Donate
Get Legal Help

  • A WLCH Post-Graduate Fellow Shares Her Reflections on Hypothermia Season

    By Tashira Halyard, Washington Legal Clinic Post-Graduate Fellow
    February 18, 2011

    Watching tears stream down the face of a 24-year-old woman with two young children, I see a reflection of myself. Maybe at one point our lives were interchangeable and only a few decisions caused our paths to diverge. She’s been kicked out of her friend’s house and has no where to go. She was told by a social worker at the family intake center that she would most likely not be placed in safe housing for the night. She gets angry when I describe to her DC’s hypothermia laws, notifying her she doesn’t have a right to shelter on a warm night. With a look of disbelief, she asks if I’m telling her that because it’s above 32 degrees she and her children must sleep outside. I hang my head and assure her the legal clinic will do our best to find her safe shelter.

    As a recent law school graduate, I admit I had some preconceived notions about the homeless population in Washington, DC. I pictured the men and women sleeping on park benches and asking for change—however, after just a few weeks of advocacy at a local intake center, I realize homelessness doesn’t have a face or age. It can be sleeping on a friend’s couch or cramming several families into a one bedroom apartment. Overall, it is instability and uncertainty surrounding a fundamental human need—housing. Although DC has a right to shelter in hypothermia conditions (when the weather is below 33 degrees including wind chill) seeking safe housing on cold nights can be stressful and burdensome. For families, DC’s shelter system is especially under-resourced, making their right to shelter the most difficult to realize.

    I now know what the housing crisis looks like. Not the one on Wall Street tied to predatory lending, massive foreclosures, and bank bailouts, but the one that denies single mothers and their children a safe place to stay at night. While others are celebrating this rare warm-day, I’m struggling to advocate within a system that does not recognize housing as a human right. However, I’m among a staff at WLCH that fights tirelessly for systemic change. I too have joined this battle, and the young woman’s tears fuel my passion.

  • Homeless Mom Given Tough Choice: Leave DC or Place Children in Foster Care

    By Marta Beresin, Staff Attorney

    Last week a mother of three was given an ultimatum by the DC Child and Family Services Administration:  get on a Greyhound bus for a shelter placement in another state or we’ll place your children in foster care.  The alleged neglect or abuse?  Being financially unable to afford to provide a home for her children.   As a matter of law, the District had no basis for making such a threat.  It is firmly established that parents have a Constitutional right to care for their children and that a parent’s inability to provide for a child due to circumstances of poverty is not a basis for removing a child.

    What’s sadly ironic is that this mother had been to the Virginia Williams Family Resource Center (“FRC”), the central intake site for homeless families in need of shelter repeatedly during the prior two weeks, pleading for the very thing that the District claimed she was neglectfully failing to provide.  Each time she had been told – as many others have been this winter – that there was no room for her and her children at DC General, the filled-to-capacity (with 152 families as of 2/10/11) winter shelter for families in the District.

    In part, this mother’s odyssey may have been due to action the DC Council took in December, when 9 members of the Council passed the Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2010 (“HSRA Amendment”).  The bill establishes, for the first time, strict residency verification requirements for families applying for life-saving hypothermia shelter.  While the HSRA Amendment has yet to become law, some of its harshest consequences are already being visited on families.  The attempt to force the aforementioned mother to move to another state for shelter for her family was born out of the misimpression that she was not a District resident.  Nobody at the FRC had checked her ID (which was a DC driver’s license) or her other documents showing existing ties to the District

    Unfortunately, the denial of shelter to families has been commonplace this winter, even on days when freezing temperatures trigger the right to shelter.  Residency has been but one illegal barrier placed in the way of families accessing shelter:  FRC staff have also demanded custody orders and verifiable proof that the family is in an unsafe place or sleeping outside, the absence of which cannot be grounds for denying shelter placement under current law.

