PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Christine Quinn, President and CEO of Women in Need (WIN), on NYC Shelter Policies for Asylum Seekers
2:42:32
·
5 min
Christine Quinn, President and CEO of Women in Need (WIN), testified about the negative impacts of NYC's 30/60 day shelter stay limits for asylum seekers. She criticized the policy as traumatic and ineffective, highlighting issues with data management, privacy concerns, and the misuse of administrative transfers.
- Quinn argued that the 60-day rule, while modified, still causes trauma and is essentially a form of harassment.
- She raised concerns about data privacy and the potential for information to be accessed by federal authorities.
- Quinn proposed extending housing vouchers to undocumented individuals as a more cost-effective and humane alternative to the current shelter policies.
Christine Quinn
2:42:32
Thank you.
2:42:33
My name is Christine Quinn.
2:42:34
I'm, president and CEO of Winn, Women in Need.
2:42:36
We are the largest provider of shelter to, homeless families with children and the largest provider of supportive housing to homeless families with children.
2:42:46
We present we through the course of the influx of migrants to New York City, we have housed, over 1200 individuals.
2:42:55
We presently house them throughout our network of 15 tier 2 shelters, and we run 1 hotel, in the Bronx that's, 35 units.
2:43:05
And that is all, excuse me, 55 units.
2:43:08
That is all migrant families at the hotel in the Bronx.
2:43:11
I've submitted my written testimony, but I just kind of wanted, instead of reading it, to respond to some of what the administration said in their testimony.
2:43:21
1, it is not trauma informed to move people every 60 days.
2:43:27
Now the administration, I think, would like people to think the 60 day rule is gone.
2:43:31
It's not.
2:43:32
People are gonna go through one eviction after they've already had to go through a grueling intake process.
2:43:40
They're just not gonna have to do it a second time, which is a good step, but is not repealing it.
2:43:46
2, the city, didn't seem to have a ton of answers and even seem to indicate that they didn't have the data.
2:43:55
There is a tremendous amount of information accessible.
2:43:59
In fact, one of our staff people went on to look for someone he knew who's a migrant and all he knew was his name, and he was able to find him.
2:44:06
So this city has access.
2:44:07
In fact, I worry that the city has too much information and that the overlap with groups that have federal contracts like the Red Cross nothing against the Red Cross, but they have a federal contract.
2:44:18
There's all this info.
2:44:19
Is that gonna mean the info is gonna go to the feds?
2:44:21
What we should be doing the city should be doing is making the info available to something like the city council who would hold it in confidence and then working with advocates and elected officials to put up guardrails around the data so it can't be accessed by the federal government.
2:44:38
We have had, about 34 families been given a 60 day notice.
2:44:46
Now you can often beat those back if somebody has working papers or if they have a mental health, diagnosis.
2:44:53
But you have to have real case managers who can do that kind of work.
2:44:58
But even if the 60 day rule doesn't get implemented, the days those families exist with it hanging over their head is more trauma.
2:45:09
These are individuals, many of whom have come from, you know, war torn places, places where basically the society is being run by gangs.
2:45:16
So this idea of the government evicting them hanging over their head is even more traumatic than it would be for someone who has lived in New York for a very long time.
2:45:27
And we need to understand that that is just harassment.
2:45:31
Nothing else in the hopes that people will leave the shelter system and go God knows where.
2:45:37
Now I want to raise another thing that is going on.
2:45:40
So there's the 30 day rule for singles, 60 day for families.
2:45:43
There is also a procedure the city has, which they should have administrative transfers.
2:45:49
So let's say when a family where there are 2 adults and there's a domestic violence incident, we might have to administratively transfer the domestic violence survivor because the perpetrator knows where they live.
2:46:04
We need that.
2:46:05
Right?
2:46:05
Or something or a child gets sick and sick and the specialist is uptown Manhattan, but the family's in Queens.
2:46:12
We might move them so they can be near their child in the hospital.
2:46:16
You know, that's a we need that provision.
2:46:19
But right now, they're using that provision to move migrant families.
2:46:25
You get 24 to 48 hours to get your stuff together if you're being administratively challenged, as opposed to the longer time of the 60 day rule.
2:46:33
And I'm not saying do the 60 day rule instead of the administrative transfers.
2:46:36
I'm saying stop abusing the administrative transfers as a loophole and a backdoor to moving migrants around and out of shelter.
2:46:46
So that's it.
2:46:46
I'm happy to answer any questions on that or on the testimony.
2:46:51
Oh, and let me say one other thing.
2:46:53
This isn't gonna save any money.
2:46:55
Right?
2:46:55
I mean and whether it is, we're never gonna know.
2:46:58
But the truth is, if they were working to move migrants out of shelter into permanent housing by extending vouchers to the undocumented, not just the migrants, but any undocumented, they would be saving money.
2:47:13
Because the amount of money you pay, $72 for a voucher, is significantly less than what you pay for, when you're housing someone in a tier 2 shelter or in a commercial hotel.
2:47:26
If the primary impetus here is saving money, I wish it was morality, but if it's saving money, that's the way to do it.
2:47:33
We did a study with the Immigration Coalition and showed that you could save $3,000,000,000 by moving forward with vouchers.
