We are writing to you from Housing our Neighbors, an advocacy organization of folks with lived experience of homelessness and allies who support the dignity and wellbeing of those experiencing homelessness. We are troubled by the department’s proposed policy allowing residents only a 90 day stay in city shelters, with potential for an additional 30 day extension.

First, from conversations with people who have found housing through Coordinated Access, we know it takes at a minimum 6 months. Navigating the HCV process is often delayed and takes longer than intended, for example if there needs to be reinspections of properties. We also question how this policy would be implemented if adopted: Would individuals who currently have shelter stays longer than 90 days be kicked out upon adoption? Would the policy come into effect at the same time for everyone, likely causing a situation where hundreds of people are kicked out of shelters at once?

Second, we acknowledge that it is frustrating that there is not enough shelter capacity and that folks who need shelter resources may not be able to access them, but restricting access to shelters will only cause more harm. Our conversations with people about their experiences in the shelters, many of whom feel safer living on the street, runs in direct opposition to the narrative that folks are free loading or taking advantage of shelter stays. Ultimately, this is an issue of a lack of affordable and dignified housing options and people who are unable to afford rents or mortgages.

Third, many of the existing procedures for accessing shelters are flawed and setting a limit on shelter stays will not solve the underlying problems. Folks have challenges even accessing the Coordinated Access line and rarely are they able to speak to anyone when they do. The resources provided by MOHS and the City of Baltimore are outdated and several numbers are disconnected. Hearing that Beans and Bread, one of the main resources to connect people to Coordinated Access, was without an intake coordinator for the better part of last summer again speaks to the lack of basic functioning with programs that support folks experiencing homelessness. Our shelter survey indicates significant challenges with grievance processes that are inadequate and that many residents don’t know exist. Many residents expressed fears of reporting substandard conditions as they felt like they would be unjustly targeted. We need to ensure that folks' 1st amendment rights are protected.

Fourth, our survey again highlights the challenges that residents feel related to staff treatment. Staff are not properly trained to work with people who have experienced the trauma of homelessness and, all too often, people are blamed by case workers for issues that are structural in nature. In this way, would poor and harmful case management support be improperly labeled as a “lack of engagement and participation” on the part of the residents? How can we ensure that there isn’t selective enforcement of rules and regulations? How are we making sure that the wider system of homeless services is operating from a trauma responsive perspective, recognizing that homelessness is an extremely traumatic experience? Additionally, how can policies and procedures support staff in their work with residents and reduce barriers and red tape for folks to receive what they really need, housing?

While we recognize and acknowledge challenges to effectively addressing homelessness and housing affordability, setting a cap on shelter stays will further traumatize those who are experiencing homelessness and not alleviate the structural issues that bring about homelessness in the first place. We believe that the best and most humane policy would be to place no limits on city shelter stays and we ask that you rescind this proposal. We look forward to discussing this issue with you further.