Helping Homeless Men

I watched Monday night's public hearing on the IFC's proposed new shelter on Homestead Road with dismay. Every time the IFC identifies an affordable parcel of land appropriate for a new Homestart shelter, the neighbors object. Although the Town Council does a good job of responding to the concerns of neighborhoods, this time we have a pickle. The shelter has to move. It cannot stay downtown and achieve the type of service the town and the IFC want to provide to our homeless male population. To help promote a more positive dialogue, I'd like to propose that we stop talking about "the shelter" and begin discussing the various services currently offered by the IFC and the new proposed services.

The current shelter offers three primary services: overnight beds, job and life counseling, and meals. Those who wish to spend the night at the shelter must be clean and sober, and they have to be inside by 8:00 pm and gone by early morning. Counseling is obviously used by those who desire the service. Meals are available to men, women, and children, whether they stay in the shelter or not. Many of those who use the meal service are the underemployed. 

Overnight Beds

The proposed facility on Homestead Road will not replace the overnight bed service currently offered at the Rosemary St facility for everyone who wants it. The new facility is being designed to follow the Homestart model used by the women's shelter. It is not planned as a one-night stopover, but a place where motivated homeless men can get their lives back on track. Where they learn or re-learn basic skills needed to be an independent adult, such as time management, behavior control, and occupational skills.

What I haven't heard in the discussion so far is what will happen to those men who are looking for a short-term stopovers. I know from working on the homeless count that the current shelter provides beds for seasonal workers passing through town, and for local men who may be on the outs with their families.

Meal Service

The proposed facility is also not intended to replace the meal service currently offered at the Rosemary Street site. That service is under discussion with the expectation that it will move to the IFC Main Street location in Carrboro.

Job and Life Counseling

The proposed facility will offer support services to a small group of the population currently served on Rosemary Street. These are men who do not want to live on the street; who want to get their lives together; who are motivated to change. Will they slip? Probably--we all do when we are trying to change.

When I broke the IFC services down like this for myself, I was even more concerned about Monday night's meeting. We aren't talking about dangerous men living at the Homestead Road facility. But the neighbors are assuming the population will be the same as the one at the Rosemary St facility. We need to correct that wrong assumption. The men targeted for the new facility are not the panhandlers from Franklin Street. They aren't the men who want food but prefer to sleep outside so that they don't have to be sober. Those men will have no place at the new facility. 

The neighbors have identified 3 basic concerns (thanks to Will Raymond for synthesizing):

1. Proximity of the shelter to a park, residential neighborhoods, and daycares, afterschool programs, and schools
2. Unintended consequences of the shelter that raise safety concerns
3. Inequitable distribution of human services in NW Chapel Hill incurred by placing the shelter at the proposed site

If the men targeted to stay at the new shelter were the same as those who currently stay at the Rosemary St facility, concern #1 would make sense. But, as I pointed out above, this is a different population altogether.

As for unintended consequences relating to safety, I think the speakers in favor of the shelter Monday night made the point that unintended consequences can occur from wealthy property owners, men who drink and drive, who beat their wives, and who talk on their cell phones while driving. By their very nature we cannot escape unintended consequences.

Inequitable distribution of human services. This one has me perplexed. It assumes there is a negative impact by having the Health Dept or the Senior Center located in their neighborhood. Perhaps someone can explain this one to me.

Conclusion

It broke my heart this morning to read that Chris Moran is saying construction on the shelter will have to be postponed yet again while the IFC addresses neighborhood concerns. These men need help. Is there a way to create a positive dialogue, based on correct facts, to move us forward instead of passing by the opportunity offered by the UNC gift?