Emergency
Shelter Bans in
British
Columbia
prevalence and alternatives

Nathaniel Bailey

2024

2

Emergency Shelter Bans
in British Columbia
prevelance and alternatives

An Undergraduate Research Experience Award Program (UREAP)
Final Report

Nathaniel Bailey
Supervised by Dr. Juliana West and Dr. Kathie McKinnon

October 2024
Thompson Rivers University

3

Table of Contents
4 Abstract
5 Introduction
7 Literature Review
12 Methodology

List of Figures
18 Figure 1: Example of Theming in CMap
21 Figure 2: Question 3
Figure 3: Question 2: Community
Population of Respondents
22 Figure 4: Question 6
Figure 5: Quantitative Responses:

14 Research Design & Inclusion Criteria
Question 11
15 Participant Recruitment & Informed Consent
23 Figure 6: Question 10: Does Your
17 Online Survey
Shelter Keep a Record of Bans?
18 Data Organization & Trustworthiness
Figure 7: Question 16: Goals of
19 Limitations

21 Findings

22 Ban Practices
23 Goals of Bans
24 Alternatives to Bans
25 Statistics on Shelter Bans
26 Open-Ended Questions

30 Discussion
32 Instances of Banning and Demographics
34 Secondary Research Questions
39 Primary Research Question

41 Conclusion and Implications
43 References
46 Appendix A: Recruitment Posters
47 List Of Written Appendices

Banning

24 Figure 8: Question 19: What
Alternatives Are Already Being Used?

25 Figure 9: Question 21
26 Figure 10: Question 26
Figure 11: Question 27

4

Abstract
There is little research on banning practices in emergency shelters in
British Columbia and Canada. Using critical methodology, this
exploratory research surveyed emergency shelter workers in British
Columbia on their banning practices and alternatives to banning. It was
found that banning is understood by workers as a last resort and yet is
used weekly. This frequently used last resort is influenced by systemic
factors (funding constraints which undermine staffing levels, training,
and time available to spend with one person/event of conflict) and is
often justified by safety, though safety (and its sibling term, violence)
was not defined; it appears that not every ban is for the purpose of
immediate personal protection. The results of this research demonstrate
the need for a BC Housing-wide reporting and review process on every
shelter ban that occurs so as to better understand who is not being
served by the shelter system and, therefore, amend and hold policy
accountable accordingly.

5

Introduction
Emergency Shelter Bans in British

This is another middle-class White

Columbia: Prevalences and

man’s interpretation on a systemic

Alternatives was conducted under

issue that will almost certainly never

Thompson Rivers University’s

affect him in a primary way. The

Undergraduate Research Experience

lived experience of shelter bans that

Award Program (UREAP). This

I do have comes from the position of

included extensive supervision and

a frontline worker. My experience

collaboration with my primary

with bans has made me critical of

faculty mentor, Dr. Juliana West,

the broad use of the term ‘safety’ to

and additional support from my

justify interventions more geared

secondary faculty mentor, Dr.

toward staff burnout and retention

Kathie McKinnon. I, Nathaniel

—I see bans as something that is

Bailey, the Principal Investigator in

rarely helpful, and congruent with

this research, am a fourth year

critical methodology make my bias

undergraduate social work student

transparent.

at Thompson Rivers University. I

As we as a society begin to walk

am also White, a cisgendered man,

the walk of decolonization, I use this

and while I have lived experience as

introduction as a reminder that any

a frontline shelter worker, I have no

policy implemented without

lived experience of homelessness.

meaningful involvement of people

My social location is provided to

with lived experience—and in a way

give you context as to where this

that clusters many different people

research is coming from and, just as

into one imposed identity—is not

important, where this research is not

only colonial at heart but is also

coming from. This research should

likely to miss the mark and further

not be taken as absolute truth.

perpetuate the problems it intends to
address.

Introduction 6

These are not just scholastic
buzzwords, the implications are
people falling through the cracks of
an overwhelmed system that has
resorted to punity because of
efficiency.
As a systemic issue that goes
beyond the level of frontline workers
and their power to ban or not ban, I
urge policy makers, BC Housing,
and shelter leaders to be accountable
for the implications of efficiency
over the provision of the life
necessity of shelter. Heed where this
research is not coming from, from the
people facing the cold reality of
bans. I urge all to take responsibility
for decolonizing the shelter system
and beyond performative measures
—diligent reporting of bans and the
creation of an auditing process is
one of many places to start.

“These are not just
scholastic buzzwords,
the implications are
people falling through
the cracks of an
overwhelmed system
that has resorted to
punity because of
efficiency.”

7

Literature Review
There is a paucity of both research

with over half of those who

and transparency on banning

participated in the point-in-time

practices in homeless shelters in

count reporting to have stayed in a

Canada, yet evidence shows that

shelter—over 5,000 people

banning practices are not only

(Caspersen et al., 2024). While there

commonly used but also can result

are methods in place to record how

in harms for both service users as

often shelters are being used, there is

well as service providers. This

less clarity on how often individuals

literature review will highlight the

are banned from accessing shelters.

small current body of research on

Two studies that use secondary data

shelter bans as well as offer

suggest that nearly twenty percent of

suggestions of where further inquiry

people experiencing homelessness

is needed to better inform service

have experienced a shelter ban

provision.

(Kerman et al., 2022a; Schwan et al.,

Shelter bans may be experienced

2021).

by thousands of people each year in

People living with homelessness

BC alone. Over 11,000 people were

are more likely to be banned where

counted as homeless in British

replicated relations of oppression

Columbia’s 2023 point-in-time

and privilege in Canadian society

count, a figure that represents the

exist (Kerman et al., 2022b; Schwan

“minimum number of people

et al., 2021). For example,

experiencing homelessness in a

individuals who are racialized,

community” (Caspersen et al., 2024,

experienced child-welfare

p. 16). Shelters are commonly

involvement, and mental illness,

accessed by people experiencing

respectively, face a higher risk of

homelessness,

experiencing a shelter ban (Kerman

Literature Review 8

et al., 2022b). This is consistent with

Shelter bans appear to be currently

research on risk-based practices in

located as a for-granted, and largely

social services, and their

unexamined part of shelter services;

inextricability from cultural/systemic while common in practice, they are
oppression and stereotypes (Kyne,

less common as a focus of academic

2024; Quirouette, 2022; West 2014). inquiry. This potentially locates
This exploration is further

bans as a for-granted and

illuminated (with some caution) by a unexamined part of shelter services.
small (n=4), pre-2020 study that

While there is indeed violence and

found only 26.7 percent of executive harm in shelter environments
directors (most of whom identified

(Kerman et al., 2023a), if every ban

as Caucasian) of shelters surveyed

were a matter of actual safety, that

had anti-racist training, protocol, or would imply that around 18 percent
policies in place (Levesque, et al.,

of people experiencing homelessness

2021). In addition, research specific

are imminently dangerous (Kerman

to Indigenous person’s experiences

et al., 2022a; Schwan et al., 2021)—

of shelter bans has been difficult to

this is simply unfounded. What is

find despite Indigenous people

known is that people experiencing

experiencing homelessness (and

homelessness are disproportionately

conflated manifestations of

victimized, and that higher rates of

oppression such as overdose death

offending in homeless populations

and victimization) at

are tied to desperation and survival

disproportionate rates due to the

(McCarthy & Hogan, 2024); in

impact of oppressive colonial

other words, bans may inadvertently

policies and cultural racism

increase the risk of someone being

(Infrastructure Canada, 2023;

both victimized and becoming an

Rumboldt, 2022).

offender, neither of which address
actual safety, especially at the rate at
which bans appear to be occurring.

Literature Review 9

Banning practices appear to have
less to do with necessity and more to

industry.
Bans may also be popular because

do with a lack of funding and

of societal constructions of

appropriate alternate service

punishment and exclusion as

provision choices: Support for bans

synonyms for justice and safety,

amongst service providers was often especially when working with people
related to not having other real or

who have already been labeled as

perceived options (Kerman et al.,

criminal or deviant (Elliott, 2011).