    The myriad barriers to families accessing shelter have made clear that, more than the recently passed residency bill, shelter denials are the result of poor planning by the Department of Human Services and the Interagency Council on Homelessness (“ICH”).  As advocates on the ICH had predicted, the Winter Plan did not create enough capacity for homeless families this winter.  The District’s plan to move families into housing to free up enough shelter space to meet the increased winter need has not moved forward as fully or quickly as promised.  Every day, the FRC sees many more families than the system can accommodate; it is District parents and children who are forced to pay the price.

    What’s more, a huge budget deficit looms for FY 2012, and the DC Council has shown little inclination towards raising revenues to preserve safety net programs – despite the fact that we are in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression and that as a result family homelessness has risen 35% between 2008 and 2010.  For families in crisis trying to access shelter, any cut to homeless services in FY 2012 clearly will have devastating consequences given the already inadequate system of support currently in place.

    The family described above is now sheltered safely in the District, but you can help us assure that no parent again faces such a choice.  Join us in asking the Mayor to open up additional hypothermia capacity for families so that the next family in crisis who turns to the public safety net for assistance can secure the lifesaving supports they need to survive the harsh winter months.  You can email Mayor Gray at eom@dc.gov.

  • DC Council Votes to Leave Families Out In the Cold, 9-4

    Please call (311) or email (Fenty.mpd@dc.gov) the Mayor and ask him to protect DC families by vetoing this bill before he leaves office!

    In a shockingly callous and short-sighted move, the DC Council passed the Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2010 (B18-1059) at Tuesday’s legislative session, with Councilmembers Cheh, Graham, Mendelson, and Thomas strongly opposing the harmful measure.

    B18-1059, introduced by Councilmember Tommy Wells, purports to prioritize DC residents for shelter services by requiring proof of DC residency before a family can access emergency shelter even during hypothermia season. In reality, the bill adds yet another bureaucratic hurdle in the middle of the coldest weather season for our most vulnerable residents, while doing nothing to prevent families from moving to DC from other jurisdictions to access our services.

    We were grateful for the strong voices of reason from the dais by the only four Councilmembers who truly understood the consequences of this bad piece of legislation – that it does nothing to improve homeless services for DC residents, and that it is nothing short of a cruel bill that will leave children and families outside in freezing weather.

    Although most of the rhetoric surrounding this bill has concerned the residency requirement provisions, this bill is far more expansive than its proponents would lead us to believe. The bill eviscerates the health and safety standards for family shelter by allowing the Mayor to place families in communal-style shelters rather than apartment-style shelters. We have overwhelming social science as well as experiential evidence that communal shelters are harmful to children – just look at the atrocities of last winter at DC General. By legalizing congregate shelter for families, the District will be backsliding to the nightmare days of DC Village, or worse. It is against good public policy to lower this standard because we’re not meeting it — we do not do the same for educational standards in our schools or clean water standards for our rivers –and yet, on Tuesday, the DC Council did just that while ignoring the deleterious effects to our homeless children.

    Times have been tough for homeless residents much longer than they’ve been tough for the rest of us. The real problems our city is facing – a rise in family homelessness, soaring unemployment, inadequate shelter and affordable housing capacity and a budget deficit — none of these issues were addressed by this bill. It is unconscionable for us to risk the loss of even one life without the facts to back it up and a plan that truly addresses the problem.

  • ACTION ALERT: Call or Email Your Councilmember on Monday, December 20, 2010, Tell Them to Vote “NO” on The Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2010 (B18-1059)

    Background: B18-1059 was introduced by Councilmember Tommy Wells. After holding a hearing at which the public voiced unanimous opposition to this legislation, the bill was very close to being tabled (the vote was 6-6), but unfortunately failed and passed on first vote. The second vote on the bill will take place this coming Tuesday, December 21st . With your help, we are confident we can defeat this harmful legislation.

    WHY: B18-1059 would do two things that threaten the lives and well-beings of our homeless residents: 1) It would require families who are homeless to prove they are District residents before they can access severe weather shelter or other emergency services on the coldest days of the winter, and 2) It would allow the District to shelter families in congregate settings, jeopardizing the health and safety of vulnerable children. The District’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer has confirmed that this bill will result in zero fiscal savings.

