This topic was inspired by a recent post in the Community Workspace. Ali wrote to the community to learn about how other organizations handle banning, asking: “Do any communities have consistent policies related to clients being banned from shelters that are consistent across the system?”

Bans have been a bit of a hot topic lately, especially as the weather turns cold in much of Canada. The short answer is no ­– each shelter has their own policies and procedures on banning, and as I wrote in a previous post, we know very little about the actual experiences of being banned.

This is changing, though! Old Strathcona Community Mapping and Planning Committee (OSCMAP) will be completing a participatory research project funded by Homeward Trust Edmonton on banning policy and experiences among youth experiencing homelessness. The project summary states that the researchers will:

…review relevant local banning policies and their implementation. Interviews with forty youth who are homeless or without secure and adequate housing, and with six stakeholders such as service providers, will capture perspectives on the causes and impact of bans, as well as recommendations for future practice and policy. This proposed research fills a gap in knowledge on local banning policies and their impact on homeless youth.

The report is due in February of next year (2017) and will be shared with The Homeless Hub at the time. Looking forward to it, thanks for sharing Amanda!

But in the meantime, how do we learn about how other shelters manage banning? In my previous post on banning practices, I wrote:

Many organizations also have rules around substance use and weapons possession, which can result in service restriction or outright banning. BC Housing lists their various policies and procedures, if you want to see a full example of how an organization might approach such situations. 

There are usually many steps between being warned and being banned, but it is possible that banning can be used too quickly. And while banning a service user is sometimes necessary to ensure the wellbeing of staff and other service users, it does not address the issues that the banned person is experiencing. (For those, we need much more comprehensive solutions.)

At the community health centre I’m doing my practicum at, there are very few people who are banned on a long-term basis. We give a series of warnings, ask them to leave and come back another day, and often have them sign a respect agreement asking them to change the problematic behaviour. If this agreement isn’t met, then they may not be allowed inside for a period of time but they are still welcome to receive our outreach services. This is an ideal process for people who are extremely marginalized, often living with trauma, substance use and mental health issues – what housing workers would refer to as “hard to house” – but it works precisely because the organization is not a shelter and people do not assume that they can stay there.

Finding that balance between comfort and safety for staff and other residents, and ensuring a person doesn’t end up back on the street, can be difficult, and has inspired a lot of great discussion in the workspace. In one post, Ali highlights an issue that many shelter workers find themselves in when trying to accommodate potentially aggressive people: “In the end, our shelters are non-profits and answer to a board of directors, which is ultimately liable if a serious incident occurs. As the service manager, we are doing our best to make sure that there is a place for everyone to go, but that requires systems thinking!” Brian goes on to suggest that social workers be assigned to shelters to help coordinate care, and I think that is an excellent idea, but it doesn’t relieve the immediate need for a systems approach to homelessness.

As other contributors pointed out, asking someone to leave a shelter can have severe consequences, especially in rural and northern areas. Philip shared his reality as a worker in rural Nova Scotia:

We have one 15 bed, unfunded shelter in town. The nearest shelters to us are between 45 and 90 minute car drives away. The shelter is 100% volunteer driven - so no paid staff. We have had to ask a number of people to leave after registration due to extreme behavioural issues such as verbal or physical aggression, threatening or safety violations such as being found with alcohol or weapons that were not declared at intake.

Depending on severity, the individual is given a warning, a time out (to calm down or find another place to store their unwelcome items), a time away (of up to 3 days) and eventually being banned. There are currently 2 individuals who have been banned from staying at the shelter but who are given a bagged lunch or warmer clothing outside if they come to the door cold or hungry. For these individuals, the only other option is to stay in the lobby of the police station for the night...

Incidentally, we really have no place to refer individuals who need mental health, addictions or anger management issues other than the hospital and there is a lengthy waiting list for their services. And what do you do when an individual who is banned from the shelter is also banned from the hospital?

Philip raises some excellent issues, and I certainly don’t have any concrete answers. The reality is that in a fragmented, patchwork system of services, there will always be people who fall through – and most often, they need the services the most.

So I bring this to our readers and fellow frontline workers: what are the banning policies at your shelter? How do you connect people to other places to stay when they can no longer stay at your agency? What does this look like in small communities? Please share your thoughts on this post in the Community Workspace – signing up is fast and free.