Salvation Army’s handling of downtown shelter closure draws Council criticism

The Salvation Army’s handling of the closure of its downtown shelter was the target of criticism at City Council’s Public Health Committee meeting on Wednesday.

Critiques came from Mayor Kirk Watson, members of City Council, and clients of the shelter who find themselves in limbo as a result of the announcement. The Salvation Army, which has operated the downtown shelter at Eighth and Neches for more than 30 years, cited the aging facility as well as financial hardship when it announced the closure in February.

The news comes at a time when the city is already struggling to find and maintain shelter capacity.

As of Monday, 64 clients remained at the shelter, which is the only facility that currently serves women downtown. The Salvation Army worked to connect some of those clients with other resources or with family in other cities, such as Dallas, while an undetermined number of clients left the shelter upon receiving the news, without consulting staff.

Major Lewis Reckline, commander of the Salvation Army Austin area, told the committee that the number of clients remaining as of Wednesday morning was 32.

Watson raised a number of questions. He first asked if Salvation Army had committed to remaining open until it had fulfilled its stated intention of placing all its clients. Reckline said the Salvation Army’s board of directors would discuss the issue at its Friday meeting but no commitment had yet been made.

“It’s not a guarantee, but it is a conversation,” Reckline said.

“Well, I certainly hope that it’s a powerful conversation, because I think the Salvation Army should be committed to not closing its doors before it has properly addressed the needs of its clients,” Watson said in response.

Watson then questioned Reckline about the possibility of the city continuing to use the facility for shelter space between the time when the nonprofit ceases operations and when the building is sold. Reckline said any such agreement would have to be approved by the Salvation Army parent corporation.

Finally, Watson questioned the strategy of moving individuals to shelters in other cities. “The idea that people are being sent to Dallas,” Watson said. “I expressed to you that I have a negative instinctual reaction to that.”

Watson said he disliked the idea of sending people who’d chosen Austin as their new home away due to their circumstances. He also expressed concern that it could set a precedent in which other cities do the same without consulting the city.

Reckline responded that a move to Salvation Army shelter space in Dallas is merely an option and that clients are not being forced to choose it.

Council Member Vanessa Fuentes questioned both why the Salvation Army had recently accepted financial support for the shelter if it was known it was nearing closure, as well as why shelter residents had been given such short notice of the closure.

Reckline said that city leadership had been aware of the challenges Salvation Army was facing with regard to the downtown shelter and that it had been an “ongoing conversation” in good faith to attempt to find ways of keeping the shelter open. Poor communication and city staff turnover stymied the efforts, he said.

“In hopes that we could work something out and make it work, we continued to do business as usual,” Reckline said. “And so, our thought was to continue to serve and continue to do what we need to do for the clients, until we were at a point where there was no room for us to do anything other than close the facility down. And we got to that point.”

The clients were notified as soon as the management team made the internal decision, Reckline said. The decision was made because the shelter is losing approximately $3 million per year. Salvation Army has not yet found a buyer for the property.

“We have honestly tried and it hasn’t gotten there, and so we were at a point where we had to make a critical decision,” Reckline said. “Although it seems to the community like it was a quick decision, it was not a quick decision. It was a very lengthy decision and process. We were willing to hear anything, but we just didn’t get great communication about it.”

During public comment, several residents of the shelter spoke to disagree with how Reckline portrayed Salvation Army’s handling of their cases. Multiple clients said they felt that they hadn’t been given adequate notice and felt it was a choice between accepting arrangements in Dallas or going back onto the streets. One woman said Dallas was the only option she’d been presented with and requested help staying in Austin so she could attend previously scheduled medical appointments.

Paulette Soltani, organizing director of the Texas Harm Reduction Alliance, told the committee that the city needs to ensure there is a concrete plan in place for the remaining clients. She expressed concern about the individuals who left the shelter without being connected to any resources, noted the extreme stress the uncertainty is placing on those who remain, and asked Council to implement oversight of existing and future providers.

“I’m just going to call this what it is: It is negligence,” Soltani said. “It was negligence from the moment that this was communicated to residents and the public in a blog post. The fact that we’ve called on the Salvation Army and Major Reckline to speak to the public and to residents over and over again and have heard silence. It is pure negligence that the only option this provider is giving is a bus ticket to Dallas when people have medical appointments here in Austin.”

Watson closed the discussion by saying that he spoke for the full Council and city management in expressing disappointment with how the Salvation Army handled the matter.

“This is not the way to do business with anyone, especially those who are finding themselves in a vulnerable situation,” he said. “Let me be clear: This city is not going to let anyone be left without a place to go and you don’t have to go to another city if you don’t want to.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Posted In: Housing, District 9