    MESSAGE: “Do not support Bill 18-1059. While it does nothing to prevent a family from moving to DC to access shelter, it will put DC’s most vulnerable families and children in harms way on the coldest winter nights, and it will not save the District one dime. A vote for this bill is a vote against our most vulnerable DC Residents.

    Please do your part today to help save DC Residents this winter and tell your Councilmember to vote no on this harmful measure:

    Chair Vincent C. Gray,
    vgray@dccouncil.us, 724-8032
    At-large David Catania, dcatania@dccouncil.us, 724-7772
    At-large Michael Brown, mbrown@dccouncil.us, 724-8105
    At-large Phil Mendelson, pmendelson@dccouncil.us, 724-8064
    At-large Kwame R. Brown, kbrown@dccouncil.us, 724-8174
    Ward 1 Jim Graham, jgraham@dccouncil.us, 724-8181
    Ward 2 Jack Evans, jackevans@dccouncil.us, 724-8058
    Ward 3 Mary Cheh, mcheh@dccouncil.us, 724-8062
    Ward 4 Muriel Bowser, mbowser@dccouncil.us, 724-8052
    Ward 5 Harry “Tommy” Thomas Jr., hthomas@dccouncil.us, 724-8028
    Ward 6 Tommy Wells, twells@dccouncil.us, 724-8072
    Ward 7 Yvette Alexander, yalexander@dccouncil.us, 724-8068
    Ward 8 Marion Barry, mbarry@dccouncil.us, 724-8045
    Councilmember listserv membersonly@dccouncil.us

  • My Year Facing Homelessness: A Legal Clinic Client Tells His Story

    *Check out Antonio Gibson on NPR talking about his experience with homelessness on Dec. 25, 2010*

    By Antonio Gibson, Former Legal Clinic Client

    Once a two parent household, myself and the mother of my children both had pretty substantial jobs. She would later be laid off from Bank of America in August, 2008. I then had no choice but to try to make my 1200.00 monthly income cover an eight hundred dollar rent along with other living expensive. After a year long effort I then found myself alone and facing eviction October, 2009. After unsuccessful attempts to contact organizations that help to prevent evictions and homelessness, I soon woke up to marshals at my door Nov15, 2009 to carry out the eviction. My remaining bank savings and work income would be garnished on storage and consistent nights in Motel 6. Being alone with two children in this very unusual living status made me overly depressed and I found myself not going to work to later be fired.

    On October 1, 2010 I finally spoke with someone who had information about two programs that could possibly help someone in my condition. Being a homeless, single father at the time, I was sleeping in my car with my two children at this point. I was in a position where I was looking for anyone or anything to help me so it was vital that I respond immediately to any help being offered. I called LIFT, a program that has contact to all government organizations in the District area for homeless individuals in need. They allowed me to make an appointment for Monday, October 4. I then called the second number which was to the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. I spoke with someone who asked of my situation and they immediately started calling programs I had already been to in order to find out why we had not received services yet. My children and I had been awaiting shelter from Virginia Williams, which is the headquarters of all shelters in the D.C. area as of July 1, 2010. In addition, I’d already had an orientation in late July at the Housing Authority for HUD living. Though the worker from the Legal Clinic was not able to get in touch with anyone at either organization, I was set to meet with LIFT that Monday whom I was told would place me and my family the same day.

