlawfully” selling or possessing a controlled substance would be subject to penalties in these zones. It also clarified that only a facility operator convicted of “intentionally or knowingly” allowing the sale or possession of illegal substances would face penalties. If an operator fires an employee or volunteer who is convicted of this crime, that facility would remain eligible for state funding.
Rep. Elinor Levin, D-Iowa City, thanked Gustoff for his work and “collaborative effort” on the amendment.
“This has gone from a dangerous bill that came to us from the Cicero Institute at the subcommittee … to a bill that I simply disagree with,” Levin said.
The policy proposal is supported by the Austin, Texas-based nonprofit the Cicero Institute, which has also backed legislation in previous sessions that would have created criminal penalties for unauthorized camping, sleeping or long-term shelter on public property.
Levin said while she appreciated the changes, the measure still would not be helpful to reducing homelessness. She referenced the so-called “war on drugs” efforts in previous decades as proof that criminalizing drug use does not necessarily result in reducing homelessness.
“Homeless service providers are doing intensely difficult work across our state,” Levin said. “They are serving individuals at all different points of life and facing all different kinds of challenges, and they do so with compassion, and they do so with an eye to what works. The penalty method of trying to curb homelessness really did not serve us in the 1980s and 1990s. This bill reflects an approach to … homeless services that led to rising rates of homelessness in the 1990s, not reduced rates.”
She said the measure limits the ability of organizations and local communities to try to address homelessness with a different approach to addiction and drug use, saying the bill would mean “if a local community has decided that it wants to take a different tact, has decided that it wants to address someone’s addiction issues — not with penalties, not by kicking them to the streets, but by trying to take them through a treatment program — then that facility is no longer eligible for homeless service grants.”
Gustoff said local communities would still have the ability to pursue local funding — just not state funding — if they do not want to establish a “drug-free service zone,” and added that facilities entirely funded through donations would also not be subject to the measure.
The measure moves to the Iowa Senate for further consideration.
