Skip to content

LETTER: Too much under one roof: Shelter House example

The following was sent as an open letter to: Board of Shelter House Board, The City of Thunder Bay, The District Social Service Administration Board, the Northwest LHIN, Michael Gravelle M.P.P., Bill Mauro, M.P.P., Patty Hadju M.P.

The following was sent as an open letter to: Board of Shelter House Board, The City of Thunder Bay, The District Social Service Administration Board, the Northwest LHIN,  Michael Gravelle M.P.P., Bill Mauro, M.P.P., Patty Hadju M.P. Elect, Don Rusnak M.P. Elect  Lakehead Social Planning Council, Thunder Bay Salvation Army

The City of Thunder Bay has been forced to do much outside its own mandate to support Shelter House and its programs because the other responsible governments were not stepping up with adequate resources.

Shelter House has been concerned with populations at risk, which were beyond their expertise and mandate.  No one else was doing this necessary work and this has left many needy individuals on their doorstep.

Shelter House had a traditional history of housing people who would have otherwise been left on the street.  They were equipped neither by the qualifications and training of staff nor by program experience to respond as a “health” nor as a” mental health organization.” 

Even the program monies for specialized groups were totally inadequate to run a thorough program.   Frankly, they were left over their heads with little choice in the matter.

Their total alcohol program is a health issue and should be completely funded by the LHIN (Local Health Integration Network). This type of program, if it is justified by research and evidence based, should involve a multidisciplinary team and the Ministry of Health Ontario should fund it.   It would be more appropriately administered by the St. Joseph’s Care group which already runs the Balmoral Centre, and has run the Smith Clinic for years.

Furthermore, the location of such a program in close proximity to the Shelter house only serves to exacerbate interactive social difficulties.  Shelter House is now in the wrong business with this program.

Youth present at the Shelter House can only be described as a training ground for future problems, as they try to learn and adapt to the many homeless and mentally ill clients.  Of all the populations served they have the most potential for becoming a part of mainstream society and to make this progress the quickest if properly challenged. 

The previous Haven House program of the Salvation Army was very well administered.  It cultivated growth and independence, as well as an opportunity for transition to independent living or return to family.   It fostered goal driven results with teens and young 20’s, including structure to assist a return to school and work. Meals were prepared by the young people themselves, and all the tasks of daily living were the responsibility of the participants.  The location had inadequate space for private interviews and indoor and outdoor youth activity centres were less than satisfactory but the program was effective. 

The youth had very positive comments to make regarding the staff and community life, referring to getting their self-worth and identities back as a major accomplishment. 

A program of this kind is essential to positively redirect energies of young people who are in need of this assistance.  It should not be long term warehousing, but should focus on the move towards independence over a three month to two year period.  

Again the Provincial government, with financial support of the federal government should be funding this through its Community and Social Services budget.  We need to follow the successes of other communities who provide and fund youth group home support with Ministry assistance. The Salvation Army had an excellent developed follow-up process for those who progressed beyond the program or left for independence. The Shelter House was never intended to provide this type of community living environment.

Even when the program moved to Shelter House it was by agreement to be in the Annex and separate from the rest of the population although it was conceded that this was not ideal. But as we now know the Managed Alcohol Program is in the Annex.  The Teens are part of the general group.

The community is setting itself up to bear many costs and tax increases without the Province’s participation in these programs.  Basic “lodging” is not equivalent to the community living model of Haven House.  A more compelling and informed lobby needs to be made for stand-alone program that provides support for independent growth of youth and encourages them to be active participants in our community. 

If the City or DSSAB wants to contribute as a minor partner to such an endeavour it should be supporting the discharge and follow-up needed with individuals who return to the general community.

This past week the City Council was debating whether or not to accept a deputation from the Shelter House due to a conflict with its current policies.  

All agencies need to be on common footing when they ask for funds.  The City Council however should look to all available resources to acquire advice on what to do when planning for its budget and budget submissions. It is important to provide an opportunity for Shelter House to communicate, but be aware that they are not in the best position to see “the forest for the trees.” 

They are too close to the situation and they are in a survival mode. 

Shelter House needs to get through this challenge. It was created by those who care but placed too much under one roof.  The Council can also seek advice from other groups such as the Social Planning Council.  The question should be asked “What would they see as a short term and long term solution to this problem?” 

The Salvation Army should be approached and given the opportunity to invest in a reinstituted Haven House if given enough resources and funding. 

The LHIN and the St. Joseph’s Care Group should be consulted about the need for effective funding of an alcohol program.

What is required is some hard decisions and negotiation with the Province and Federal governments.  It’s time to ask the other levels of government to “share the care” and “share the cost” but only with a re-design of the program base.


Larry Brigham,
Thunder Bay





push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks