DECENT SHELTER

TOO MUCH TO ASK?

Five years ago, an overwhelming majority of D.C. voters enacted "Initiative 17," which requires the District to provide overnight shelter to the homeless.

The mayor and other city officials hated Initiative 17 then, and they hate it now. Some have even suggested that it is the initiative itself that is causing the homeless problem.

For example, the District is blaming Initiative 17 for its perverse decision to cut funding for a 24-hour women's shelter at the well-run, innovative and highly regarded House of Ruth and to eliminate two modest "transitional" programs: ConServe, which helps families in emergency shelters find and rent apartments; and New Endeavors by Women, which offers 24-hour shelter and a range of transitional services to homeless women.

New Endeavors has been a particular success, helping 80 percent of its clients move out of emergency shelter into jobs and permanent housing. A woman's average stay at New Endeavors has been four months at a daily cost for shelter and services of approximately $18. In contrast, a 12-hour stay at the District's filthy Blair or Pierce shelter (recently characterized as "virtual hellholes" by Superior Court Judge Harriett Taylor) costs $22.

Why would the District do something so obviously short-sighted, inefficient and inhumane as to undercut programs that seem to be working?

The District's response is that it's being held hostage by Initiative 17. The Post called the initiative "ill-conceived," adding that unnamed "advocates" "continually press for more of everything on behalf of their clients" {editorial, Sept. 25} .

So which of Initiative 17's requirements would these critics have us abandon? A bed for the night? A clean blanket and one sheet (no pillow) for each resident? Toilets and showers that work? A place to sleep that is reasonably free of filth, lice, vermin and the threat of violence by other residents and staff?

When faced with a lawsuit about these conditions, the District agreed that all these considerations were necessary for minimally adequate overnight shelter and voluntarily entered into a court-sanctioned consent decree adopting these standards.

Initiative 17 is hardly expansive in its aims. It requires only that single homeless persons, many of whom are sick or elderly, receive bare-bones shelter for the night.

Of course, the homeless need much more -- including jobs, housing, medical care and a safe place to stay during the day -- but Initiative 17 does not require any of these things. All that it requires is that the homeless be provided with a clean, safe place to sleep at night. Without that, what hope have they of ever taking advantage of job, housing, health or educational programs the city or federal government might offer? Unless people can come in from the cold, it is futile to speak of treating their illnesses, finding them jobs or ending their homelessness.

The District's claim that it cannot afford Initiative 17 does not bear scrutiny. First, effective programs, like New Endeavors by Women, actually save money, even in the short term by helping homeless persons become self-sufficient. Second, the enormous sums being wasted on squalid motel shelters could go far in providing permanent housing and other services. To spend more than $20,000 to house one homeless family in one dilapidated room of the Capital City Inn for six months is a disgrace. No wonder the District says it will need $32 million for homeless programs next year. The Post editorial's bottom line -- that the District "can surely spend its funds more wisely" -- is unquestionably true.

Those who would abandon Initiative 17 should tell us what they would prefer to see in its place. Initiative 17 is an attempt to guarantee survival -- little more -- to the District's least fortunate. To use Initiative 17 as an excuse to cut all services to the homeless beyond this minimum is cruel and cynical. If our money were being spent responsibly, we could do both. If we seriously want to do something about homelessness, we must do both. Initiative 17 is not the problem.

-- Lois G. Williams -- Lisa J. Saks are attorneys who represented the homeless in a lawsuit that compelled the District to comply with Initiative 17.

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.