City councils bring their own values and concerns to their decision-making. When it comes to the homeless, do those values, well-meaning or no, tend to mirror the opinions of the people who are unhoused?
Unfortunately, the answer may well be ‘no.’ The consequence can be disappointing for both city government as well as the people who are unhoused. As a consequence, councillors may resent the apparent rejection of their well-meaning efforts. And people who are unhoused in turn may be exasperated and despairing that shelters set up for their benefit nevertheless ignore some of their fundamental concerns and fears.
The rights of people who are unhoused and barriers to homeless shelters
Suzanne Skinner and Sara Rankin of the Seattle University School of Law have recently completed a study on barriers to the use of emergency shelters. It includes the perspective of those who attempt to create effective shelters as well as describing the barriers that face prospective shelter users. Lack of capacity is one example. Rules which prohibit access to specific groups of people is another.
Skinner and Rankin also set out the constitutional rights of people who are homeless and cannot access shelters. This part of their report traces the reasons why encampment clearances are illegal.
What can local governments do?
To help governments reflect on where their shelter services might be falling short, the Municipal Research and Services Center have informed their readers about Skinner and Rankin’s research.
The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) supports local governments in Washington State, a service that began in 1934. For example, MRSC:
-
- offers a policy and program research service for local governments.
- pre-qualifies businesses that are eligible for local government contracts.
MRSC has recently published two articles to support local governments as they review their homeless service provision:
-
- One discusses boundaries for policy setting, drawing on Skinner and Rankin’s research as well as guidance from HUD and the National Alliance to End Homelessness.
- The second provides examples of good practices in use by local governments in Washington State.
Why does this matter?
The articles discussed in this post will obviously be useful to organizations in the state of Washington, but there are reasons why outsiders might also choose to read further:
-
- Skinner and Rankin’s article makes reference to the Constitutional rights of people who are unhoused. This should be relevant to readers across the United States. You can access their article at the University of Seattle School of Law: Shut Out: How Barriers Often Prevent Meaningful Access to Emergency Shelter
- MRSC’s first article provides a broad overview of guidance on emergency shelter services, which may apply in other US states and territories. You can access it at MRSC: What Factors Increase the Likelihood Unhoused People Will Seek Out Shelters? Part One
- The good practices in MRSC’s second article offer approaches that could be adopted in other locations in the US and beyond: What Factors Increase the Likelihood Unhoused People Will Seek Out Shelters? Part Two
- The MRSC model of support to local municipalities might be considered for adaptation in other jurisdictions. Read more about the model here: About MRSC
