March 23, 2006

By BILL KIRLIN-HACKETT
Guest Writer

After months of discussion, hearings, and public comment, the City of Seattle has now postponed cuts to three homeless shelters from April 1 to May 1. The cuts resulted from a bid process in which shelter providers competed for the dwindling dollars coming mainly from the federal government. A second round of RFPs will add another $350,000 to the pot, which the City claims will redeem Mayor Nickels’ promise of “no net loss of shelter beds.” Advocates say that $350,000 won’t do it; twice that amount is needed. That will be especially true if the City defunds SHARE’s 15 indoor shelters due to SHARE’s refusal to comply with the City’s data requirements. Projected losses of Seattle-funded emergency shelter beds are between 300 and 600, depending on whether a reconciliation occurs between the City and SHARE — the latter of whom stands to lose funding for 295 beds per night. Since SHARE’s beds provide shelter at about one-third the cost of other shelters, that $350,000 shrinks even more.

But even more worrisome than the cuts in dollars is the shift in emphasis shown by the City’s recent actions. Citing the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, City officials — and some on City Council — have stated that it’s time to shift resources from shelter to transitional housing and permanent housing. They proclaim that we’re not going to make progress on ending homelessness unless we stop concentrating on providing mats on the floor. Shelter providers, they say, should provide not just beds but “enhanced” shelter, meaning services that point the individual toward transitional and, finally, permanent housing.

That sounds ideal, until you try to determine just how emergency shelter providers are going to pay for that “enhanced” shelter, especially in the light of less money coming from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, the major source of housing dollars. There’s also the fact that many individuals who need emergency shelters may not be eligible for transitional housing programs. Emergency shelters often serve a preponderance of the more vulnerable homeless individuals who have longstanding addiction or mental health difficulties. Transitional housing programs have entrance requirements which this population may not meet But under the City’s new dictum, emergency shelters who don’t provide what the City proclaims is needed will find themselves lost in the shuffle. Those who depend upon those shelters will be out in the cold, joining the all-too-many who already are turned away for lack of beds. The harm this squeeze on shelter providers and their clients produces is incalculable.

Despite the City’s holding up the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness like a flag, this shift in emphasis on the City’s part is not mandated by the Plan. Sprinkled throughout the Plan are admonishments that shelter — simple shelter — must be provided until there is sufficient transitional and permanent housing in place. By shortchanging emergency shelters in favor of housing, Seattle has decided to skip from Year One to Year Four in the Plan, but not without doing considerable harm. The insistence on providing more than a mat on the floor is surely a laudable goal if backed by funding. It’s folly if demanded without funds. Spending more per bed will only work if more per bed is allotted by those in elected office who control funding. Otherwise, we have fewer beds and more people vulnerable on the streets.

Homelessness, itself, is unbridled harm. No manifestation of being homeless is benign. To keep people from becoming homeless we must do all we can with rental subsidies, housing vouchers, and other remedies that are all worth their weight in gold. Failing to exercise prevention harms individuals and our society collectively, spiritually, economically, and politically. It is surprising, then, how harm to individuals who are currently homeless (for whatever reason or for however long a period) is in any way tolerable. The City’s RFPs for 2006 city-funded homeless services are an inhumane example of “creaming”: helping those who will show results (i.e., fit into transitional housing or permanent housing) sooner. The road to “Housing First,” another city mantra, is built on the backs of those who won’t have any shelter whatsoever. That’s violence. No other word fits.

How can we prevent this? Additional funding must be put into Human Services Division’s homeless services, the City and SHARE must make a Safe Harbors agreement so that SHARE’s clients won’t be sent to the streets, and — most important — city government needs to restore itself as a Ten Year Plan partner. It’s time to stop being unilateral and to be on the team that seeks to end homelessness. n