    With the feeling of rejection and failure again I later got another call back from the Legal Clinic who had contacted a church that was willing to donate a hotel fee so that we would not sleep in the car that weekend. Sadly, I was financially unable to get to them or the hotel, so I pushed through until Monday when hopefully LIFT would come through. After a six hour visit we found that all emergency shelters go through Virginia Williams, which hadn’t offered any results after four months, so I left their office feeling worse than I’d felt this whole year while homeless. Wanting to give up on life, being a father, and all, I looked down the street and was D.C. Housing. Although I had to be somewhere else in 20 minutes, something told me to stop in and see why I received a letter saying my name was returned to the waiting list. Half an hour from their closing, I spoke to a gentlemen who recognized me and my kids. With tears in my eyes he asked, “What’s going on man, everything okay?” I explained everything to him and he replied, “We sent you a letter, I mailed them out September 25. There is an apartment for you.” Overjoyed by his words, I told him I never got a letter to view an apartment and he informed me it wasn’t too late if I could go down and see it. I zoomed down to Southwest D.C. and the apartment manager showed me a spacious three-bedroom. She told me I could move in when I had the security deposit and prorated rent which, amazingly, only equaled $162.00. I was happy, but sad that I had no money to move in the next day.

    Receiving a call from the Legal Clinic worker, I told her of all that was happening and she surprisingly felt my joy and pain. She then said, “Wait, why don’t we use the money that was given to us for your hotel as your security deposit instead!”

    To make a long story short, I’m now in my apartment after a year of being on the streets. When I reached the cliff of my life, Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless was there to grab me. I now know that “Ideas don’t work unless you do!!”

    Special thanks to Marta Beresin and all who were there to help us.

  • Rest In Peace Mary Ann Luby

    By Patty Mullahy Fugere

    Dear Friends – It is with great sorrow that I write to inform you of the passing of our beloved colleague, Mary Ann Luby. She succumbed to cancer late last night after learning of the disease not even two weeks ago.

    As you might expect if you know Mary Ann at all, she was at peace on the final days of her earth journey. She remained restless, though, about the injustices around her and managed to prepare a “to do” list of work that must continue on in her absence. To honor all that she was and all that she taught us, we must redouble our efforts in these challenging days and continue to push forward toward building a just and inclusive community.

    For those who might not know her history, Mary Ann, who was an Adrian Dominican Sister, has been involved in the Legal Clinic since our inception. As director of Rachael’s Women’s Center during the ‘80’s and early ‘90’s she was one of the providers we consulted back in 1985 when trying to figure out how lawyers could best serve our neighbors who are homeless. She became an early board member of the legal clinic and served in that capacity until joining our staff in 1995.

    Mary Ann was instrumental to the founding of Fair Budget Coalition, believing deeply in the need to work collaboratively and to support community members in lifting up their voices.

    At every turn, she has challenged us to be faithful to the people whom we serve.

    A memorial service for Mary Ann is planned for Saturday, December 11th at St. Aloysius Church, 19 Eye Street, NW. The time is tentatively set for 1pm, but we can confirm details early next week. It will be a great celebration of her life and work.

    Please see the Washington Post article about Mary Ann:
    Mary Ann Luby, nun who advocated for the homeless, dies at 70

    Also, please see the DCist article

  • Giving Thanks

    These are challenging times, to be sure.   On Tuesday afternoon, Mayor Fenty released his proposal to close a budget gap for the current fiscal year of over $185 million. As feared, his proposal includes cuts to some of our community’s most basic safety net programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Interim Disability Assistance (IDA) and the Local Rent Supplement Program (LRSP).   These are programs that have helped many of our low- and no-income neighbors in the District to meet their families’ basic needs when they are unable to work; to maintain some stability in their lives as they await the processing of federal disability assistance; and to move out of homelessness into stable, affordable permanent housing.  These programs have been vital threads in the social safety net, and they are at risk of significant fraying.

    So what’s to be thankful for?

    The Legal Clinic gives thanks to be part of an advocacy community that is working towards creative, effective solutions to this budget crisis, that urges taking a “balanced approach” to closing the deficit and that offers “better choices” than making hurtful cuts in programs that serve those who are most vulnerable to the pain.

    We also give thanks to know DC residents who enthusiastically believe that “better choices” means that they should be asked to give more, so that their vulnerable neighbors can hang on to what little they have; who say “Tax me at a higher rate, if it means that families won’t be turned away to sleep in cars,” or “I can afford to dig a little deeper, to share the burden of this financial crisis and assure that it doesn’t disproportionately fall on the shoulders of people living in poverty.”  If you want to add your voice to theirs, please let us know.

