Training Sessions

Tuesdays @ 2:00 pm.

Meet in the Lobby at First United

(Rain or Shine)

Everyone is welcome and

no experience is necessary.

For more information  contact Ray Lam @ 604 – 681 – 8365,  Ext. 120 or via email at rlam@firstunited.ca
 

5th Annual—Golf for the Homeless Community Tournament

May 28th, 2012

University Golf Club

More information regarding the tournament and  purchasing tickets will be posted on our website in the near future.
www.firstunited.ca

 ************************

Last fall, several advocates in Vancouver, including four of us at First United, saw a rash of tenants who were suddenly facing rent increases in the order of almost 150%. Individuals who had been paying, say, $365/month for years and years were now suddenly being told that, as of January 1, 2012, their rent would be $845/month. None of them had incomes over approximately $1100/month, and most were living on $940/month or less. Needless to say, they were in a state of panic, as they were facing imminent homelessness.

What had happened?

The common denominator is that they had the same housing provider, an affordable housing society which like all affordable housing providers required that the tenants prove their eligibility for lower rent by providing financial information. In this case, various situations and problems arose which caused the housing society to declare these tenants as ineligible for subsidy.

“But isn’t an increase like this illegal under tenancy legislation?” you might ask. Yes and no. The Residential Tenancy Act does generally limit the amount of annual rent increases to a very modest rate (4.3% for 2012); landlords are required to get legal authorization from the Residential Tenancy Branch to increase rents beyond that rate.

However, there is a section of the legislation which exempts certain housing providers from the rent increase limit. The housing provider that was issuing the 150% rent increases alleged they fit under that section of the legislation. Essentially that section states:

Rental units operated by the following are exempt from [the section regarding rent increases] if the rent of the units is related to the tenant’s income:

 (g) any housing society or non-profit municipal housing corporation that has an agreement regarding the operation of residential property with the following:
(i)  the government of British Columbia;
(ii)  the British Columbia Housing Management Commission;
(iii)  the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

We did not agree that the tenants we saw lived in rental units that were exempt. Although the housing provider did have a couple of agreements with the British Columbia Housing Management Commission for a couple of buildings they owned (they own quite a number of buildings), there was no agreement for the buildings and hence rental units our clients lived in. In fact, the housing provider’s documents specifically stated there was “no government funding” for those buildings.

We appealed these increases to the Residential Tenancy Branch, arguing at dispute resolution hearings that the housing provider was not exempt under the legislation. The housing provider, at the hearings, offered no physical evidence of agreements pertinent to our client’s rental units which would thereby prove their exempt status, yet the Residential Tenancy Branch found in favour of the housing provider in all cases. We are currently working with a group of poverty law lawyers to take these decisions to judicial review.

It is, however, sad and disturbing to realize how quickly the stability of a low-income person can slip away, especially in cases where (as in the case of the tenants we saw) the individuals are ill and/or elderly. One of the tenants we saw has cancer, another a brain injury, another probable mental health issues, another a host of medical conditions that often plague older people.

We are aware that the people we saw were only a portion of the tenants who were issued such massive rent increases; what happened to the others who never tried to fight their case? We don’t know. Hopefully they did not join the invisible poor, who have been so touchingly documented by the Invisible TV Project. For a glimpse of how easy it is to fall into abject poverty, watch this poignant clip of 61-year-old Richard:

http://invisiblepeople.tv/blog/2011/10/richard-homeless-healthcare-saskatoon-canada/

Susan Henry

Over the decades First United has always been here for those people and responded to their needs by providing hospitality, advocacy, shelter, storage, clothing, pastoral care, referrals, an income tax clinic, phone and mail service, showers and personal hygiene products, foot care, emergency aid, meals, and a place for the community to gather and be together with dignity and self-respect. As the crisis of homelessness deepened over the last 15 years, First United found itself providing shelter for an increasing group of people. It started during the 1990’s in the pews during weekday hours, and by 2009, through a request from the Mayor of Vancouver and funding from the provincial government, the provision of shelter has been offered on a 24/7 basis.

