Mirroring the Federal government’s assault on civil rights in pursuit of security, San Francisco has begun chipping away at the due process accorded to homeless San Franciscans. Against the backdrop of the usual police harassment and recent escalation of park sweeps, now the protective policies that have guaranteed some amount of due process are under attack.

The focus of the attack is Shelter Grievance Policy, which was established in 1992 as the result of the work of many dedicated people, including longtime community activist and comrade of the Coalition on Homelessness, Arnett Watson. Before this, the shelters had no obligation to define rules, and residents had no right to their own beds. Staff could kick residents out at will with no accountability. This led to an atmosphere of abuse and maltreatment even worse than the current situation. Incidents of trading sex for beds, physical and verbal abuse, discrimination and middle-of-the-night expulsions were rampant. The Shelter Grievance Policy was established with the aim to decrease these abuses, increase accountability, and guarantee shelter residents due process.

This policy has been a point of pride for San Francisco: This is the only city that has a policy guaranteeing that someone cannot be kicked out of a shelter without due process. Shelter residents can fight a decision and win their beds back. When the policy is actually followed by shelter staff, shelter residents are guaranteed an appeal process including a hearing at the shelter and an outside arbitration.

But now, shelter administrators have suggested changes that in sum have the potential to undermine City policy and subvert homeless people’s civil rights.
The proposed changes include:

• Expanding a denial of service to all sites operated by the same organization.

If you get kicked out of Next Door, you automatically get kicked out of Episcopal Sanctuary, as both are run by Episcopal Community Services. Where else are there 90-day and six-month beds?

• Removing the requirement that staff witness events prior to denying shelter services.
If the staff decides that maybe you were using drugs in the bathroom because they don’t like how you looked at them, you’re out. No proof. No witnesses.

• Allowing staff to deny a person shelter services for threatening behavior outside the shelter.

If someone is having a mental health crisis in another neighborhood and staff see him or her and decide they feel threatened, they can write it up prevent the individual from receiving a shelter bed.

• Allowing a shelter to prohibit residents who have won their arbitration from entering back into the shelter due to “labor concerns” and the mere feeling that staff might be unsafe if the resident returns.

If an arbitrator rules in your favor and allows you to return to the shelter, the administrative staff can decide to disregard current City policy and refuse you reentry-with no consequences. They still get City money.