    Finally, we give thanks for our clients and other community members who have little but give much, who teach us how to summon the strength to make it day-to-day, who challenge us to be even more creative in our advocacy, and who inspire us to remain faithful to the fight for justice.

    There are many blessings to count this Thanksgiving.  Let’s hope, when the revisions to the FY 2011 budget are finalized next month, that there will be even more.

  • Join us for the Nov. 20 “Help the Homeless” Walk-a-Thon

    Join the Legal Clinic for the annual “Help the Homeless” Walk-a-Thon on November 20. Our group will meet at 8:30am by the carousel in front of the old Smithsonian building on the National Mall. Please RSVP to Laura Russello, Development Associate, at laura@legalclinic.org.

    You can register for the event by clicking on this link.

    https://secure3.convio.net/hth/site/SPageServer?JServSessionIdr004=0p3lln65q2.app304a&pagename=10_involved_walk_landing

    Please be sure to enter the “Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless” as your beneficiary organization. We hope to see you there!

  • Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2010 Will Harm DC Residents, Increase Financial and Administrative Burdens, and is Legally Unsound

    Bill 18-1059, the Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2010 (HSRA), introduced by Council member Tommy Wells, presents a number of serious problems for at-risk District residents (including vulnerable children), for providers of homeless services, and for the DC government itself. The bill puts the lives of DC residents at risk, is administratively and financially cumbersome, and opens the District to potential legal trouble. Additionally, the proposed law would reduce homeless services while increasing cost of administration.

    What Bill 18-1059 does:

    • Requires verification of DC residency before one can access emergency shelter or almost any other homeless service, including winter shelter, outreach, Housing First, meal programs and crisis intervention services, and defines residency more narrowly than any other program in DC.

    • Attempts to exclude a) those who seek “low barrier” shelter (which does not include any family shelters or “severe weather[1]” shelters), as well as b) applicants to shelter who are victims of “domestic abuse, sexual assault, or human trafficking” (but provides no information on how a person would verify such exemption prior to receiving services), from residency requirements during severe weather only.

    • Eliminates the longstanding health and safety protections for families with minor children by removing the requirement in the winter that family shelter be “apartment-style.”  Removes any limit on the number of families that can be placed together in one room with communal sleeping, eating, and bathroom facilities.

    Bill 18-1059 is dangerous for DC residents.

    • The risks of B18-1059 do not justify the benefits. The anticipated benefit of B18-1059 is the possibility of excluding a small number of non-DC residents from shelters and services in the District by requiring proof of DC residency before one can receive shelter or services. This benefit, however, is far outweighed by the potential risks: leaving the District’s most vulnerable residents—the homeless—out in the cold on hypothermia nights.
    • B18-1059, by mandating proof of District residency, may disproportionately exclude the most vulnerable DC residents. Many individuals become unexpectedly homeless following an eviction, an apartment fire, or a dangerous domestic situation—these same individuals are likely to lack proof of residency when seeking services.
    • B18-1059 defines “DC resident” more narrowly than any other District program.[2] Homeless individuals are the most likely DC residents to lack proper documentation. By imposing a residency standard that is more stringent than would be required for other social services, DC is certain to deny services to District residents.
    • B18-1059 denies emergency services to individuals facing imminent danger. Mandating proof of residency for residents seeking hypothermia shelter is akin to requiring ID before administering life-saving medical emergency services.

    Bill 18-1059 is administratively burdensome and financially taxing.

    • B18-1059 places an unprecedented burden on outreach and shelter workers. Upon implementation of this bill, all employees and volunteers conducting outreach or intake at DC’s homeless shelters and service providers would have to become experts on verification of residency.  Training service providers would require specialized instructions, and many organizations will need new intake procedures, increased staff, and updated technology to comply.
    • Verification of exempt status could be impossible, or in some cases, illegal. Requiring victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or human trafficking to announce, and presumably prove, status is not only administratively problematic, but may also constitute a violation of civil rights under local and federal confidentiality and fair housing laws.[3]
    • In a time of budgetary strain, B18-1059 will increase costs while reducing services. Requiring proof of identification will make outreach and intake procedures more cumbersome, thereby reducing the number of individuals served and increasing cost per client. Operational and logistical restructuring required to implement a new residency documentation mandate may also be expensive and inefficient.