As a Church, we have seen ourselves as a place of refuge. Our contract with BC Housing provides for First United to act in the capacity of a temporary low-barrier shelter alongside other such shelters that were opened under the city’s Homeless Emergency Action Team (HEAT) in December 2008. What was originally seen to be an emergency action has now stretched into its fourth year. While street homelessness has decreased as a result of the HEAT initiative and the creation of more low-barrier housing, the number of homeless people in Vancouver has continued to increase. BC Housing and the City of Vancouver are making concerted efforts to complete the 14 supportive housing projects that were announced back in 2007 with the hope that these will make a significant improvement in the homelessness problem. In the meantime First United continues to play an important role in filling the gap as Vancouver’s largest shelter, with beds for 200 people.

Our current shelter contract with BC Housing runs until March 31, 2012. Over the last 6 months, through the combined efforts of First United staff and staff assigned to the Church from BC Housing and the Carnegie Outreach Program, over 150 people sleeping at the Church have been housed. Nevertheless, the number of homeless people sleeping at the Church has not declined appreciably. There is a large core group of people who have been staying at the Church for months and years in many cases who have multiple barriers to housing, employment and fuller inclusion in more mainstream society. Over the next three months we will all be making a concerted effort to identify the needs of this group and to find appropriate homes for as many as possible.

While this effort proceeds, all the other facets of First United’s ministry carry on unabated. We continue to provide much needed storage of personal belongings. Our poverty law advocacy program continues to intake over two hundred cases a month. Our community workers engage with hundreds of community members a month, creating care plans, making referrals, and building meaningful relationships. Soon income tax season will be upon us, and our free tax clinic which outputs more returns than any other service of its kind in British Columbia will be operating flat out. Groups focused around women’s concerns, grief and loss, addiction recovery, healing and wholeness and others will continue to provide points of meeting and meaning for many in our community who are struggling with profound issues of trauma and pain. Healthcare and dentistry services are provided, and on it goes…

Meanwhile, the future of the overnight sleeping program past April 1 is not clear. We would dearly love to be able to shut down the beds because all of the folks staying in them have found appropriate housing. As long as there is a need for shelter beds in our community, First United stands ready to do its part in meeting that need with the support and backing of the governing bodies of the United Church. Those bodies have made it clear that in doing such work, First United will comply with its contractual agreement with BC Housing, with fire and safety codes set down by the municipal government, and with the policies of the United Church of Canada. We are confident that we can work within those parameters and still meet the needs of the community on the ground.

Thankfully, we are not alone in this work. First United has always been the compassionate and justice-seeking ministry of the United Church of Canada in the inner-city of Vancouver. It is essential for the success of our work that supporters both within and outside of the Church have a sense of ownership and participation in it. We feel an urgent need to foster that sense of connectedness with the work. First United is deeply dependent in carrying out its purpose and vision in the Downtown Eastside on the broad base of community support that has grown up over the years around our ministry. Where relationships have been damaged or broken through recent controversy, we will work toward mending them. Where support has been eroded through uncertainty around our commitment to continue the work, we give a clear message that the work of creating a community of belonging and caring will continue unabated, and, we hope, with all parties— government, community and church— pulling together.

Vancouver-Burrard Presbytery and the ministry staff at First United Church Mission have come to recognize that we hold very different understandings of how “Gospel Community” is best lived out. With changes in funding available to First United Church Mission for the work of sheltering people who are in need – something that First United Church Mission understands is a vital component to its ministry of refuge and building inclusive community; and with Vancouver-Burrard Presbytery’s desire for the safety and security of all people who live and work at First United Church Mission by ensuring compliance with civic authorities, many changes are taking place.

Recognizing that the direction of the ministry as intended by the Presbytery is quite different than what they have envisioned, and hoping for new possibilities of building an inclusive intentional community with those who are the most marginalized in our society, the Rev. Ric Matthews, Executive Minister; the Rev. Sandra Severs, Deputy Executive Minister; and Gillian Rhodes, Director of Operations; initiated conversation about a separating of the ways. Vancouver-Burrard Presbytery on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2011 agreed to this as a constructive way forward that would best serve the interests and visions of all concerned. Both parties recognize the validity and worth of the emphases of the other and look forward to nurturing supportive and healthy relationships. It is the Presbytery’s hope and prayer that Ric, Sandra and Gillian will be able to find ways of living out the reality they believe needs to come into being in the world.

The ministry of First United Church Mission will also continue, in the midst of these changes. With the support of BC Housing, the provision of shelter will continue through to March 31, 2012. The work of advocacy and the work of serving the Downtown Eastside community will continue.

Vancouver-Burrard Presbytery will be working with the Board, the staff, the community at First United Church Mission, and the community in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver as the ministry of First United Church Mission transitions into its next stage of life.

 - 30 -

Media Contact:         Dal McCrindle – Chairperson, Vancouver-Burrard Presbytery
Cheryl Prior – Executive Assistant, First United –   Phone: 604.681.8365 –  Ext 118

Just what are the implications of the Record Suspension provisions of the Omnibus Crime Bill that has now passed the House of Commons and gone to the Senate for “sober second thought”? Well, here is one of them.

You are a convention refugee from a war-torn country who comes to Canada as a youth. When you arrive, you are totally alone with no support, no one to help you understand your new home, and how the system works. As a result, as is to be expected, you miss the 180 day window within which you can relatively easily apply for and obtain permanent residence status. Now, if you want to become a resident you will have to apply on what is known as humanitarian and compassionate grounds. A so-called H and C application process is much more complicated and lengthy.

Your grasp of English is shaky. You can speak not badly but have no literacy skills. You don’t know anything about applying for a work permit, so the only employment you can get is under the table for very low pay with unreliable employers. You resort to welfare but that is hardly adequate to put a reasonable roof over your head. You quickly gravitate to the place in town where it’s easiest to survive in squalid rooms in slumlord hotels that charge not too much more than the welfare rates, and where there is plenty of free food, and drugs to kill the pain of your dislocation and misery.

It’s not long before you are dealing a little on the side, to cover the costs of your new addiction and put some change in your pocket for longer than three days after welfare day. And of course you are easy pickings for the undercover cops who deftly infiltrate the open drug scene of the Downtown Eastside. Before you have been in the country more than eighteen months you have a couple of charges: assault, and trafficking. Only the second one sticks. You do your time and a year’s probation during which you have a couple more brushes with the law but nothing that ends up in conviction. You are lucky.

You start to hang out at the Church and you meet some people who give you a sense that you may possibly find your way in this new country to a much happier place. It wasn’t like this for you in your homeland before it was beset with internal turmoil and warfare. Your family was warm, supportive and loving, and they were able to provide a sound foundation for you, some of which is still intact.

An advocate at the Church tells you about applying for a work permit, and you begin helping there on a volunteer basis. You start to work out at the gym and look after your body. It isn’t that hard to detox and though you have a couple of relapses, you generally manage to stay clear of the drugs and the law. A new relationship helps give you something to live for, and when your work permit comes the Church hires you on part-time and you start to take some English classes.

Your path to recovery isn’t always straight and easy. You find school tough and the relationship doesn’t last. Most of your friends are still into drugs and so the loneliness gets to you. But you persist. You dare to think that you might even have a future in this country. You get into sports and have some really good success. You start to dream.

But what kind of future will you have as a perennial refugee? You begin to talk to the Church people about becoming a citizen. But they explain that you first need to become a permanent resident. And to do that, the first thing you need to do, even to have a hope of succeeding on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, is to get a pardon. It doesn’t sound like too big a deal, to get pardoned, since you hardly feel that you were ever much of a criminal.

Unfortunately, even though your conviction seems to be for such a minor offence, dealing a little piece of rock to the wrong customer, it bears that terrible word “indictable.” And that means you have to wait not just three years after the sentence, as with summary convictions, but five whole years. And not just five years after your jail term; five years after the expiry of your entire sentence including the year of probation.

So by the time you find out about this whole pardon thing, you still have four years to go. Four long hard years of keeping yourself on track, keeping your work permit current, trying to stay off welfare, because they say your H and C application will go a whole lot smoother if you show you are being a “productive” member of society. So you stick with it and it isn’t easy. You’re impatient. Time passes slowly. You keep asking your advocate to check and make sure that it is really five and not three years. And if it is five, maybe you can apply after four since it will take about a year to get the pardon application decided on. But no, you can’t even submit it until you are five year’s clear.

It sure does one thing for you though. It makes you very certain that the last thing in the world you are going to do is pick up another conviction while you are waiting. So you try to put it in the back of your mind and get on with your life as best you can. You get involved with someone else, and this time it turns out more serious, and before too long you are expecting a child. You start working a couple of jobs, and find a decent place to live outside of the ‘hood.

