The environment of shelters without drugs is exactly why they’re so appealing for the type of person they’re successful for. Most of these shelters have shockingly high success rates and shockingly low occupancy.
Other than age limitations, I can’t think of any other real restrictions.
Are we just talking about allowing drug use in shelters here?
The actual restrictions of real world shelters - you must leave the place in the morning and can go back only in the evening. You can not lock your things, so you have to be constantly on guard. You cant come after certain hour, meaning making quite a lot of low paid jobs impossible to even get. Also, cramped unsanitary or otherwise unsafe conditions, frequently making a good place on street (tent or old building) actually better.
That is from top of head, when I last time looked into it.
It can be as simple as availability of workers. Or the space not being suitable for 24/7 occupation. Shelters are not exactly rich institutions. Likewise, the cramped and unsanitary conditions are frequently result of "well that is what we can afford" situation.
But also, a bit off topic, many real world rules do not have good reasons. Plenty of rules are arbitrary, just because someone had power to make them.
Individual rules can be a result of one freak occurrence but if many different shelters systematically converge on a similar set of rules then there must be a reason.
You can Google a lot of the answers to your questions in this thread.
Housing ongoing drug users costs more per person. Services do not have the budget. You also don’t want active users around other vulnerable clients.
Usually specialist “Wet houses” are set up, following a harm reduction approach. It is a messy business and as a result politically difficult. That is not rational- as far as we know from research, the additional stability and access to harm reduction programs are effective in moderating clients’ patterns of using. Wet houses also cost less than leaving addicts on the streets.
I specifically did not said "freak occurence". Overly punitive rules for low classes are not freak occurrence, they are normal.
Second, I gave you pretty strong reason - low funds. These institutions are super underfunded and very disliked by middle and upper classes. Being open during day means you have to have worker in place. Workers cost money. Being open means water and heating runs. Both cost money. Lockers for property cost money. They are not cheap. They need to maintained.
A political distaste for homeless people would be high on my list. You can see the number of people in the comments here wanting them treated close to criminals.
It’s because the homeless activists intentionally mix the two populations in the conversation. When people talk about homeless in Seattle they typically are taking about the criminals that form the illegal encampments. Activists will lump all the people who are sleeping on couches and in cars and pretend those are the same group.
Because, they are all homeless. The coach and car is something that any of the people can loose very easily. The difference is really just the "has sleeping bag or not" kind.
The difference you claim here is just really between the poorer and slightly less poor homeless.
Most shelters also have a in and out time. It's not your home, or a place to stay during the day. It's a place to sleep then your out again in the AM. Seems like a huge restriction.
Other than age limitations, I can’t think of any other real restrictions.
Are we just talking about allowing drug use in shelters here?