The Push for "Non-Congregate" Shelters
A pandemic pilot is turning into a call for a model shift. Does it make sense?
By early April 2020, many cities began to decompress their congregate homeless shelters by moving the “higher risk” guests into hotels. We were part of this process locally, and in fact we managed the operations out of two hotels. It was a unique model for a homeless housing facility because it successfully brought in many individuals who would otherwise refuse mainstream shelter beds, some of whom even accepted housing vouchers.
As with many other emergency responses, this project was supposed to be temporary. It was born from an expectation of extremely high COVID infection rates and fatalities in the homeless shelter community. National advocates claimed that the pandemic raised awareness for the high risk of disease spread in congregate living facilities. However, the data showed that the homeless population, and specifically homeless shelters, saw far less impact than expected.
A USICH report from December 31, 2020 states:
…the incidence of positive COVID-19 cases and deaths due to COVID-19 within the community of people experiencing homelessness has been significantly and dramatically lower than had been originally projected by many. Additionally, the rate of positive COVID-19 cases and deaths among families and individuals experiencing homelessness appears to have been lower relative to the general public rates as well as lower than the rates of other congregate living cohorts.
At our shelter, we did not see one case of COVID until November of 2020. And after that, we saw anywhere from one to three cases at a time every couple of months or so. In our transitional housing programs, (which have individual rooms but shared bathrooms and kitchens), we saw even fewer numbers. (Although we had moved some folks into hotels, our shelter was still congregate with shared bathrooms and dining, and there was no way to socially distance. Further, in spite of the fact that shelter guests were some of the first to be offered access to the vaccine, shelters saw extremely low participation rates.)
Once the emergency funding ran out and the hotels began to resume their normal operations, the hotel guests moved back to shelters, encampments, or other setups, and the shelters went back to their normal numbers.
However, as the movement to house without treatment and encourage life-long housing dependency continues, this was an opportunity that did not go unnoticed. Since the move to hotels began, there has been a persistent push to convert entire hotels into homeless housing, even to the point of eliminating congregate shelters. Advocates and elected officials who have not worked in- let alone managed- homeless shelters are now doing street outreach and advising individuals against placement in shelters, claiming shelter rules, lack of privacy, etc. can be avoided by advocating for a hotel placement.
Arguments in support of the move towards non-congregate shelter include the claim that it creates an environment that respects an individual’s privacy, that it reduces the spread of disease, and that it is a good fit for individuals who are otherwise not appropriate for congregate shelters ie. those in active addiction or those with untreated severe mental illness.
Arguments against this move claim that privacy for struggling individuals can lead to isolation which perpetuates existing barriers; those in active addiction may not be motivated to seek treatment, or worse, overdose; and the lack of support services and unlimited access to hotel beds will lead to a massive influx of individuals seeking placement creating another bottleneck in the system.
What we are seeing at one or two local hotels- where placements continue to happen after official temporary operations ended- is a reflection of the arguments on both sides. The most significant positive outcome is the acceptance of placement from individuals who have otherwise refused shelter beds for years. However, the “shadow” outcome is that individuals now know that they can simply report that they are unwilling or unable to accept a shelter bed placement, in order to be placed in a hotel. Further, there have been multiple overdoses, law enforcement has been pushed to their limits with calls to the locations, and property is being destroyed because of the lack of supervision and support services.
The bottleneck is beginning….
Like Housing First, the model of non-congregate housing for homeless individuals is helpful for some, but not all, of the homeless population. It is an effective option for some otherwise not appropriate for shelters like couples, individuals with pets, etc.
On the other side, many shelter guests embrace the congregate environment because it provides them with a sense of community, even if their circumstances are unfortunate. They get to see others accomplish goals and through that they motivate one another. Likewise, when a guest is ready to take that next step towards treatment, housing, employment, or reconciling family relationships, they have immediate access to services that will assist them.
There is no reasonable argument to be made that should cause us to shift the shelter model completely. And to create an influx of funding, or to redirect existing funding, to this model will overwhelm the system while continuing to ignore the root causes that are forcing homelessness numbers to rise.