    Bill 18-1059 is legally problematic.

    • B18-1059 puts the District at risk of lawsuits. This bill puts the health and safety of DC residents at risk. Any individual unable to access life-saving services because of the bill’s implementation may have a cause of action against the District.
    • Adverse impact on protected classes may violate civil rights law. The strict verification of residency requirements in this bill will be prohibitive to certain protected classes, including survivors of violence, immigrants, and persons with limited English proficiency.

    Bill 18-1059 will put DC children in winter shelters at increased risk of harm and abuse.

    • Communal-style shelters are dangerous and unhealthy for children. Cramming families into spaces with strangers instead of providing them with basic privacy and safety protections puts children at increased risk of abuse by unrelated adults and at increased risk of contracting communicable diseases.  The communal environment can also lead to poor school performance and attendance.
    • B18-1059 puts families this winter at risk of being placed in small rooms with unlimited numbers of unrelated families. Throughout the last winter, large numbers of families (sometimes as many as 18) were piled on top of one another in one room at DC General, causing great stress to these parents and children.  The only way families were able to protect the safety of their children was to assert their right to apartment-style shelter—the same right that this bill would take away.
    • Non-apartment style shelter can be lethal for persons with immune-compromised disorders such as HIV/AIDS or lupus. Families shouldn’t be forced to choose between sleeping on the street and risking their health and life in a crowded, communal environment where disease is easily spread.
    • Communal-style shelter is dangerous for victims of domestic violence.  Victims would be at risk of living in close proximity to the perpetrator of violence, endangering their safety and the safety of their children.

    Conclusion: Bill 18-1059 may have been a well intentioned effort to prioritize scarce resources for DC residents, but the actual effect of the bill will be to divert those scarce life-saving resources from the very residents who need help the most.  Any concerns, however minimal, that non-DC residents are taking away resources from DC residents should be resolved in a thoughtful, data-driven manner that brings regional partners to the table.  The District could better serve its homeless neighbors by limiting residency documentation requirements to certain long-term, non-emergency services and by coordinating with surrounding jurisdictions.   

    A hearing on this bill will take place on November 8, 2010 at 11:30am, Wilson Building, Room 500.  For more information contact Nassim Moshiree at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, nassim@legalclinic.org

    [1] “Severe Weather Shelter” is the same as hypothermia shelter.  It is public or private space that the District makes available of the purpose of providing shelter to individuals and families who are homeless and cannot access other shelter during hypothermic weather (when the actual or forecasted temperature falls below 32 degreed Fahrenheit).   Often severe weather shelter is located in the same space as “low barrier” shelter for individuals.  All shelter for families is either “severe weather” or temporary shelter.

    [2] See DC ST § 4-205.03 for DC residency as defined by the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982.

    [3] DC ST § 14-310; D.C. ST § 7-1201.01(11); 42 U.S.C. § 10601-10604; 42 U.S.C. § 13925(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 11375(c)(5); and 42 U.S.C. § 11383(1)(8)(A);  DC ST § 14-310; D.C. ST § 7-1201.01(11); 42 U.S.C. § 10601-10604; 42 U.S.C. § 13925(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 11375(c)(5); and 42 U.S.C. § 11383(1)(8)(A); DC ST § 2-1402.21; and 42 U.S.C.A  § 3604

  • Voting “No”…

    By Scott McNeilly, Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless Staff Attorney

    The Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH) voted on Tuesday to approve the Winter Plan for 2010-2011.  The Winter Plan describes how the District will implement the severe weather provisions of the Homeless Services Reform Act –how individuals and families can exercise their right to shelter on freezing nights and the steps the District will take to prevent weather-related deaths and injuries.  The Plan was developed by the ICH’s Operations and Logistics Committee through a process that involved lots of meetings and hearings and consequently lots of community input.  (I am a member of the ICH and was active, along with other Legal Clinic staff, in the Committee process).  Although the Committee’s process was thoughtful and thorough, it ultimately has no power to compel the District government to provide the resources necessary to implement the plan.  Primarily because of concern about whether the Plan is backed by adequate resources, I was the lone “No” vote on the question of whether or not the Plan should be adopted.