2022b). Thus, bans may be a

Like other risk-based, punitive

systemic consequence of

practices, such as incarceration, it

neoliberalism, which makes non-

appears that banning may create a

profit service provision dialectal in

‘revolving-door’ effect, in which

that it is both incredibly complex

bans are cyclical and the root issue is

(and therefore expensive) and

not addressed (Kerman et al.,

budget-constrained; though there

2022a); the ‘solution’ becomes a

may be further downstream

barrier in itself. For example, a ban

implications, banning does offer an

may directly lead to someone being

immediate solution to conflict and

unsheltered. Being unsheltered is

policy violation (Kerman et al.,

dangerous. Over 340 people died

2022b). Alternatives to banning

while experiencing homelessness in

require training, formal education,

BC in 2022 (BC Coroners Service,

staff, and time—all which cost

2022). Most of these deaths were

money and require public support,

overdoses, the likelihood of which

where both of which the shelter

increases when someone is

industry experiences in oscillating

unsheltered (BC Coroners Service,

political and popular waves

2023). Being unsheltered also

(Johnstone et al., 2017). This is not a increases the likelihood of
fully understood correlation, but

experiencing violence, especially for

bans cannot be separated from

women and women who are

funding constraints in the shelter-

Literature Review 10

racialized (Kerman et al., 2022a;

experience due to fewer services and

National Inquiry into Missing and

reduced anonymity (Buck-

Murdered Indigenous Women,

McFadyen, 2023); this may affect

2019). It is not known how many of

banning decision-making, but

these individuals who died

research on the topic appears

experienced a shelter ban, but the

difficult to locate.

correlation between shelter bans and

The literature reflects that bans

being unsheltered is noteworthy;

negatively affect workers in addition

shelter bans are justified as a means

to people who are banned (Kerman

of mitigating risk, and yet they also

et al., 2023b). The burnout arising

put people at risk (Kerman et al.,

from shelter bans may be attributed

2022). Kerman et al. (2022b) note

to the moral conflict that banning

that this double-edged sword of risk- presents, which may suggest that
thinking is especially concerning

indeed, not all bans are a matter of

considering the lack of

safety. Burnout due to bans may be

accountability and auditing

tied to the neoliberal market

protocols in place for bans. This

economy under which the shelter

raises the question of whether bans

industry operates: fiscal restraints

are justified by ideology or evidence, place an emphasis on time/cost often
especially beyond the immediacy of

at the expense of human wellness

asking someone to leave temporarily (Johnstone & Connolly, 2017;
when de-escalating conflict; do we

Kerman et al., 2022; Quirouette,

punish because it works, or because

2022).

it is just what we do?
In mapping out banning practices
and consequences, geography is also
likely an affecting dynamic. Rural
homelessness differs from an urban

Literature Review 11

In summary, a common theme in
this literature review has been
highlighting where the small body of
research orients further inquiry into
bans and subsequent creation of
better policy/practice: There is a
clear paucity of research on shelter
bans, alternatives, and how bans
intersect with other experiences of
oppression. Just as clear is the
potential for bans—especially in
their current state which appears to
place them as a de-facto part of the
shelter system, documented and
audited only in a siloed manner—to
cause further harm in the already
often violent experience that is
homelessness. BC Housing’s
Emergency shelter program
framework (2018) calls for
transparency, accountability, and
for funding to reflect local needs;
research and industry resources
suggest that strides should be made
in all of these values on the topic of
shelter bans.

“...do we punish
because it works, or
because it is just what
we do?”

12

Methodology
Theoretical Framework

banning conflates with other forms

This research follows critical

of oppression both in likelihood and

methodology and the common

potential victimization after being

tenets of the body of critical

banned). There is a paucity of

research. Peirce (1995, as cited in

research, system-wide policy,

West, 2014, p. 91) highlights the

transparent reporting, and auditing

following tenets:
Critical research denies master
narratives and the existence of
objectivity.

of bans—this is troubling, and the
purpose of this research is to
demonstrate a need for that. Bans

Critical research explores “the
relationship between
structural/macro forces and
human agency for the purpose
of social change” and through a
lens that sees “...marginalization
is produced and maintained by
unequal power relations”.

cannot be separated from the

Research cannot be taken in
isolation from its holistic
historical context nor isolated
from the subjectivity of
individuals' lived experience
(especially the researcher).

competing directions).

This has several implications for an
inquiry into shelter bans. The
literature supports the perspective
that shelter bans are a marginalizing
practice that follow other patterns of
oppression (people who are
racialized are disproportionately
banned; people with mental illness
are disproportionately banned;

neoliberal chokehold gripping social
services (bans are cheap, sometimes
currently necessary to appease
funders/building providers, and are
time-efficient for staff pulled in
Banning seems to be a last resort
for the majority of workers, but it
also appears that the shelter industry
has been constructed in such a way
that last resorts are used frequently
and perhaps, automatically. If bans
are a structural phenomenon, rather
than purely an informed outcome of
a worker’s assessment—this inquiry
is focused on identifying those
prevailing macro forces

Methodology: Theoretical Framework 13

(i.e. funding, levels of training,

ethical organizational reflexivity

power dynamics, privilege &

and procedural reevaluation

oppression etc.). This focus is to

inspired this research.

inform social change rather than the

This research is also guided by an

further pathologizing of either those

Anti-Oppressive/Anti-Privilege

that experience bans or those that

(AOAP) framework. AOAP is a

ban individuals, perceiving it as

critical framework that aims to

necessary and just.

inform social work practice with

Finally, this critical inquiry is very

theoretical and practical knowledge

much guided by my own subjective

about oppression & privilege (like

lived experience of bans. First, this

two sides of a coin, one doesn’t

has only been as a frontline worker,

exist without the other) at the

and I am not someone with lived

cultural, structural, and individual

experience of using emergency

levels (Mullaly & West, 2018).

shelter. My experience has shaped

Perhaps especially relevant to the

my perspective into one that sees

context of shelter bans is AOAP’s

bans as marginalizing, overused,

amplification of oppression and

under-scrutinized, and not

privilege being propagated in

exclusively for the means of ‘safety’;

unintentional, often invisible ways;

at the same time, I have banned

most (hopefully all) frontline

people and felt like I and my

workers are not intentional

colleagues had no other options. A

oppressors. The knowledge from

woman who was banned fatally

AOAP and other critical theories

overdosed across the street from the

allows this to be the beginning, and

shelter I worked at, and no banning

not the end of conversations and

policy was changed let alone

hopefully, more compassionate and

revisited. This tragedy and lack of

life affirming practices.
Shelter bans themselves are a
systemic phenomenon (Kerman et

Methodology: Theoretical Framework / Research Design / Inclusion Criteria 14

al., 2022; van den Berk-Clark, 2015)

Specific objectives are to capture the

that are experienced differently

elements of ‘who’, ‘how many’,

depending on one’s social location

‘why’, and ‘what can be done’

and conflating factors of oppression

related to shelter bans in BC. These

and privilege (Kerman et al., 2022)

questions were explored using non-

—this goes for service-users and

probability, purposeful sampling,

providers. Thus, these

inviting directors, managers, and

methodologies are well aligned with

frontline workers of 111 year-round

the topic and a necessary compass

emergency shelters listed on BC

for the immense privilege I have as a

Housing’s shelter directory to

researcher and worker placing

anonymously respond to an online

themself in a position of authority

survey.

on the topic.

Inclusion Criteria

Research Design
This research was primarily guided

The online survey was open to
anyone that self-identified as being

by the question “How are shelter

currently employed by an agency

bans being used in BC?” This was

that offers emergency shelter

supported by the following

services in BC. This employment

secondary questions:
How many people were banned
from an emergency shelter in
2023, and what are the
demographics of individuals
experiencing bans?

could be in any role, though

What are the goals and
unintended consequences of
banning?

participants were asked to identify
whether they were a ‘frontline
worker’, ‘manager’ ‘executive
director’, or ‘other’; these selections
were non-exclusive and multiple
could be chosen. The survey was

Are there alternatives to
banning?

open to all emergency housing

What dynamics influence
banning decisions?

limited to the 111 shelters listed as

shelters, but recruitment efforts were
year-round emergency shelters on
BC Housing’s online directory.

