Housing Matters bill sparks hours-long debate over whether moving people on criminalizes homelessness

Senator Carrasco, who authored Senate Bill 285, said the bill is intended "not to criminalize homelessness" but to create a structured pathway that connects people camping on public land to outreach, shelter and services. She told the committee the bill requires a 48-hour warning and reporting of encounters so jurisdictions can track outcomes and course-correct.

"This bill reclaims public property and prevents the build-up of encampments by requiring movement every 48 hours," Carrasco said, and emphasized diversion and outreach language in the text. She said the statute authorizes citations as a last step but is drafted to encourage services in lieu of arrest.

Supporters including business and housing representatives told the committee the measure provides a new tool to reach the hardest-to-serve people. Scott Centorino of Cicero Action urged the committee to "bring the hardest cases of unsheltered homelessness into the services the state funds," citing Kentucky as a model where the statute did not flood jails in the author's account. Greg Stowers of the Andy Chamber pointed to local efforts that pair law enforcement with outreach to move people from encampments into housing.

Opponents — a coalition of service providers, local homelessness coalitions, public health groups and some law-enforcement leaders — said the bill would produce new legal barriers for people already struggling to access shelter and treatment, and that the state lacks the capacity to scale diversion or beds before imposing penalties. Chelsea Herringcozy, CEO of the Coalition for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention (CHIP), testified: "Senate Bill 285 moves Indiana in the wrong direction and serves as an unfunded mandate. It relies on punitive measures that do not reduce homelessness and will push people further from services."

Witnesses from Indianapolis and other communities described functioning alternatives: Streets to Home Indy, which CHIP said has rapid rehousing and outreach that has housed more than 100 people since July, and other local programs that prioritize housing and case management over criminal penalties. HVAF (veteran services) and other providers told the committee that capacity constraints — shelters operating beyond capacity and long waiting lists for programs — mean citations would more likely create legal consequences than durable housing outcomes.

Several members pressed the author on how localities would implement the law, how officers would document warnings and whether the new misdemeanor would cascade into failure-to-appear warrants and jail time for people who cannot meet court obligations. Representative Gore and others warned that failure-to-appear could convert summonses into warrants and lock people into a recurring arrest cycle.

Amendment 9, offered in committee, added a definition of "gravely disabled" tied to lack of food, shelter and refusal of a reasonably available shelter or mental-health provider and required officers to consider emergency detention when those elements are present. The amendment also removed the civil cause of action against municipalities for alleged nonenforcement. Representatives supporting the amendment said it narrows enforcement and prioritizes emergency detention when appropriate; several service-provider witnesses worried the gravely disabled language could cause confusion or unintended ED orders without adding capacity.

The committee divided sharply. Supporters argued the bill provides a tool to compel engagement with services for the most resistant, chronically unsheltered people; opponents argued it will criminalize survival, strain jails and courts, and undermine trust between outreach teams and people living outside. Representative Pierce and other critics urged defeating the bill or postponing it until the state funds more beds and mental-health capacity.

On the roll call, the committee passed SB285 as amended, 8–5. The author said she intends to continue work on funding and implementation, and supporters and opponents said they will press for changes before any floor action.

What happens next: the bill advanced out of committee; supporters say they will pursue funding and local diversion plans, while opponents say they will press for amendments or substitute approaches that prioritize housing capacity and nonpunitive outreach.