A Need To Rethink And Upgrade Shelter Policies

Posted: June 15, 2009 in Bureauacracy, Children, Compassion, Family, Homeless Shelters, Homelessness, Morality

Although I’ve made this assertion before, I’m going to make it again: the only effective way of reducing homelessness in our communities is to help those folks become as self-sustaining as possible. This means providing the types of programs and services which will assist them in becoming housed.

Until we do that, the numbers of homeless will continue to increase. Period.   

In the two and a half years that I’ve been authoring this blog, I’ve done quite a bit of reading and researching into homelessness. And, I’ve drawn certain conclusions.

Among those conclusions is the belief that homeless shelters generally do nothing to reduce the numbers of homeless in any community.

To be sure, there are some exceptions, but on the whole – when it comes to having a genuine impact at helping folks get off the streets, homeless shelters have been a dismal failure.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not engaging in "shelter bashing." Homeless shelters do indeed provide a needed function in our communities. All the same, it seems to me that we have misplaced our faith in believing that homeless shelters are a viable tool for reducing the numbers of folks who live on our cities streets.

They aren’t. And that is a truth which is borne out by fact.

If indeed homeless shelters were an effective means to help our nation’s homeless get back on their feet, why then have the numbers of homeless continued to rise?

It’s easy to blame the current economic situation in the nation for the increase in homelessness. However, long before the recession began, the number of folks who were becoming homeless was on the rise. And, even then, the nation’s shelter system had little or no impact at reducing those numbers.

Personally, I believe their lack of a "success rate" is due to the same antiquated and tired policies which so many shelters have in place – policies which have not "evolved" to reflect the needs of the current demographics of homelessness.

Let me give you an example.

Yesterday I read an article in the Herald Bulletin.

Its opening two paragraphs were:

"Despite a multitude of Madison County agencies designed to help the homeless, some prefer to stay on the streets.

A recent regional meeting involving local homeless agencies revealed that many homeless people simply don’t like to abide by the rules required at shelters."

I want to make this perfectly clear: I agree with – and support – the need to have some guidelines which anyone staying at a shelter should be asked to abide by.

Drunkenness; being under the influence of illegal drugs; unseemly or obnoxious behavior; the carrying of weapons; and so on: these types of things should most certainly be forbidden.

On the other hand, I also believe that there are certain instances when the rules and regulations are ridiculously over-enforced.

Let me give you another example.

On Saturday I read an article in The Macomb Daily, which told of Laura and Tyrone Sheppard and their three young children.

The family had been staying at the Macomb’s Answer to Temporary Shelter (MATTS) – which is administered by the Warren Salvation Army – since May of this year.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard would go out each day looking for employment. They never caused problems for anyone at the shelter. And, according to the article,

"… the Sheppard family was selected by shelter officials to be highlighted for a television news report about the shelter last month."

Not exactly a family one would expect would be ordered to leave the shelter for violating the MATTS "no drug" policy. Yet, that is exactly what occurred: they were made to leave because of drugs.

The drug in question?

A bottle of Tylenol.

Here’s what happened.

Early last week, Mrs. Sheppard took their youngest child to a clinic. Apparently the child wasn’t feeling well.

The doctor at the clinic told Mrs. Sheppard to buy some Tylenol for the child – which she did.

Although the shelter has a policy which requires all "drugs" to be given to shelter staff for safe-keeping, Mrs. Sheppard – who was aware of the policy – forgot to hand over the Tylenol.

A very simple – and human – mistake.

Should Mrs. Sheppard have turned the Tylenol in?

Of course.

Homelessness in itself is a highly stressful experience. And, I imagine being homeless with children and living in a homeless shelter would be even more so.

It’s therefore understandable how Mrs. Sheppard’s primary concern would have been for her child’s health (otherwise she wouldn’t have taken the child to the clinic) – which in turn caused her to forget to turn in the Tylenol. Remember, they had been staying at the shelter only since May. So, it isn’t as though the Sheppard’s are seasoned veterans at being homeless.

That’s where human intervention should have come into play.

Perhaps the shelter staff could have given the Sheppard’s "written warning" rather than put the entire family back out on the streets.

I could understand strict enforcement if the "drug" would have been an illicit – or even a prescription drug. But such a robotic response over a bottle of Tylenol?

As I’ve already stated: I completely understand the shelter’s need to have a set of rules in place which their clientele need follow. However, it also seems to me that there are times when basic common sense needs to be used in the enforcement of those rules.

This particular instance should have been one of those times. It certainly would have been a more humanitarian approach.

With these types of extreme punitive measures, is it any wonder that more and more homeless are preferring to stay on the streets rather than go to a homeless shelter?

And, it is precisely because so many shelters have failed to rethink and upgrade their "one-size fits all" policies that they have been ineffectual at reducing homelessness in their communities.

  1. ~B~ says:

    Wow, Tylenol?! Really?!?!?!?!!?!?!

    That’s incredibly harsh. I understand that rules are there for a reason, and “no drugs” is definitely an important one, but… Tylenol?

    I know that those running the shelters are trying to do a good thing, but an uber-jaded response like that makes me wonder if perhaps the humanitarian aspect of it has backfired on them… perhaps they’ve been doing it too long? Because as you said, that’s a very automated response, with no extenuating factors taken into consideration :(

    Hope you’re well. Matt and I would love to take you out to lunch either on this visit, or his next one from July-October!


    • I also stayed at M.A.T.T.S. in Warren in the summer of 2012. I had never been homeless prior. I was very appreciative to have a place to sleep at night. I was not a drug addict or someone who didn’t want to work or someone who drank alcohol regularly… I had bad health and my mother had just passed away.

      To make a longer story shorter, I had found a job and was working as hard as I could as much as I could to make as much money as I could.

      Then late at night, I was called to the desk where the administrators were… they went into my dresser near my bed and found two things… an unopened package of Benadryl and some candy.

      I was told that I had to leave. I had nowhere to go. M.A.T.T.S. was my last and only option. Just two days prior, my father had died. And here I was… someone who was trying so hard to get my life back together… I had no prior issues of having any “contraband” such as medicine.. but I was kicked out anyhow. I was so close to suicide that night. I was distraught… the only place I knew where I could sleep had decided that I wasn’t the type of person they wanted staying in their shelter.

      It was even harder on me than when I was initially lost my home, since it was the only place I could go. It was the hardest thing ever.

      I later found out about the funding for this shelter… that they receive funds by the number of people they serve… so… in effect, it’s in their monetary best interest to kick people out for even the slightest issue, rather than keep a person enrolled… since they only get x amount of dollars for the housing of one individual as opposed to x amount of dollars times the number of people they serve.

      It’s a conflict of interest.

      I almost lost my life due to this policy.

      After only two months of staying at M.A.T.T.S., I regularly got tested for drugs, as did anyone else they wanted to remove. They needed turnover apparently. Even though I never had a drug problem or arrested for drugs or had any reason for them to test me for drugs, it became obvious that for one reason or another, they wanted me out.

      And regarding the Benadryl… I only bought it because one of their counselors gave my two tablets one day and I had promised to replace them.

      Absolutely crazy rules they have… but it helps them to kick people out… and they need to do that in order to receive more funding.

      I only hope and pray that they don’t kick someone else out for such as minor thing that doesn’t have the where-withal to not attempt to end their life… since enrolling in a shelter is usually the last thing people turn to prior to giving up.

What's your opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s