    There are many issues related to the Plan, but two major concerns.  First, on October 15th, the DC government closed the La Casa low barrier shelter in Columbia Heights (displacing 90 residents) in order for the parcel of land to be developed by its private owner.  The District has known for years that La Casa would eventually have to close, but government officials made no arrangements for an alternative site in the Columbia Heights neighborhood.  Service providers who work with the men who have relied on La Casa are concerned that many of those men will not travel across town to the remaining shelters in northeast or southeast.  Some may not go because of language or other cultural barriers.  Some may not go because they rely on employment, health, mental health, food or other programs in the Columbia Heights area.  The Winter Plan calls for a bus that will pick up men needing shelter from the corner of 16th Street and Park Road, NW and take them down to 9th and G Streets, NW, where other buses will take them out to the shelters in northeast and southeast.  There will be buses back to 9th and G in the morning with another bus then returning men from there to Columbia Heights.  It will likely be a very long ride and, for men who work or who are seeking day labor, it’s unlikely they will be able to get back to Columbia Heights before 9:00 am.  They will face a choice that no one should have to face: keep a job, or have a safe, warm place to sleep at night.  In order to maintain their employment, some of La Casa’s former residents may risk staying outdoors, even after the weather snaps cold.   Going forward, the District government must better anticipate and plan for any shelter closings so we don’t continue to shut down critical facilities without a replacement…especially on the eve of hypothermia season.

    The other major concern is whether the plan to serve families is sufficient.  Like last year, the DC General Hospital facility is the primary source of emergency space.  Unlike last year, we begin the hypothermia season with DC General filled to capacity.  The District has a plan to move up to fifty families out of shelter and into housing by November 1st intending to free up fifty slots in the DC General facility.  If the District is successful in that effort – and we fervently hope it will be – its success will likely be short-lived, as the newly created vacancies will be almost immediately filled.  There are currently thirty-five families who have demonstrated that they have no place to go but who have not yet been placed in shelter.  On the first frigid night, those families will have a right to be sheltered, leaving only fifteen available spaces at DC General.  In addition, there are presently more than 400 families who are homeless and also await placement.  If only 5% of the families from this general pending list seek placement when the temperature drops to 32 degrees, the system will quickly fill to capacity.

    The Plan indicates that the District will open two new buildings that will serve as transitional shelter for families with a young (18 to 24 years old) head of household.  The process of identifying providers to operate the facilities has just begun and one of the buildings is tied up in some disagreement with its neighbors.  It’s not clear how soon families will be able to move into those facilities.

    The rest of the plan for families is based on the District’s pledge to house families as fast or faster than they present at the intake office.  The goal of providing housing rather than shelter is one we completely support.  The concern is that to date, the District has not proven that it has the capacity or resources to house families at that pace over the course of an entire winter.  There’s no plan currently in place for what happens if DC General is full and the rate of families coming in exceeds the rate the District can place them in housing.  There’s no back-up plan in place if the housing resources run out and DC General is at capacity.

    Again, the goal of providing housing is absolutely the right one.  I voted “No” on the Winter Plan because lives are at stake.  I did not feel it was responsible to risk adopting a plan that had no safety net, just in case the District can’t do what it’s never been able to do before.   Isn’t it better to have a back-up plan that’s ultimately never needed, than to have no back-up at all and risk a child dying of exposure on the streets of the nation’s capital?

    We all have to hope that I’m wrong.

I am a Search Dialog!