Getting a Positive I.D. at the Shelter ... or the Morgue

Well, Washington, D.C. will soon join the ranks of cities who like to make the homeless someone else's problem.

Local government, trying to mitigate a $175 million budget shortfall, has determined that about 10 percent of those who apply for shelter and other homeless services in the city are from elsewhere — and officials want them to go back to "elsewhere."

People from neighboring Prince George's County have been known to come to D.C. looking for shelter, in some cases claiming to have been sent by service providers in Silver Spring, Maryland. In response, D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells introduced legislation that would require all people seeking homeless services in the District to produce city identification. He later withdrew it in an effort to avoid creating any unintended consequences.

Washington, D.C. gave the homeless a "right to overnight shelter" in 1984 and rescinded it in 1990, due to the financial burden that it put on the city. (This is reminiscent of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent claim that he was saving taxpayers money by sending New York's homeless elsewhere.) Now homeless Washingtonians only have a right to shelter if the temperature is 32 and below or 95 and above.

However, D.C.'s "low-barrier" shelters have traditionally allowed people to enter without showing identification and even allowed them to give a false name. Those who are on the lam, undocumented or avoiding family need not worry about having the police called, so long as they don't commit any new crimes while in the shelter. The same is true for those who enter the shelter drunk or high. The city has, in effect, removed all barriers to entry in an effort to encourage people who might otherwise stay outside and freeze to come in, thus saving their lives. Tell D.C. to provide winter shelter to people in need!

Furthermore, many homeless people lack identification. They've not needed it in the past in order to stay at most D.C. shelters. The legislation would've created long lines at the DMV, as scores of homeless people rushed to buy I.D. cards so that they wouldn't be left out in the cold.

In its original form, the proposed legislation would've prevented even many long-time D.C. residents from acquiring emergency services, thus putting their lives in jeopardy. Furthermore, the city has an obligation to assist all people who are experiencing an emergency, regardless of where they are from. These and other considerations caused the Councilman to withdraw his proposed legislation so as to revise it. Additionally, since he is no longer introducing the bill on an emergency basis, there will be a public hearing during which the homeless and their advocates can voice their concerns.

This story encapsulates several concerns: the need for emergency shelter, the limited financial capability of municipal governments to provide essential social services and the tendency of local governments to push the homeless off on other jurisdictions. But it is this practice of making the homeless someone else's problem which I find to be most problematic and indicative of the moral turpitude that plagues municipal governments in this nation and around the world. To his credit, Councilman Wells is not the culprit in this case, but is simply pushing back against other jurisdictions that sometimes send their homeless to D.C. or whose homeless come here after hearing about the better services.

With the harshness of last winter still fresh in people's minds, I hope and trust that the final version of the Councilman's legislation will be fair and equitable, affording emergency shelter to all who need it. The question at hand is: will people be identified as D.C. residents upon entering shelter or will their next of kin have to identify them at the morgue?

Photo credit: Rebecca C.