The emergency migrant shelter in Norfolk, Massachusetts, is scheduled to officially close on Thursday, nearly a year after the state converted a former prison into temporary housing. Though the shelter was initially opened in response to an overwhelming need for emergency accommodation, it has left behind deep tensions among residents, many of whom remain split on whether the shelter should have existed in the first place.
The facility, located at the former Bay State Correctional Center, became a symbol of a broader statewide challenge: how to address rising demands for shelter amid an influx of both migrant families and Massachusetts residents in need. According to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, families still residing at the shelter are being guided by case managers to find long-term housing. If they are unable to do so before the shelter shuts its doors, they will be relocated to another facility within the state’s emergency assistance system.
The closure comes as part of Governor Maura Healey’s broader plan to phase out the use of hotels and other temporary shelters. Last year, the number of families seeking emergency shelter reached nearly 7,500. Although the initial wave included many migrant families, state data now indicates that about 90% of current applicants are Massachusetts residents. As demand declines—with only 3,200 families currently in the shelter system—the administration decided to close 32 hotel shelters six months earlier than planned.
Yet the sudden decision to house 450 people in Norfolk, a quiet town of around 11,000 residents, sparked backlash and confusion. Jack Olivieri, who founded the group Concerned Citizens of Norfolk in response, voiced strong criticism of the state’s handling. “They never had a plan,” he said. “It was just ordered. They didn’t care about the local community.”
Why did the migrant shelter spark such strong reactions in Norfolk?
The surprise nature of the announcement and lack of community consultation fueled mistrust. Olivieri and others accused the state of misleading the public about how the shelter would operate. He said residents were repeatedly given inaccurate information, which deepened public frustration and fear. “People here still don’t trust anything they say,” Olivieri remarked.
Tensions peaked on the day the first families moved in, splitting the town into two factions: those who supported welcoming the newcomers and those who feared the social and financial burden. Concerns ranged from safety to overcrowded schools and strained town resources. While many of the concerns never materialized, the emotional scars remain.
Opposition figures like Olivieri say they were unfairly labeled racist or xenophobic for opposing the shelter. “They said we didn’t care about these people,” he recalled. “But we just wanted them to follow proper immigration procedures.” He emphasized that he believes people should enter the country through legal ports of entry.
On the other side, residents like Lucy Bullock-Sieger, co-founder of the group Norfolk Strong, highlighted the community’s compassionate response. Her group mobilized quickly to provide food, diapers, and other essentials to arriving families. “It was a flash point,” she admitted. “But in the end, I think our better selves showed through.”
Town officials acknowledge there were challenges but also believe the experience revealed Norfolk’s strengths. Norfolk Select Board member Anita Mecklenburg said, “We are a welcoming community for all people,” and emphasized that despite early panic, communication between the town, the state, and service agencies improved significantly over time.
Kevin Roche, who owns Norfolk Auto across from the shelter and also serves on the Select Board, was newly elected when the shelter opened. He encouraged calm. “I told people not to panic and wait to see what really happens,” he said. Though he admits there were costs, he said the impact on the town was limited. “It wasn’t much of a disruption.”
In local schools, the arrival of migrant children presented both heartwarming and difficult moments. Some teachers praised the eagerness of students to learn, while others noted it was hard to maintain consistency due to frequent transitions. “Kids came and left every few weeks. It was hard to plan,” said one teacher. Still, Bullock-Sieger recalled that some local students had formed bonds with the migrant children, making their departure emotional. “Saying goodbye was the hardest part. And to me, that’s a win.”
Despite the state’s intent to reduce shelter dependency, the overall system is still under significant pressure. According to Massachusetts Housing Secretary Edward Augustus, even with $276 million allocated through December, demand for shelter services continues to exceed supply. The state maintains its legal obligation under the 1980s-era right-to-shelter law to provide housing for families and pregnant women.
As the Norfolk shelter prepares to shut down, it leaves behind a year-long story of compassion, conflict, and community change. Whether the town will heal from the social fractures remains uncertain, but many agree that Norfolk’s experience has reflected a broader conversation happening across the U.S. about migration, resources, and the responsibilities of local and state governments.