Methodology: Inclusion Criteria / Participant Recruitment / Informed Consent 15

Since ‘emergency shelter’ is best

the Recruitment Poster (see

understood as a fluid term, this

Appendix A) to be forwarded to all

directory was a pragmatic way to

staff of the respective agency via

narrow the definition into a

email. The Recruitment Poster

manageable list for the scope of this

contained a link to the Informed

research endeavour. This directory

Consent form (see Appendix B),

also positioned the findings to make

which upon affirmed informed

relevant the tie between bans and

consent opened the survey (see

the need for the creation of a BC

Appendix C). The Recruitment

Housing-wide framework of best

Poster also contained a request that

practice clear.

encouraged service-providers to

Participant Recruitment

share the poster with their

Using BC Housing’s shelter

colleagues and friends in the shelter

directory as a master list,

industry who fit the participation

recruitment was conducted via

criteria.

email. If available on the shelter's

Informed Consent

website, the Recruitment Letter for

Obtaining informed consent and

Executive Director (see Appendix E)

ensuring voluntary participation was

was sent to the agency’s executive

crucial to ensure that the study met

director’s email. If this was not

ethical requirements. I received

available, the Recruitment Letter for

approval from the Thompson Rivers

General Mailbox (see Appendix D)

University Research Ethics Board

was sent to the agency’s general

(see Appendix G) before

email address. To ensure anonymity

recruitment. Through all streams of

of who did and did not participate,

recruitment, the survey is preceded

both recruitment letters explicitly

by the Informed Consent Form (see

requested no-reply to the email and

Appendix B). The form details the

to not share whether or not the

purpose of the research, potential

agency’s staff wished to participate.

benefits and risks, the questions

Both recruitment letters asked for

included in the survey, time needed

Methodology: Informed Consent / Confidentiality and Anonymity 16

to participate, and how

Participants were asked to self

confidentiality and anonymity

identify their general role at their

would be protected. Since bans are a

workplace, the general population

known source of chronic

size of the community they work in,

stress/burnout, the form encourages

and the health authority their

participants to connect with the

community belonged to. There was

Mobile Response Team and/or

a balance to be struck here between

other sources of support for any

capturing demographic and

challenges that may arise. To access

geographic data to account for the

the survey, participants were asked

scale of a province-wide survey and

to read the survey consent form and

ensuring that this did not

click “I agree” at the end of the

compromise anonymity. For this

form, which opened the survey.

reason, respondents were not asked

Confidentiality and Anonymity

to provide any further information

Ensuring and protecting

on their social location (gender,

confidentiality of participants is a

race, ethnicity, age, ability, etc.) to

central part of ethical research. The

protect the anonymity of

online survey was hosted by Survey

marginalized minority groups. For

Monkey, and the consent form

example, if someone responded that

explained that responses would be

they worked in a one-shelter

stored on a Canadian server and

community with a population of less

provided a link to Survey Monkey’s

than 10,000 in the Vancouver

security statement. Capture settings

Coastal Health catchment, they may

were adjusted to not track

very well be the only person of

respondents IP addresses.

colour at that shelter, or the only

Participants were not prompted to

person with a disability, or the only

provide their name, or any contact

person over sixty, or all the above.

information. In the recruitment

This exclusion is not to undermine

process, everyone invited was asked

the importance/affect one’s social

to not respond regarding their

location has on their life, working

participation or non-participation.

experience, and experience of shelter

Methodology: Confidentiality and Anonymity / Online Survey 17

bans as a worker—rather, it is a
limitation prioritizing the safety of
respondents.
Another confidentiality and

Online Survey
In total, the survey was 32
questions (see Appendix C for the
list of survey questions). Questions

anonymity piece to manage was my

were organized under the following

current employment at an agency

headings:

that was recruited to participate. To

Employment and Shelter

manage this dual relationship

Information

(researcher/colleague), I first

Ban Practices

declared it to my supervisor and

Policy On Bans

included it in my ethics application.

What Influences Bans?

I also drafted an all-staff email to

Consequences and Goals of

declare the dual relationship to my

Bans

colleagues and direct formal

Alternatives To Bans

inquiries to the appropriate channels

Statistics on Shelter Bans

(see Appendix F).
The data collected was designed to

Every question featured a response
option titled “other, or I’d like to

be anonymous in its raw state, and

elaborate” where respondents could

was accessible to myself, and my

manually type up to 100 characters

supervisors Dr. Juliana West, and

(referred to henceforth as a

Dr. Kathie McKinnon. If

qualitative response)—this limit was

participants decided to volunteer

the max character count Survey

extra information that included

Monkey offered. The survey was

identifiers, all identifiers were

designed to take 13 minutes, and it

cleansed. All raw participant data by

was initially estimated that there

participants was deleted

would be between 300 and 350

permanently upon project

respondents—about three per

completion, with September 30,

shelter. This was an overestimation

2024, being the latest date;

of considerable magnitude! The

ultimately, an extension to October

survey was conducted between May

31st, 2024, was approved.

30 and July 17, 2024 and received

Methodology: Online Survey / Data Organization and Analysis / Trustworthiness 18

37 responses with a 65 percent rate

collectively, this avoided standalone

of completion. Incomplete responses

qualitative responses receiving more

were accepted and included.

weight in theming than they were

Data Organization and Analysis

due. This also gave quantitative and

Quantitative responses were

qualitative responses a two-way

analyzed using Survey Monkey,

stream of context which allowed

which generated the response rate

qualitative responses to be located

for each question and a percentage

within one’s quantitative responses.

and numeral distribution among

Figure 1
Example of Theming in CMap

respective answers for each question.
Survey Monkey also presents data
according to individual responses—
this was helpful for investigating
themes related to geographic
features as well as participant’s role
within their shelter. Qualitative
responses were analyzed and themed
using Cmap, a not-for-profit
electronic mapping software used to

Trustworthiness
Any additional themes were

create concept maps. Unique maps

created by me, the principal

were created for each respondent,

investigator, and then reviewed by

question, as well as emerging

my primary supervisor, Dr. Juliana

themes. The qualitative responses

West. This triangulation process

were themed by first aligning them

included weekly meetings over

with the quantitative response

Zoom where we collaboratively

options of the respective questions,

analyzed the data using Cmap,

and then creating new themes if the

discussed points of disagreement on

response was novel and/or the

theming, and questioned what biases

respondent did not select any

and blind spots we may share.

dropdowns. By theming qualitative

Juliana also individually analyzed

and quantitative responses

the themed data outside of these

Methodology: Trustworthiness / Limitations 19

meetings. As themes evolved from

persons banned—received very few

this triangulation process, new

responses: the explicit questions on

versions of Cmaps were created with

this subject only received three

the past versions being retained so

responses, two of which identified as

as to create a research trail.

frontline workers and not in a

Limitations

management role. This diminishes

Acknowledging limitations of this

this research’s contribution to

study is integral to de-silo the many

understanding the intersection of

ongoing conversations on shelter

bans and racialization. Combined

bans and widen the small body of

with previously discussed

research on the topic. This

limitations, this survey should not

exploratory research is not designed

be used to replace the urgent need

to be a comprehensive review of

for an industry-wide systematic

shelter banning practices in British

capturing of banning data. Also, the

Columbia nor generate generalizable

survey, and all other materials were

findings, rather to help to identify

only offered in English and

further areas for inquiry.

communication was entirely

In gathering statistics on unique
instances of banning, the
anonymous design of the survey

completed online, through email and
written surveys.
The largest overarching limitation

affords a potential overlap in

was time. To honour the grant I

responses (one shelter’s statistics

received, Thompson Rivers

could be reported twice by two

University’s Undergraduate

different respondents), as well as a

Research Experience Award

lack of in-depth understanding of

Program, I had approximately a

which shelters had employees

four-month turnaround from grant

participate in the research and

application approval and ethics

which did not. Furthermore, the

approval to final report submission.

second part of the survey —which

This time crunch influenced a few

aimed to capture official shelter

notable exclusions that limit this

statistics on the demographics of

research.

