Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Shelter Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haven of the Dan River asks Pittsylvania County for funding as shelter faces capacity, staffing and funding cuts
Summary
Shannon Hendricks of the Haven of the Dan River Region told the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors the shelter is small, served many local residents in the past six months and faces an $80,000 cut in COVID‑era funds; the group requested county consideration of funding and support for transitional and male housing.
Shannon Hendricks, representing the Haven of the Dan River Region, asked the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors on March 18 to consider local funding to support shelter services after the nonprofit said a recent grant would not be renewed.
Hendricks told the board the Haven serves Danville City and Pittsylvania County residents, and that roughly 30% of its recent clients came from Pittsylvania County and nearby towns including Chatham and Gretna. She described a small shelter with four bedrooms and a ten‑person occupancy limit and said the program has been operating at capacity and sometimes must place survivors in motels or rely on partner shelters for overflow.
Hendricks said the shelter answered 486 hotline calls in the past six months and sheltered 91 clients in that period, 78 of whom were domestic‑violence victims; 14 were children. She said the youngest client in the past six months was about three months old and the oldest 68. The shelter has placed eight people into housing over the previous two months through partnerships with landlords and agencies, and Hendricks described other services the Haven provides, including peer support groups, life‑skills counseling, court accompaniment, Medicaid assistance, referrals to licensed therapists and connections with local partners such as Play Your Way Therapy and God’s Storehouse.
Hendricks said the organization has limited space for male victims and asked the board to consider support for additional or expanded transitional housing, specifically for men and for longer‑term transitional arrangements at reduced rents. She listed several operating pressures: an expected $80,000 reduction in CARES/COVID funds, about $13,000 per year in facility insurance because the shelter is labeled high risk, and recurring costs such as lawn care and client needs. Hendricks said those projected cuts would be “detrimental” to the shelter’s ability to serve people.
Board members followed with questions. Supervisor Bowman confirmed the funding number and asked whether the shelter saw cases tied to the nearby casino; Hendricks said some cases involve casino employees and that she has reached out to casino human resources with brochures and offered brief staff presentations. Supervisor Delaney (identified during the meeting) asked whether Hendricks had met with the casino for support; Hendricks said the casino had previously given money under former leadership, and she has since met with them and will apply for grants.
Hendricks closed by repeating the shelter’s immediate needs: a larger facility or second shelter, transitional housing at lower rents for survivors, housing options for men, and replacement funding to offset the CARES cut. The board did not take an immediate funding vote during the work session; Hendricks requested the supervisors consider potential county assistance.
