MidlandToday welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected] or via the website. Please include your full name, daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). The following letter is in response to our story, 'Women's shelter, turning people away, makes plea to city for funding', published Oct. 21.
The availability of emergency housing for someone trying to leave an abusive situation is a critical need that could save a person's life. Emergency shelters have offered friends and family a roof over their head in dire times and I am grateful these options exist. We should do whatever we can to make emergency shelter available to all.
My concern is with the cost of one shelter bed vs. how many beds could be funded if people fleeing violence were given direct access to emergency shelter funds for themselves and their children. At a cost of $71000/year that is more than three times the cost of my rent in a four-bedroom house. Three homes like mine could offer 12 beds, and that math is difficult to ignore.
While shelters offer more than a bed, sometimes the cost is autonomy and agency over our lives, while prioritizing the running costs of a bureaucracy. In no way do I wish to undermine the work of any agency working with vulnerable populations, as they do incredible work. However at a cost of almost $6,000 per month, I can't help but wonder if funding one bed is the best use of that money.
I am brainstorming here, just looking for some solutions for the many people who are unhoused with winter approaching. What if that money was available directly to women fleeing abuse? Would it not be more valuable to them to have two or three apartments funded for the year? Could it be made available as hotel vouchers where families could have emergency access and maintain their autonomy and privacy?
In abusive situations, autonomy is lost before they ever end up in emergency housing. The need is not just for an emergency shelter bed, but for their own space and the freedom to run their own lives. People flee domestic violence for their safety, certainly, and many do need extra support to recover from the trauma they lived. They don't flee when they have no where to go.
Additionally we need to consider the safety of children involved. I have known too many women who flee to a shelter with their children only to have their abuser file emergency custody motions. This often results in their abuser taking permanent custody of the children who are also victims. Fair or not, living in a shelter is a mark against us in the family court system, and we all know it. We need to do everything we can to address the reasons people don't flee, and the risk of losing our children is reason number one. We need alternatives to shelters for people facing this very real threat.
I think we need to really consider how many people could be provided shelter for $71,000/year, as there is dire need now.
We owe those who need safe places the opportunity to maximize their chance at getting out of a dangerous situation. Certainly funding one bed is better than doing nothing. It is concerning to me that we seem to prioritize the running costs of bureaucracy over trusting that we could find our own safe spaces if money/vouchers for shelter were made available directly. Could we not prepay for hotel rooms or a couple of apartments and offer these spaces on an emergency basis?
We need to start recognizing when the costs of bureaucracy are greater than the costs of simply assisting multiple people with the costs of paying regular bills in a home of their own. Something people fleeing abuse desperately need.
Valerie Kitchen
Orillia