Methodology: Limitations 20

Notably missing is the perspective of
service-users—no conversation or
policy on bans is fully informed
without this perspective and this
research is very much limited by its
absence. Furthermore, this study
only examined year-round
emergency shelters included on BC
Housing’s Shelter Directory and did
not research the banning practices of
transition homes for women,
emergency weather response
shelters, supportive housing sites, or
any other version of programrelated housing or emergency
shelter. Finally, the research was
limited to British Columbia.

“Notably missing is the perspective of
service-users—no conversation or policy on
bans is fully informed without this
perspective and this research is very much
limited by its absence.”

21

Findings
Employment and Shelter Information

Respondents appeared to be from a

The survey was open for 48 days

broad range of population centres ,

between May and July 2024. It

with 25 percent (n= 8) working in

received 37 responses, 65 percent

communities with a population

(n= 24) of which were fully

between 10,001 and 25,000 people.

completed. Respondents self-

62 percent (n= 20) of respondents

reported being almost either

reported working for a shelter that

entirely managers (30%, n= 10) or

employed 31 people or more.

frontline workers (58%, n=1 9).

Figure 3

Nine percent reported working in

Question 2: Community Population of Respondents

another role in their shelter (n= 3),
while three percent (n=1) reported
as an executive director. Responses
appeared to be quite evenly
distributed throughout the
province’s health authorities, with
the exception of Northern Health,
which was only chosen by one
respondent.
While only one respondent (3%)
Figure 2
Question 3

said their shelter required serviceusers to be sober, 42 percent (n=13)
of respondents stated their shelter
prohibited substance use (including
alcohol) on site. Other common
requirements for accessing shelters
was confirmation that shelter

Findings: Employment and Shelter Information / Ban Practices 22

guidelines will be adhered to (n=27,

reported bans occur 1-6 times per

87%) and being nineteen or older (n

week, 25 percent 1-3 times per

=28, 90%).

month, 14 percent less than 12 times

Figure 4
Question 6

per year, but with seasonal
fluctuations, and only 7 percent
daily.
Figure 5
Quantitative Responses: Question 11

All respondents reported that their
shelter offers food and laundry
services. The majority (63%, n=20),
of respondents reported that their

Six percent (n=2) did not know if

shelter offers supportive housing,

their shelter kept a record of bans,

harm reduction supplies (88%,

and one respondent commented that

n=28), an overdose prevention site

record keeping was “recent practice

(53%, n=17), and assistance

and I’m not sure if it is kept up to

navigating government systems

date”. 23 percent (n=7) only kept

(88%, n=28). 44 percent of

records of active bans, 10 percent

respondents (n=14) reported their

(n=3) kept records of all bans for

shelters offer health care and

between three months and one year,

transportation services. Half of

and the majority (60%, n=18) kept

respondents (50%, n=16) reported

records of all bans for more than

their shelter was the only one in

one year. Another respondent noted

their community.

that compiling their records would

Ban Practices

“take a long time as records are kept

All respondents reported that their in different places”.
shelter uses banning. Half (54%)

Findings: Ban Practices / Goals of Bans 23
Figure 6
Question 10: Does Your Shelter Keep a Record of Bans?

users (85%, n=22), and addressing
any form of discrimination (62%,
n=16)—though it was commented
by one respondent that staff safety
rarely needs to be protected, and by
90 percent reported having existing another respondent that bans help
policy, procedures or guidelines on

give only an illusion (italics added)

bans with 69 percent (n=20) written

of increased safety.

and 21 percent unwritten (n=6).

Figure 7
Question 16: Goals of Banning

And yet dynamics influencing
banning decisions appears to be
highly discretionary as reported by
80 percent. 60 percent also reported
agency relationships with
neighbours as an influencing
dynamic, followed by a service
user’s previous ban history (52%),

Other stated goals include enforcing

staff training levels (40%), and

shelter rules (81%, n=21 ), changing

alternative community resource

behaviour of service users (50%,

prevalence (36%) contributing to

n=13), and concerns of

decision making. Violence was also

liability/insurance requirements (

mentioned by seven respondents as

31% , n=8). Half (54%, n=14 )

influencing staff decisions to ban.

thought that banning sometimes

Goals of Bans

achieved these goals, 30 percent ( n=

The goals of bans were primarily

8) thought they usually achieved the

identified as safety of staff (94%, n= goals, while 12 percent ( n= 3)
thought they rarely achieved the
24) followed by safety of servicegoals.

Findings: Goals of Bans / Alternatives to Bans 24

When asked if respondents
thought there were other ways to

like to see alternatives to bans used
more, but one respondent

achieve these goals besides banning, commented that this would require
68 percent (n=17) said yes, 32%

more training and capacity from

(n=8) said no. Four people

staff.

commented that more resources

Figure 8
Question 19: What Alternatives Are Already Being Used?

would be needed to achieve these
goals in other ways, from more
mental health professionals in
shelters to one respondent’s
community using motels as a defacto shelter, and thus having to
offer more barriered services.
Do you think there are
other ways to achieve
these goals?

“I’ve rarely seen a conflict be talked
through and see needs be met. I
think this sometimes can be seen as
‘favouritism’ from staff, having the
time and energy to talk it out with
one person, and potentially not
giving another person the time due
to previous incidents / biases.” Respondent 22, Frontline Worker

“[Yes] But you need the resources to
do so, and most shelters do not have
“We use all of these. This isn’t as
the resources” -Respondent 34,
black and white as you are assuming.
manager
We all have de-escalation training
but if someone is violent or
Alternatives to Bans
threatening towards staff or other
When given a small drop-down list guests they will need to leave.” of alternatives to banning, more
Respondent 9, Manager

than 75 percent of respondents
stated they used all of them already

These themes were also common
on the topic of potential benefits of

—two commented that de-escalation alternatives to bans: it was agreed by
techniques are already used and

a majority of respondents that there

implemented but violent situations

are many benefits to using

go beyond this scope. Over 90

alternatives to bans, though three

percent said that they would

respondents commented that bans

Findings: Alternatives to Bans / Statistics on Bans 25

are needed to respond to violence.

[men, women, trans, two-spirit])

Barriers to implementing

were all answered by five

alternatives to bans included need

respondents or less. One respondent

for more training (76%, n= 18), need from a shelter in a large population
for more staff (43%, n=9), and 38%

centre (population greater than

(n=8) reporting that they’re

500,000) reported that their shelter

unrealistic and management or

banned 150 individuals in 2023. In

board won’t support them,

small population centres (less than

respectively.

10,000), one respondent’s shelter

Figure 9

banned six, while another’s banned

Question 21

20. The demographic-focused
questions featured especially low
engagement (three respondents) and
received only estimative responses
and no responses with ‘real
numbers.’ These three respondents
all estimated people who are
Statistics on Shelter Bans

racialized and Indigenous peoples,

This section of the survey aimed to respectively, accounted for between
gather official statistics on frequency zero to ten percent of people who
of bans, demographics of those who are banned. Question 25, regarding
are banned, length of bans, and

length of bans, only received six

bans’ relationship to mental health

respondents. All lengths of bans

crises. Questions 23 (inquiring how

were used, with commonality of

many people were banned according length of ban being used spread
to official records) and 24 (inquiring quite evenly. Only one respondent
how many people banned according reported that bans lasting less than
to race and gender [Indigenous,

one week were the most commonly

Racialized and Non-Racialized]

used, whereas other dropdown

Findings: Statistics on Bans / Bans and Substance Use / Open-Ended Questions 26

options representing longer,
incremental time periods were

Bans and Substance Use
Eight respondents answered

reported as being the most

question 27, inquiring how many

commonly used by two respondents

bans were for using substances in

each. One respondent commented

places service-users were not allowed

that longer lengths of bans are more to. Five respondents reported 1-25
common because “typically, when

percent of bans were for substance

situations actually escalate to the

use, two reported 76-99 percent, and

point of a ban, it’s serious. If it’s not

one reported 51-75 percent.

serious enough for a ban under one
week, we probably have found an

Figure 11
Question 27

alternative…” Five respondents
found that over half of all bans
involved a mental health crisis or
suspected mental illness—three
respondents reported 1-25 percent of
bans involving a mental health
crises or suspected mental illness.
Figure 10
Question 26

Open-ended questions
Questions 22 and 28 were the only
open ended questions in the survey
without drop-down response
options. Question 22 asked
respondents if there was anything
else they would like to share about
bans or alternatives to bans.

