Shelter tightens tracking policies ("smacked of a 'police state'")

[Busshianic]

A controversial Framingham homeless shelter has agreed to tighten its procedures by keeping better track of who is staying there, checking clients for outstanding arrest warrants, and more closely monitoring those who are convicted sex offenders.

....
Shelter officials now plan to require every client to carry a photo ID. The IDs will be used to keep track of who's staying there, and officials say that policy should clarify such questions in the future.

Selectman John Stasik said he's uncomfortable with the idea of turning anyone away from the wet shelter and also uneasy about the photo ID requirement, which, he said, smacked of a ''police state."

(more)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/25/shelter_tightens_tracking_policies/

[silverweb]

1. I dunno.

I'm kind of in the middle on this one. Shelters have notoriously little private space. People from all walks of life and backgrounds are thrown together from and into a stressful situation.

I'm a single parent with a daughter and, especially when she was younger, I'd certainly want to know that sex offenders and people with criminal backgrounds were being closely tracked and monitored. What could be worse than being victimized while in such a vulnerable situation?

[Gormy Cuss]

2. It does not sound like this is a family shelter.

It is intended to reach one of the hardest to house groups, those who are active substance abusers. The facility should be held to a higher standard of staff-to-client ratios and greater security measures than a typical shelter. Other common sense measures such as sleeping quarters segregated in separate rooms by gender would be prudent and obviously no inclusion of children in the mix. The photo ID rule will push away potential residents. Which is better, encouraging convicted sex offenders to live in a shelter where people are watching them or letting them slip under the radar and lurk in the local park? If the shelter is properly run, the community is better off with it in place because at least some of the residents will use the supportive services and maybe get their lives on track.

Mandatory photo IDs are the wrong approach IMO. A voluntary ID program on the other hand can provide these individuals with a sense of normalcy and reconnection to society -- if the ID is presented as a positive tool.

[paineinthearse]

3. Busshianic

Welcome to DU

:hi: