City Lacks Guidelines for Items Allowed in Shelters
On October 15, the three largest City-funded single adult shelters in the city implemented a policy requiring all residents to pass through metal detectors upon entry. Though metal detectors are degrading and only attempt to band-aid the larger issues that cause a lack of safety in shelters, if the City is determined to implement this policy, there are multiple issues that should be addressed.
This may seem to create safer shelters on the surface, but the intricacies contained within the wording of this policy actually allow for arbitrary confiscation of the valuables of shelter residents. The language contained on the banned items list states: “Shelter staff and security personnel are fully authorized to make determinations regarding such items on a case-by-case basis.”
Looking at this type of subjective determination of banned items more closely, it is obvious that it will be too arbitrary and capricious to allow staff discretion in deciding if an item could be used as a weapon. A staff person may decide that virtually anything could be used as a weapon. At one shelter, staff confiscated a person’s bike lock because they believed it could be used as a weapon, but they let someone else keep a pocket knife. There should be a comprehensive list of banned items that is developed and adhered to so that individuals know definitively, as they do in other circumstances, such as airports, what items are banned, before they enter.
The policy as it stands also plays into current perceptions of favoritism that exist in the shelter, allowing security to pick and choose items upon entry, and would escalate conflict between staff and residents. If an item is discovered later that was left off the list, the policy could be amended.
In addition to the problems caused by this lack of clarity regarding which items are banned and which are not, there are also severe problems that will arise from the hold-harmless clause contained within the policy. As it stands now, this clause does not prevent the granting of administrative claim payments and/or small claim judgments to individuals whose items were stolen or lost by shelter staff; it simply misinforms residents as to their property rights. For example, if the resident whose bike lock was confiscated for no concrete reason did not receive it back, an act which would almost definitively result in the loss of his or her mode of transportation, that person would have no way to reclaim that loss. This lack of personal property rights is ludicrous and should be addressed immediately if shelters insist on continuing to use metal detectors—residents should have full knowledge of their rights.
Another confusing aspect of the policy regards whether or not individuals will be denied service if they do not submit to going through metal detectors. It is the understanding of the Coalition that individuals will not be denied services based on their refusal to sign the agreement, but will be if they do not comply with the weapons confiscation policy. However, this is not clearly delineated in the policy, as several residents have interpreted the new language to mean the same as the past. It should be rewritten to make sure that residents know their rights.
The policy indicates that canes will not be allowed in the shelter, unless the individual has a mobility impairment. If an individual is mobility impaired, it should be noted in the policy that they simply have to indicate they have an impairment in order to enter with a cane. It should be articulated that they do not need to have medical documentation, nor do they need to persuade staff to allow them to enter with the cane.
In addition to allowing people to bring canes into the shelters without having to fight to keep them, there should also be better planning surrounding the placement of metal detectors within the shelters. At MSC South, residents have to walk up stairs to reach the metal detectors. Though some people had access to an elevator, it was witnessed that one elderly woman with mobility impairment had to walk up the stairs. This was extremely difficult for her and is an issue that should be addressed for all elderly residents and residents with mobility impairments—it is degrading and unnecessary.
However, it must be noted that even if this policy is cleaned up and rewritten, it most likely will not provide any real change in the shelter system: The policy disregards the actual problems occurring in shelters. One-third of residents reported that they did not feel safe in shelters, and out of that group, one-quarter stated that this was caused by rude and neglectful staff. Also, over half of residents feel that shelters fail to respond to many complaints, which leads to people feeling destabilized and demoralized. Looking at these statistics, it is no wonder that there is violence in shelters—the residents are fearful and are living in an unstable environment caused by a lack of humanity, respect, and care in the shelter system in general.
The shelters who have had the best success with keeping shelters safe and conflict free, have concentrated on holding staff accountable and creating an environment where every human being is valued. These shelters see themselves as sanctuaries from the street and staff have an analysis of the structural causes of homelessness.
At this time, it’s more important to work to create a respectful and welcoming environment that treats residents with dignity than to implement a policy that’s not only haphazardly thought out, but also detracts from the dignity of people living in these shelters. If the City thinks a policy that will further demoralize clients, create aggravating waits for shelter, and cause even more conflict between residents and staff will lessen violence, they are greatly mistaken.
Katy