Findings: Open-Ended Questions 27

This question received 13 responses, outlined below.
Question 22: Is there anything else you would like to share about bans and/or
alternatives to bans at the shelter you work at?
“There are not enough resources,

situations and provide the right

qualified staff or training for staff.

alternative solution but this is down

To much money for harm reduction

to many things including poor wages

supplies and not enough for

in the industry. I have worked in the

resources for people to exit

field for a long time for service

addiction.” -Respondent 34,

providers that have different

Manager

outlooks on bans. My view is that

“It’s very difficult in a rural

bans are often necessary as things

community with very limited

can turn chaotic without them.

resources.” -Respondent 33,

Having management with

Frontline Worker

compassion, insight, and experience

“No.” -Respondent 32, Frontline

makes a big difference.” -

Worker

Respondent 30, Case Worker

“There is no perfect system. In my

“Our shelter is currently looking at

opinion, it helps to have shelters

banning people that have been there

with different levels of care. Many

too long without movement. We

clients prefer to be in a shelter with

don't have enough caseworkers or

more structure and some thrive in

access to time services or enough

the opposite. Issues are not black

house to place people putting them

and white with nuances to each case

out on the street because they have

and staff should respond to the

not moved forward are too old or

individual's needs. Alternatives

have specific health conditions is not

should always be the first approach

the answer” -Respondent 26,

as often situations can be de-

Frontline Worker

escalated. Some frontline staff do
not have the skills to assess

Findings: Open-Ended Questions 28

This question received 13 responses, outlined below.
Question 22: Is there anything else you would like to share about bans and/or
alternatives to bans at the shelter you work at?
“No, thank you for the survey, it

“Suspensions vary. From overnight

was very thought provoking and

to indefinite. It is truly on a case by

interesting !” -Respondent 22,

case basis. Our guidelines are basic

Frontline Worker

and flexible and [w]e try very hard to

“Discrimination is happening and

work with our residents to keep

the group of people deciding the

them safe and healthy.” -

bans have really warped perspectives Respondent 17, Manager
and boundaries” -Respondent 21,

“Unfortunately each shelter

Frontline Worker

provider will have a loss of service

“There’s a growing number of

for some individuals. In my own

individuals whose violent or

person experience of 8+ years

threatening conduct, shelters cannot working as front line worker and
support. There is a phenomenal

seeing changes over the years, I have

amount of violence outside the

seen where shelters are not

shelter among people experiencing

sustainable if staff are not feeling

homelessness too. Alternatives are a safe. The turn around of staff at
nice thought but not entirely

some shelters that are no barrier can

realistic.” -Respondent 19, Manager be difficult, exhausting, and burnt
“A standard train[in]g program for

out is higher. If we do not have a

all staff in the Province that

good staffing network then we

provides understanding around this

cannot help each other or residents

issue. Staff that have experience and in our services. If we do not have
knowledge about mental health and

good law enforcement (back up) or

addictions and resources that assist

health officials we tend to feel

in the moments of difficulty with

frustrated. There is a lot of

clients.” -Respondent 18, Director

systematic issues in our system...

Findings: Open-Ended Questions 29

This question received 13 responses, outlined below.
Question 22: Is there anything else you would like to share about bans and/or
alternatives to bans at the shelter you work at?
(health care) that is not addressed,

“They are a last resort. Usually for

especially mental health. Many of

very unsuitable or unsafe behavior,

these shelters are front line workers

not possible in a close and shared

trying to help people but not having

living environment.” -Respondent 6,

much support from the system in

Frontline Worker

general. This is another issue and

Question 28 received three

perhaps another survey.” -

responses, outlined below.

Respondent 15, Frontline Worker

Question 28: Is there anything else

“We try to use alternatives to

you would like to add about your

banning wherever possible, but fall

shelter’s use and documentation of

back on bans as a last resort. Bans

bans?

are always a compromise between

“This would take a long time as

the best interests of the person being records are kept in different places”
banned and the best interests of

-Respondent 34, Manager

everyone around them (staff, clients, “We are very serious about violence
public, etc.). When we do feel we

and threats, weapons are included in

have to move toward a ban, it's

service bans.” -Respondent 19,

because it's the best possible balance Manager
of all the competing interests at

“The majority of our bans (about

play, but it is not a win-win

80%) involve physical assault, theft,

solution.” -Respondent 12, Manager or serious property damage (e.g.
“We sometimes take chances and
shelter people who we have
reservations about due to their
current or previous behaviours” Respondent 10, Frontline Worker

fire).” -Respondent 12, Manager

30

Discussion
To my knowledge, this is the first

Discussion Overview

study in British Columbia

Bans are used as a last resort, but

specifically on the topic of

also are a weekly part of shelter

emergency shelter bans. Informed by

life in many shelters in British

critical methodology, the purpose of

Columbia.

this discussion is to make sense of

The very small amount of data

the data and explore what

captured in this survey

structural/macro forces may be

potentially hints at banning

implied in banning practices for the

numbers far higher than

purposes of social change rather

reported in previous literature.

than simply point out the

There is generally a lack of

phenomena of bans and assign

system wide record keeping and

blame to either the banned or the

race and gender demographics

banners. This discussion will be

of people banned appears to be

organized according to the original

not tracked.

research questions: “How are shelter

Violence was mentioned as the

bans being used in BC?” as the

most frequent reason for

primary research question with the

banning, yet violence was not

following secondary research

defined and may have a broad

questions: How many people were

catchment of actions.

banned from an emergency shelter in

While banning may address

2023, and what are the demographics

violence by immediately

of these bans? What are the goals and

incapacitating someone from

unintended consequences of banning?

entering a space, it appears that

What dynamics influence banning

violence persists both inside and

decisions? Are there alternatives to

outside of shelters and does not

banning?

appear to be deterred by bans.

Discussion: Overview 31

Mitigating staff burnout is also

Bans are typically used

a frequent reason for banning.

begrudgingly and service-

Drug use was also a frequent

providers would like to see

reason for banning. This

alternatives used more, but

suggests messiness regarding the

alternatives to bans would

shelter industry’s allyship with

require change regarding staff,

people who use drugs, and there

training, and time, all of which

is likely an overlap where

stems from funding and how

shelters provide harm reduction

funding is used.

services and also ban individuals

The state of the current shelter

for drug use in certain spaces.

system has created a catchment

Banning practices are most

window of vulnerability to

influenced by discretion of on-

accessing emergency shelter—the

shift staff, but these

floor is likely more permeable

discretionary decisions are the

than the ceiling, meaning, more

result of many influences. This

people are falling through the

positions frontline workers at

cracks of the shelter system than

street-level bureaucrats

actually ‘getting back on their

determining who accesses social

feet’ into more permanent

services. This is influenced by

housing.

individual and relational factors,

There is a deep injustice

cultural factors (resistance or

illustrated in how frequently

affirmation of stereotypes of

used, harmful, and yet

service-users), systemic factors

discombobulated bans are in

such as access to

terms of formal system-wide

education/training, and a

tracking and auditing. Shelter

shelter’s access to funding to

bans require urgent reevaluation

attract and retain staff both in

and tracking in the realms of

terms of numbers and

transparency (a recording

education/lived

system), accountability

experience/diverse skill sets.

Discussion: Overview 32

(an auditing system attached to this

may shed some light on this. For

recording system) and for funding to

example, every respondent that

reflect local needs (equipping service

answered Question 9 (n=32, 5

providers to be able to care for the

skipped Question 9) reported that

most vulnerable people in their

the shelter they work at practices

community, and adjusting/creating

banning. Only five respondents

new services informed by service-

responded to Question 23—which

users and providers if that is not

explicitly asked how many people

possible).

were banned from accessing services

How many people were banned from

in 2023. In total, these five

an emergency shelter in 2023, and

respondents (three in a management

what are the demographics of these

role, two frontline workers) reported

bans?

a total of 312 individuals banned;

Questions 23 (inquiring how many

none of these responses appeared to

people were banned according to

come from duplicates based on their

official records) and 24 (inquiring

disclosure of health authority and

how many people banned according

community population.

to race and gender [Indigenous,

Furthermore, these responses came

Racialized and Non-Racialized]

from a variety of population centres.

[men, women, trans, two-sprit])

While this study is in no way

aimed to answer this question

generalizable, reported instances of

directly, though accuracy was

bans appear to be far higher than

limited by the design of the survey

previously captured in the literature.

(respondents were anonymous, did

For example, scaling these five

not identify what shelter they

responses to 110 shelters (this survey

worked at, and there was potential

was sent to 111 unique shelters in

for shelters to have their statistics

BC) this number of 312 individuals

reported multiple times) and

at 5 shelters, would be 6,884 people

impacted by low levels of responses;

banned— or over half of total

this phenomena of frequency of

people counted as experiencing

bans from other parts of the survey

homelessness in BC in 2023

Discussion: Instances of Banning and Demographics 33

(11,352, according to Caspersen et

this was a selected estimation and

al., 2024), a percentage considerably

not calculated based on actual

higher than two Canadian

numbers provided, no real numbers

secondary data studies suggesting

were provided.

that nearly 20 percent of people

This percentage is surprisingly

experiencing homelessness have

low. The most recent point-in-time

experienced a shelter ban (Kerman

homeless count in BC found that 3

et al., 2022a; Schwan et al., 2021).

percent of respondents identified as

Furthermore, 53 percent (n=15)

Black, 2 percent as Latin American,

respondents reported that banning

2 percent as South Asian, and 40%

occurs 1-6 times per week at the

as Indigenous (Caspersen et al.,

shelter they work at, while only 14

2024). If nearly 50 percent of

percent (n=4) reported that it

persons living with homelessness in

occurred 1-11 times per year. In

BC are racialized, it does not stand

other words, bans appear to be a

to reason that people of colour,

weekly part of shelter life in many

who, due to structural forces of

shelters in British Columbia.

oppression, are disproportionately

Regarding race and gender

overrepresented in British

demographics for persons banned,

Columbian homelessness would also

(Question 24 ), the explicit questions

be disproportionately

on this subject only received three

underrepresented in people who are

responses, two of which identified as

banned from homeless shelters. If,

frontline workers and not in a

somehow, this is true and found to

management role—this is not

be consistent with future official

sufficient data to meaningfully

banning data, a number of questions

contribute to this subject. These

are raised. Namely, what would the

three respondents reported that

shelter system be doing so much

people who are racialized (including

better than other systems in this

Indigenous peoples) account for 0-

province? This is as unlikely as it is

10 percent of people banned, though

optimistic. Ultimately, I regret that
this research does not further

Discussion: Secondary Research Questions 34

illuminate the intersection between

The overarching goal of banning

bans and racial/cultural oppression,

appears to be safety (which

and I urge for more inquiry on this

sometimes, as one respondent put it,

intersection.

is a perceived “sense” of safety).

Secondary Research Questions: Bans,

Violence was consistently reported

A Last Resort Used Weekly

by respondents as being a

Consistent with Kerman et al.

precipitator of a service-user being

(2022b), this research found that

banned, though violence was not

bans are used as a last resort. One

defined and may have a broad

would typically imagine ‘last resorts’

catchment of actions. For example,

to be infrequent events; the data

one respondent said the goal of

from this study suggests that this is

banning was safety of staff and

not the case. Often, systemic

service-users, and added “to give

influences on day-to-day service

staff a break from certain conflicts”

provision (and maintaining life, for

(Respondent 16). Another more

those receiving services) may be

specifically noted that “the majority

ambiguous, and difficult to pin

of our bans involve physical assault,

down and describe. There is,

theft, and serious property damage

however, nothing ambiguous about

e.g. fire” (Respondent 12). This

the findings that bans are used

illustrates the fluidity of the notions

weekly as a last resort; service

of safety and violence. These notions

providers feel that they have no

appear to also be affected by forces

options but to kick people out, all the

beyond an individual presenting as

time. This combination of frequency

violent or not, and as Respondent

and desperation places bans as

22 states, is often a matter of

systemic shortcomings manifested.

sufficient staffing: “Amount of staff

Using the secondary questions, this

on shift / busy-ness of shift. On

will be further explored.

shifts where we are at capacity, I feel

What are the goals and unintended

that bans are more likely to be given

consequences of banning?

out compared to the exact same
situation occurring on a better

Discussion: Secondary Research Questions 35

staffed / generally calmer shift”.

streets, especially when they are

As discussed in the literature

vulnerable.” Also, 64 percent (n=16)

review, this research found that

of respondents agreed that banning

though mostly being used to achieve

does not solve the original problem

some sense of safety, banning is not

in the long term. This is evident by

exclusively a safety measure. Fifty

what appears to be both a frequency

percent of respondents (n=13)

of banning and a simultaneous

agreed that bans are used to try to

unaffected frequency of violence—

change the behaviour of service-

while banning may address violence

users. One respondent added that

by immediately incapacitating

bans were used to “...encourage

someone from entering a space, it

clients to work with service

appears that violence persists both

providers and get connected to

inside and outside of shelters and does

services in the community, and find

not appear to be deterred by bans. So,

housing” (Respondent 15) though it

why do bans remain a default-

wasn’t expanded on how or if this

response to harm in the shelter

was effective. Two other

system? If bans were only used for

respondents noted that bans are

immediate purposes, why did less

used when it is determined that a

than half of respondent’s shelters

shelter is unable to support the

have written policy on lifting bans?

needs of the service user. Bans are

What Dynamics Influence Banning

used for safety, yes, but appear to

Decisions?

also be used as a means to curb staff
burnout.

This was the verbatim language of
Question 14, and, as previously

There appear to be many

discussed, twenty eight percent of

unintended consequences of

respondents (n=7) directly wrote

banning. The most common,

that violence was a precipitator to

poignant consequence was

banning decisions. Drug use

summarized by Respondent 17: “It

appeared to be another small(ish)

is terrible making someone homeless

precipitator according to eight

/ sending out to our dangerous

Discussion: Secondary Research Questions 36

respondents, although the majority

concerned about being exposed to

of those eight ( n=5) stated 1-25

second-hand smoke? Valid, complex

percent of bans were for drug use.

concerns no doubt, but it is

One-25 percent is significant

interesting that the same tool—

especially when considering recent

incapacitation, physically separating

provincial legislation that has left

someone from continuing their

shelters as one of the few places

behaviour in a certain space—is

where drug possession for personal

used for someone continuously

use is legal (British Columbia, 2024).

physically hurting someone and for

At the same time, over half (54 % ,

someone smoking fentanyl in a

n= 17) of respondents stated their

bathroom.

shelter operated an Overdose

Here is what I am trying to get at:

Prevention Site (OPS) and even

is drug use a behaviour that needs to

more (88 %, n=28) handed out harm

(and can, for that matter) be

reduction supplies.

immediately incapacitated, or in these

This suggests messiness regarding

cases, is a ban used as punishment

the shelter industry’s allyship with

with an expectation that being banned

people who use drugs—there i s

should change someone’s behaviour?

likely an overlap where shelters

If someone’s ban is lifted and they

provide harm reduction services

continue to use drugs in the

and also ban individuals for drug

bathroom, is that a conscious choice

use in certain spaces (using in a

and are they morally culpable? If

bathroom vs. designated OPS, for

this is the case, is banning someone

example). While I understand the

living with addiction as a means of

notion of bans as a last resort if

changing their drug-use behaviour,

someone is continuously physically

(which is well established as a health

harming others, I find the urgency

issue and not a moral one) aligned

of bans due to drug use less clear: is

with evidence-based practice and

it staff concerns being exposed to

providing trauma-informed services?

second-hand smoke? Is it service-

If there is anything Canada’s

users that do not use drugs

Discussion: Secondary Research Questions 37

criminal system has taught us, it is

welfare system whose individual

that punishment does not change

actions, taken collectively, create

behaviour (Elliott, 2011; Roebuck,

policy—this study found that

2008).

shelters have and use unwritten

“is banning someone living with
addiction as a means of
changing their drug-use
behaviour aligned with
evidence-based practice and
providing trauma-informed
services?”

policy for both bans and especially
lifting bans.
Quirouette (2022) highlights that
street-level bureaucrats “...deal with
involuntary clients, contradictory
roles, difficult conditions and non-

Moving on to the overarching

availability of resources” (p. 444).

emerging theme of this research

This combination of contradictory

question: banning decisions are most

roles and non-availability of

influenced by discretion of on-shift

resources was very prevalent in the

staff, consistent with previous

responses of this survey: the

research on bans (Kerman et al.,

majority of respondents appear to

2022b). This is also aligned with

be hesitant to ban (their role, after

other scholars’ findings that punitive

all, is to provide care/services to

policies are often either affirmed or

vulnerable people) yet they also ban

resisted at the individual worker

as a means of safety of staff, service-

level (Quiourette, 2022; West 2014)

users, and to enforce shelter rules—

—this is especially poignant

in that order, according to

considering that this research

respondents (workers also find

revealed that bans are not solely

themselves in the role of

used as a means of immediate

security/rule enforcer, which is

incapacitation. Given the lack of

contradictory in nature to care-

research specific to shelter bans

oriented role). At the same time,

available to guide this exploration, it

workers have limited resources to

may be helpful to frame frontline

care for people whose needs often go

workers at street-level bureaucrats

beyond these resources in terms of

(Lipsky, 1980); gatekeepers of the

both numbers and complexity.

Discussion: Secondary Research Questions 38

The notion that people are being

being served and obtaining housing.

banned because the shelter is ‘unable

This is evident by this study’s

to support the individual’s needs’ is

findings that more than half of bans

likely more accurately stated as

appear to be related to a mental

‘unable to support the individual’s

health crisis or suspected mental

needs and the needs of 30 others

illness (one respondent called for

during lunchtime and make 16 beds

Assertive Community Treatment

and respond to overdoses and watch

teams assigned to each shelter to

the front desk and do an intake and

address this). So, yes, discretion

…’; Shelter users’ needs are

influences banning decisions, but

ultimately triaged, and it appears

discretion is also influenced by

people are banned in an attempt to

individual, relational, cultural (such

serve as many people as possible with

as resistance or affirmation of

severely limited resources in terms of

stereotypes) and systemic factors

number of staff as well as training

(the focus of this study) such as staff

levels of staff.

access to education and a shelter’s

“unable to support
individual’s needs
and the needs of 30
others during lunchtime
and make 16 beds and
respond to overdoses and
watch the front desk and
do an intake and …”
The state of the current shelter

access to funding for ample staff

system has created a catchment

‘alternatives’ to banning, all of

window of vulnerability to accessing

which were reported as being used

emergency shelter—the floor is

by more than 75 percent of

likely more permeable than the

respondents. Two respondents

ceiling, meaning, more people are

commented that staff are trained in

falling through the cracks of the

de-escalation techniques but this

shelter system than successfully

both in terms of numbers and
education/lived experience/diverse
skill sets; remember, banning is a
frequently used last resort.
Are There Alternatives To Banning?
In exploring this question, the
survey included a list of drop-down

Discussion: Secondary Research Questions / Primary Research Question 39

only goes so far, and that if someone

introduce “more chaos in shelter”

is violent, they will be banned—this

(Respondent 6); another respondent

could be an example where bans are

noted that alternatives may be

a true last resort and means of

implemented inconsistently and lead

safety. Consistent with previous

to greater issues.

themes in this discussion however,

Respondents shared real barriers

the use of alternatives is nuanced,

to alternatives including a need for

not always about safety, and

more training and just more staff. I

appears to be impacted by

would also be negligent if I did not

relationships. This implies a

note that nearly 40 percent (n=8)

potential for favouritism.

respondents thought alternatives to

Respondent 22 shared: “I’ve rarely

bans to be unrealistic, but perhaps

seen a conflict be talked through

the responses exist in relation to one

and see needs be met. I think this

another: would alternatives to bans

sometimes can be seen as

be more realistic with more staff and

‘favouritism ’ from staff, having the

training? Consider the voices of a

time and energy to talk it out with

few more respondents: “We have

one person, and potentially not

not been able to recruit skilled staff

giving another person the time due

and many of our staff are still

to previous incidents / biases.”

developing the ability to provide this

Ninety-one percent ( n= 21) of

kind of support”, “Hardly any staff

respondents reported that they would

have any lived experience or

like to see alternatives to bans used

education”, “Funding and time [as

more. A few commented that they

barriers]”; to me, this suggests that

were unsure, several stressed that

alternatives aren’t realistic right now

they were already doing everything

in the current shelter system.

they could to avoid banning, and

How Are Shelter Bans Being Used In

several others noted that there were

BC?

certain violent people that would

In summary, it appears that bans

never be able to access their shelter

are being used in BC for a number

and that alternatives would

Discussion: Primary Research Question 40

of reasons. Bans appear to be used
as an exclusionary means of
responding to the physical safety of
staff and other service-users, as well
as an attempt to enforce rules and
encourage compliance or change the
substance user and/or mental health
related behaviour of service-users. It
also appears that bans are typically
used begrudgingly and serviceproviders would like to see
alternatives used more, but there is a
catch: the frequent and broad use of
bans is likely a symptom of a lack of
resources: staff, training, time, all of
which stems from funding and how
funding is used.

“ bans are typically used
begrudgingly...the frequent
and broad use of bans is likely
a symptom of a lack of
resources...”

Concluding
Implications
Implication: A Province-Wide Ban
Recording System
This study found that bans are
used weekly, and suggested

41

“...the data on who is
being banned and cast out
is disturbingly missing.”
Many Canadian shelters currently

extrapolated non-generalizable

use the Homeless Individuals and

estimates of how many people are

Families Information System

banned from accessing emergency

(HIFIS), a tool used to track usage

shelters each year, which aligned

of emergency shelters (Infrastructure

with previous research’s estimates.

Canada, 2023). It seems logical,

But these are just estimates, and we

practical, and ethically possible to

do not know how many people are

track and audit bans, with the

actually banned in BC. There is a

primary thought of caution being

deep injustice illustrated in how

that this proposed tool does not

taken-for-granted bans are, how

become a risk-indicator in itself used

insidiously normal they are that BC

to pathologize service-users and

Housing, the provincial government,

erase the potential of a fresh start at

and the federal government appear

a new shelter.

to have made little effort to

Understanding the state of shelter

accurately grasp who and how many

bans through this tracking creates

individuals are banned despite

the potential to direct funding

robust reporting of the numbers

toward reducing the amount of

accessing emergency shelters in BC–

highly vulnerable people who are

the data on who is being banned and

excluded from accessing services—

cast out is disturbingly missing.

particularly when bans are a
frequently yet begrudgingly used last
resort.

Conclusion and Implications 42

BC Housing’s Emergency shelter

As is often the case, this

program framework (2018) calls for

exploratory research has produced

transparency, accountability, and

more questions than answers.

for funding to reflect local needs.

Further inquiry is needed in a

This recording system could better

myriad of subtopics, including but

inform new policies, so long as they

not exclusive to:

are created collaboratively by both

Engaging with service-users who

people who use services and people

have been banned and

who provide them. Shelter bans

amplifying their realities of

require urgent tracking in the realms

being banned in a variety of

of transparency (a recording system),

social locations and geographic

accountability (an auditing system

locations (i.e. rural vs. urban)

attached to this recording system)

Implementation and analysis of

and for funding to reflect local needs

a BC Housing banning database

(equipping service providers to be

and/or conducting additional

able to care for the most vulnerable

research to understand the

people in their community, and

intersectionality of rates of

adjusting/creating new services

banning, physical violence, and

informed by service-users and

service user demographics

providers if that is not possible).

including racialization and
concurrent mental health and
substance use.

Shelter bans require...

Engaging with service-providers

transparency
accountability
funding that reflects local
needs
a recording system

to better understand their

an auditing system attached to this
recording system
equipping service providers to care for the
most vulnerable people in their community

perceptions and frameworks of
justice and conflict resolution.

43

References
BC Coroners Service. (2024). Unregulated Drug Deaths in B.C. (to Dec 31,
2023). Gov.bc.ca. BC Coroners Service. (2024). Unregulated Drug
Deaths in B.C. (to Dec 31,
BC Coroners Service. (2023). Deaths of People Experiencing Homelessness
(2015-2022). Gov.bc.ca. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birthadoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coronersservice/statistical/deaths_of_individuals_experiencing_homelessness_2015
-2022.pdf
BC Housing. (2018). Emergency shelter program framework, 4th edition.
https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Emergency-Shelter-ProgramFramework.pdf
Buck-McFadyen, E. (2023). A comparison of three rural emergency homeless
shelters: exploring the experiences and lessons learned in small town
Ontario. Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness (1-10).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10530789.2023.2276592
Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW). (2024). Code of Ethics.
https://www.caswacts.ca/files/attachements/CASW_Code_of_Ethics_2024_One_Pager.pdf
Caspersen, J., D’Souza, S., & Lupick, D. (2024). 2023 Report on Homeless
Counts in B.C. Prepared for BC Housing. Burnaby, BC.
https://www.bchousing.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2023-BCHomeless-Counts.pdf
Distasio, J., Zell, S., Snyder, M. (2018). At Home in Winnipeg: Localizing
Housing First as a Culturally Responsive Approach to Understanding and
Addressing Urban Indigenous Homelessness, Final Report. The Institute of
Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg.
https://winnspace.uwinnipeg.ca/bitstream/handle/10680/1607/2018_Locali
zing-Housing-First_A-Culturally-Responsive-Approach.pdf?sequence=1
Government of British Columbia. (2023, December 13). New data released on
people experiencing homelessness in B.C. BC Gov News.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0179001995#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20research%2C%20the,at%20
some%20point%20in%202021
Infrastructure Canada. (2023). Everyone Counts 2020-2022: Preliminary
Highlights Report. https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/homelessness-sansabri/reports-rapports/pit-counts-dp-2020-2022-highlightseng.html#h2.5.4

References 44

Johnstone, M., Lee, E., Connelly, J. (2017). Understanding the meta-discourse
driving homeless policies and programs in Toronto, Canada: The
neoliberal management of social service delivery. International Social
Work, 60(6), 1443-1456.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0020872817706406?
casa_token=sH4K6V2rXOgAAAAA:jX129_QCOJ0B2xKLmUROZq8
D1Tj-e7t4Tbzdbtg6jawJazzL7VQIXxO52OecjNcx-_IA8T6LLgY
Kerman, N., N., Kidd, S. A., Voronov, J., Marshall, C. A., O'Shaughnessy, B.,
Abramovich, A., Stergiopoulos, V. (2023a). Victimization, safety, and
overdose in homeless shelters: A systematic review and narrative
synthesis. Health & Place, 83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.103092
Kerman, N., Ecker, J., Tiderington, E., Gaetz, S., & Kidd, S. A. (2023b).
Workplace trauma and chronic stressor exposure among direct service
providers working with people experiencing homelessness. Journal of
Mental Health, 32(2), 424-433.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638237.2021.2022629
Kerman, N., Wang, R., Aubry, T., Distasio, J., Gaetz, S., Hwang, S.W.,
Latimer, E., O’Grady, B., Schwan, K., Somers, J.M. and Stergiopoulos,
V., Kidd, S. A. (2022a). Shelter Bans Among People Experiencing
Homelessness: An Exploratory Study of Predictors in Two Large
Canadian Datasets. Journal of Urban Health, 99(5), 842-854.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-022-00680-0
Kerman, N., Voronov, J., Marshall, C. A., Stergiopoulos, V., Kidd, S. A.
(2022b). Service Restrictions from Homeless Shelters [Slides]. Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health. https://conference.caeh.ca/wpcontent/uploads/COH5-Service-Restrictions-from-Homeless-Shelters.pdf
Levesque, J., Sehn, C., Babando, J., Ecker, J., Embleton, L. (2021).
Understanding the Needs of Workers in the Homelessness Support Sector.
Hub Solutions.
https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/HubSolutions
-Understanding-Needs-Oct2021.pdf
McCarthy, B., & Hogan, J. (2024). Homelessness, Offending, Victimization,
and Criminal Legal System Contact. Annual Review of Criminology, 7,
257-281. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-022422-020934
Mullaly, B. & West J. (2018). Challenging oppression and confronting
privilege: A critical approach to anti-oppressive and anti-privilege theory
and practice (3rd ed). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/challenging-oppression-andconfronting-privilege-9780199022328?cc=ca&lang=en&

References 45

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
(2019). Reclaiming power and place: final report of the National Inquiry
into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 1a.
https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a-1.pdf
Quirouette, M. (2022). “The Struggle is Real”: Punitive assessment in
community services. Punishment & Society, 24(3), 433-456.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1462474521990436?
casa_token=xASGN0MU2yAAAAAA:eft_CIACciWnEAvTCYVKEIqOIn2C0_4VDYMoSwZNi7OI3k_15zHZi
Eko_Z_UzsCe5h-HZKUXtQ
Rumboldt, J. (2022). Endaamnaan: Homes for All Nations. A First Nations
Homelessness Literature Review. Toronto, ON: Canadian Observatory on
Homelessness Press. https://homelesshub.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2023/12/AFN-COH-Literature-Review-092122.pdf
Schwan, K., Vaccaro, M., Reid, L., Ali, N., & Baig, K. (2021). The PanCanadian Women’s Housing & Homelessness Survey. Toronto, ON:
Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.
https://womenshomelessness.ca/wp-content/uploads/EN-Pan-CanadianWomens-Housing-Homelessness-Survey-FINAL-28-Sept-2021.pdf
van den Berk-Clark, C. (2016). The dilemmas of frontline staff working with
the homeless: Housing first, discretion, and the task environment.
Housing Policy Debate, 26(1), 105-122.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2014.1003142
West, J. M. (2014). The Role of Social Work in Contemporary Colonial and
Structurally Violent Processes: Speaking to Aboriginal Social Workers
who had Child Welfare and/or Criminal Justice Involvement as Youth
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba]. I-Portal: Indigenous
Studies Portal. https://iportal.usask.ca/record/64239

APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT POSTER

do you work at an emergency
homeless shelter in bC?
Please consider filling out a 12 minute survey on shelter
bans (sometimes called breaks, service-restrictions, bars,
discharges, etc.)
I am interested in your ideas and practices about...
if, how, and why bans are used
the goals and unintended consequences of bans
how bans are documented
alternatives to bans

click here or scan the qr code!
Who can participate? Anyone who currently works at a
year-round emergency homeless shelter in BC. Know
someone? Please share this poster!
This an anonymous and confidential survey approved by Thompson Rivers
University’s Research Ethics Board.

The principal investigator is Nathaniel Bailey, a
third-year social work student at Thompson
Rivers University and a frontline shelter worker.

If you have any concerns regarding this
research, you can reach Nathaniel Bailey, the
principal investigator, at baileyn21@mytru.ca,
or my supervisors, Dr. Juliana West at
jwest@tru.ca and Dr. Kathie McKinnon at
kmckinnon@tru.ca

LIST OF WRITTEN APPENDICES
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT SURVEY (CLICK TO VIEW)
APPENDIX C: SURVEY QUESTIONS (CLICK TO VIEW)
APPENDIX D: RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR GENERAL MAILBOX
(CLICK TO VIEW)
APPENDIX E: RECRUITMENT LETTER FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(CLICK TO VIEW)
APPENDIX F: DECLARATION OF RESEARCH FOR PI’S WORKPLACE
(CLICK TO VIEW)
APPENDIX G: RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD APPROVAL (CLICK TO
VIEW)