Meritocracy does not exist — privilege does. Sorry, but one’s understanding of someone else’s hard work and merit guiding their life’s outcome is not always true. While hard work certainly matters, it is rarely the case that someone’s hard work alone will determine their life’s outcomes. Luck and arbitrary circumstances matter just as much or even more. This is especially true for people dealing with homelessness. Those experiencing housing instability have higher instances of adverse childhood experiences than the general population, according to a publication in the Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology journal. Additionally, a study from the American Medical Association has revealed that people sleeping outside in Massachusetts die at three times the rate of people sleeping in shelters and around ten times the rate of the general population. The response to homelessness is not blaming the homeless for their “self-inflicted” problems, rather, it is getting the homeless off the streets and putting them in shelters for long enough to help them find permanent housing solutions.  

Massachusetts ostensibly meets this need with its Emergency Assistance program, which provides eligible families experiencing homelessness with temporary shelter for up to six months. The nature and intent of this program was to buttress the Right to Shelter Law adopted in 1983, effectively guaranteeing a right to shelter in Massachusetts. However, the de facto reality of the EA program differs from its intent. Eligibility requirements are strict, families are not cognizant of the mechanisms of the program, applicants are presumed ineligible — thus having to self-verify their identity prior to receiving crucial shelter — and the shelter duration of six months is not long enough to enable people to find long-term housing. In some cases, the six-month duration of emergency housing is so short that it risks traumatizing a person and setting them back further than they were before. Any progress a person makes during a six-month stay in an emergency shelter can be lost as soon as they lose the shelter. When it is a matter of life and death, which living on the street is, navigating the complex and protracted bureaucratic hurdles is not the primary concern — survival is.  

There is a legislative answer that ameliorates homelessness and the EA program itself: an act improving emergency housing assistance for children and families experiencing homelessness (H.216/S.136). This act increases the duration of stay for eligible families from six to nine months, introduces an ombudsperson unit that helps applicants navigate the application process and circumvent the bureaucratic gymnastics that prevents families from getting the help they deserve and tracks data that can be used to cut excessive costs to the program in future iterations. It aligns the legislative intent of the Right to Shelter Law with its in-practice effectuation.  

As of now, the Massachusetts EA program is like someone giving a homeless person food or money and recording the good deed to post online for clicks. The intent is there but the execution is not. The aforementioned bill correctly positions the intent of helping homeless families with the help itself. Call your local state representatives and ask for a favorable vote on H.216/ S.136. Alternatively, you could encourage members on the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities to co-sponsor the bill. 

Food, water, air and shelter are the basic physiological needs that humans need to survive. But human subsistence should not be the standard. Society should flourish, not simply survive. While I recognize how the cost of the program, along with the uncertainty of federal funding can deter additional appropriations for the EA program, the funds are crucial to ensuring the safety of the American people. Without the program, people’s lives are at risk. Shelter is a matter of life, not politics.