‘Goofy’ shelter renaming idea ridiculed in shelved report

Article content

City Hall shelved a 2018 report after the public put down its idea of renaming of homeless shelters as – in the words of the authors – an “attempt to put a positive spin on homelessness by creating some sort of sugar-coated euphemism.”

Article content

The report, by a pair of third-party consulting firms, was submitted to City Hall in May 2018, but gathered dust until it was recently shared with the Toronto Sun.

Article content

Article content

The consultants used focus groups and online surveys to feel out alternate names for Toronto’s homeless shelters. While the authors said “connect” was their “top choice” to replace the word shelter, it wasn’t a strong endorsement.

“While there was no clear-cut consensus on adopting another word in place of ‘shelter,’ there were many opinions on the wisdom or lack thereof. Those holding an unfavourable opinion of the value in changing the name were much more vocal than those who thought it was a good idea, simply didn’t care or had no opinion,” the report said.

Article content

Councillor Stephen Holyday has seen the report. He told the Sun it prompts some obvious questions, chiefly why taxpayer money was spent on a “marketing plan” for shelters that wasn’t used.

“This is something that I would’ve expected an advocacy group would’ve purchased, because it’s more than just a name, it’s about a strategy to change people’s thinking,” he said.

The report makes it clear that the people who were asked seven years ago had similar thoughts about the use of city resources.

“It is goofy to try and come up with some euphemistic term to describe something that needs attention. Are you hoping to make people feel better about Toronto’s homeless and disadvantaged?” one survey respondent asked.

Another argued: “You are fiddling while Rome burns. Put the resources for this rebranding process and the associated consultants into building some housing or creating rent subsidies.”

Article content

Article content

Yet another said: “Shelter is what these facilities provide. Please don’t fall into the trap of political correctness by giving a vague or inaccurate name to a service that is not complicated.”

While the authors heard arguments that the word shelter is “insulting” and “awful,” they wrote: “From one public focus group, the overwhelming feeling was that the word ‘shelter’ is not an issue.”

“Participants in our first downtown ‘client’ group were particularly outspoken about what they believed to be the folly in calling shelters by another name,” the report added.

“Several became quite agitated when discussing the plight of homeless people, suggesting that the focus should be on creating job opportunities as well as on improving services for people experiencing homelessness, rather than on renaming shelters.”

Article content

Recommended video

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Play Video

The report did say the word shelter “has few fans,” and a rebrand could “attract attention, stimulate conversation and encourage people to examine their own beliefs about homelessness and the value of locating ‘shelters’ in neighbourhoods across the city.”

“Having said this, and as many focus group participants and survey respondents made clear, any effort to rename the homelessness program that consists mainly of replacing the word ‘shelter,’ and new messaging, could have negative consequences if community members and clients believe that the program remains fundamentally unchanged,” it added.

The best option, the report argued, was “connect services.” In their example, a shelter might be named “Parkdale Connect.” “While no clear consensus emerged from the client group, ‘connect’ or ‘reconnect’ resonated with many,” the report said.

Article content

The other two acceptable options were “bridge” and “first step.” Neither was a hit.

“In the focus groups and survey responses, several participants noted that ‘bridge’ is commonly used to brand services offered by various faith-based organizations. We consider this to be a disqualifier,” the report said.

A respondent was more succinct, saying: “‘Bridge housing’ is where trolls live.”

“First step,” meanwhile, was said to be overused, cliche, condescending and something “like a daycare.”

The report stems from a package of dozens of proposals related to shelters that city council passed unanimously in April 2017. The renaming idea took up one short line of that.

“That’s the joy of the council system,” Holyday said. “So much is thrown at you at once, you do your best to sift out what’s important and try to perceive what an issue is going to be.

Article content

“I’ve spent seven years trying to undo that decision. You can see my council motions.”

The report cost taxpayers $59,700 and the consultation process was broadly publicized by City Hall. CityNews went so far as to report the word shelter was “to be phased out.”

However, the report was held back until the Sun reached out last month. In a statement, City Hall said given the tepid response to a rebrand, bureaucrats focused on things like shelter infrastructure and the report “was not carried forward” when a municipal election was held in fall 2018.

Holyday said that’s possible, but it’s not how things typically go.

“I can’t think of any examples of things that quote-unquote ‘die’ on the winding down of a government term and the restarting of another one … Many of the initiatives from a previous council term continue to carry forward,” he said. “All of the asks and directions aren’t suddenly just released.”

Article content

But why not publish the report? “Maybe they just saw it,” Holyday guessed, “and said, What is this? Well, how can we possibly use this? Why is this here? Or it wasn’t the answer they were hoping for? I don’t know.”

Holyday said while the shelter reform package that contained the renaming idea was very much of its moment – in pre-COVID Toronto, the focus was on converting hotels into shelters – it remains part of the city.

“The salient word that was in that 2017 discussion was the use of the word engagement versus consultation,” he said – a foreshadowing, perhaps, of complaints in 2025 that City Hall just doesn’t listen to concerns about shelter placements or policy.

“That is one decision I wish I could redo, with hindsight – honestly.”

jholmes@postmedia.com

Article content