Grace Busser testifies on Intro 387 and policing-centered safety
Busser, Bronx Defenders, says police presence compounds trauma and Intro 387 risks reinforcing policing. She asks for clear definitions, distinction between allegations and substantiated findings, and separation of resident, staff, and police-response incidents.
Thank you, Chair Hudson.
My name is Grace Busser.
I'm a civil legal advocate in the civil action practice at the Bronx Defenders, a community-oriented public defender that uses an interdisciplinary model
comprised of teams of attorneys, social workers, advocates, and others who all collaborate to provide holistic services to our clients.
The Bronx accounts for almost 40% of all individuals and families entering the New York City shelter system.
It also has the highest concentration of shelters compared to any other borough in the city.
In my role, I work very closely with the shelter system, advocating for clients to access resources in the hopes that they will transition to stable, healthy, and safe permanent housing.
I accompany clients to intake, visit them in shelter, work with shelter workers and case managers to help clients meet their goals and get the services that they need while living there.
So I know that people in shelter are at one of the most vulnerable points in their lives.
They're often entering shelter from traumatizing circumstances, whether living on the streets, recently evicted, released from incarceration, fleeing an unsafe situation.
Police presence in shelter can compound this trauma.
Residents may avoid reporting victimization if they fear it will bring police further into their lives.
We know that a criminal case can cost a client their shelter placement.
It can jeopardize housing applications.
It can affect immigration status and carry collateral consequences for families with children.
More police without stronger services and better living conditions is not the solution.
Those calling shelter their home deserve dignity, support, and safety in a meaningful way.
We are concerned that this bill, 387, as written, risks reinforcing a policing-centered approach to shelter safety by emphasizing incident counts and security measures without requiring equivalent transparency
around staff misconduct, residents'experiences, or the consequences of enforcement decisions.
We have three main concerns.
We need to, one, make the data clear and reliable.
Each category of critical incident should be clearly defined.
Transparency is crucial.
Additionally, the bill does not require DHS to distinguish between allegations and substantiated findings or provide the circumstances surrounding an incident.
Without these distinctions, the data may present an incomplete or misleading picture of shelter safety.
Two, we need to measure the impact on residents.
I've represented clients whose shelter placements were disrupted following incidents classified by DHS as domestic violence.
They've been separated from each other.
They've lost their shelter placement.
And while protecting survivors is essential, so is ensuring that DHS appropriately assesses these incidents, understands residents in their own words, and considers the consequences of their response.
Three, we need to make staff and security accountable.
Reports should separate incidents between residents from those involving staff or security.
As well as incidents that led to a police response from those that did not.
Sorry.
Can you provide a little bit more clarity around that?
Sure.
You're saying.
separate incidents that involved staff.
From incidents that involved, say, resident to resident.
Okay, thank you.
And then additionally, provide reports that separate incidents that resulted in a police response from those that did not.
And then third, separating allegations from substantiated circumstances.
Right.
Okay.
We know that without sufficient context, this insufficient reporting can lead to, it can distort comparisons across shelter and across the city, which can reinforce the perception that increased law enforcement involvement is necessary.
It's not.
And with some of those changes, would you be supportive of the legislation?
We would be happy to work with the committee in implementing these changes, and if implemented in a satisfactory way, we might be in support.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.