Rating A Low Barrier Shelter For Women In Boston

This scene was created by affordablehousingaction.org and is licensed under CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication photo by M
Moving away from military-style bunkbed warehouses and towards reassuring. cozy sleeping experiences.

Research by Corinne Beaugard1 and four colleagues studied a low barrier emergency shelter for women in Boston.

Emergency shelters usually offer beds for a single night and enforce a curfew. Meals and showers are limited to specific times. Clients can expect temporary or permanent barring for unacceptable behaviour and/or substance use.

In a low barrier shelter, rules are more flexible. A client may occupy the same bed for the duration of their stay. Meal and shower times are flexible. Substance use does not lead to immediate expulsion.

Women who live in encampments experience high rates of violence. Some are barred from the shelter system. Some live in encampments to because of a shelter’s rules. Low barrier shelters are rated as a promising health practice. The shelter in this study was specifically intended to provide emergency housing to women who were homeless and living outdoors. It came into being as part of a plan to clear an encampment in central Boston.

Decisions about the programming and design of the low barrier shelter were guided by examples in other jurisdictions and advice from potential residents.

The goal of Beaugard’s study was to find out about how the shelter actually worked for its residents and for the people who worked there. Input was gathered through interviews with 16 residents and 12 staff members. Beaugard and her colleagues recorded and transcribed the interviews and then coded the responses to identify common themes.

Residents reported that the rules in the low-barrier shelter gave them a safe space in which to take stock. That said, at least one resident wished that the structure would assist them to prepare for next steps:

“And I wonder if there might, should be like some more expectations put up on us because we need to be expected to contribute. We need to be expected to be able to function in society.”

At least one staff member shared the resident’s aspiration:

“I don’t like the fact that they can come in under the influence. And I understand why it is the way it is. ‘Cause there needs to be a window where they can come in first, feel safe, then maybe think about getting better. But there’s nobody saying get better.”

Residents and staff talked about substance use and the shelter’s harm reduction practices, even though the interviewers did not ask direct questions about either issue. Staff and residents reported that residents were using less. Both groups identified features of the shelter’s operation that contributed to a lower rate of consumption. For example, when staying in the shelter, residents felt safe to sleep and did not need to take substances to stay awake.

Since the project was about gathering feedback, Beaugard and colleagues discuss some things to do differently when conducting a study like this another time. One wish, going forward, is to interview women staying in encampments who did not try out staying at the low barrier shelter.

The people in charge of the low barrier shelter can use these responses to refine the way it operates. The study wasn’t intended as a guide to other shelters, but it identifies programming changes that could broaden the range of shelters open to women who experience homelessness.

This article is available to all potential readers and published in the Harm Reduction Journal: “I don’t think of it as a shelter. I say I’m going home”: a qualitative evaluation of a low-threshold shelter for women who use drugs

Footnotes

  1. Beaugard is based in the School of Social Work at Boston University.