Time does, of course eventually pass, and the magic moment comes when you can finally apply for your pardon, after an interminable wait for your criminal record to be sent from Ottawa. By the time you get the application in, it is five years and seven months since the end of your probation. And then you start the wait for the Parole Board of Canada to grind your application through its bureaucracy. Another eleven months pass and it finally comes. It actually comes! Yes, you are pardoned. You can start your new life officially—almost. Once of course you have convinced Citizenship and Immigration Canada to grant you permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

You can’t believe how long and complicated the process is just putting together the application, even with professional help. Letters of reference, a medical exam, remembering everywhere you ever lived in Canada, showing proof of how well you have integrated into society and on and on. You keep worrying if you have enough. Have you proved yourself worthy? At the very least you have your important Pardon certificate which takes pride of place in your batch of documents. And then another wait. This time almost two years by the time the letter comes. Eight and a half years after you have completed your sentence, you are finally a permanent resident of Canada and on your way to becoming a citizen, with a passport, and the right to travel as freely as anyone to the place where some remnants of your family might still be found.

It isn’t very long after that letter comes in the mail that you start hearing in the news that the government wants to make your community and streets safer by forcing people like you to wait not five but ten years to apply for a pardon. You actually begin to feel lucky. You remember how hard it had been to keep up your hopes when you realized you had four long years ahead of you just to apply. It was like another sentence itself. A kind of social jail that kept you separate and apart from normal Canadian people.

You wonder if you could have kept going had you been faced with a ten year wait. How much more tempting it would have been just to go back to the street and to the drugs; to give up on having any kind of a life that your family would be proud of you for; to give in to a system that seems to believe way more in punishment than compassion. You are very grateful that you have met people along the way that have cared. But you really wonder if even caring people will really matter anymore against a system that just seems to want to keep people like you down, forever.

Stephen Gray

We continue to:

•  Offer sleeping accommodation to 200 people nightly and others during the day
   
• Serve 800 – 1,000 meals per day
   
• Be a place where community can gather and be together with dignity and self-respect
   
• Supply daily necessities such as toiletries, personal hygiene products and showers
   
• Provide storage for shopping carts and belongings for over 200 homeless people per day
   
• Offer services ranging from foot care to emergency aid to pastoral care
   
• Be the mailing address for over 600 people to connect with family, job contacts and government services
    
• Engage with hundreds of community members monthly, creating care plans, providing counselling and making referrals
   
• Prepare over 3,000 tax returns per year for low income earners – more than any other similar service in BC
   
• Intake over 200 legal cases monthly in our poverty law advocacy program
   
• Work with the Carnegie Outreach Program, the City ofVancouverand BC Housing to get permanent housing for people who find shelter in the church
   
• AsVancouver’s largest shelter, offers a home to people with multiple barriers to permanent housing, employment and fuller inclusion in more mainstream society
   
• Welcome thrift shop donations for spring and summer

Hours for drop off are:

Monday to Saturday, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (these hours are determined by parking limitations on Hastings Street). Please call ahead to arrange for a drop-off at an appointed time.

All donations will be gratefully received through the front door of the store on Hastings. There is a drop off zone marked on Hastings and a sign on the sidewalk.

Thank you for your kindness!

The letter focuses largely on the legacy of residential schools, mass adoptions, and the already disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in prison. It calls for the retention of conditional sentencing which allows for consideration of the individual offender’s background and life circumstances. Minimum sentences will simply put more and more Aboriginal people in jail for longer periods of time with greater risk of recidivism.

Now the Omnibus Crime Bill, as it is known, is a complex piece of legislation which I will attempt to provide further commentary on in future entries. My purpose here is to link this issue and the concerns raised by the United Church to an event that occurred at First United the day after this letter was sent.

On November 24, renowned physician, activist and writer, Dr Gabor Maté spoke to a packed meeting of First United staff, representatives from other Downtown Eastside organizations and members of the wider community. His topic was “Taming the Hungry Ghost: Combining Compassion and Science in Healing Addiction.” Dr Maté repeated his mantra that the question we need to ask is not Why the addiction? but Why the pain? He talked about the high correlation between adverse childhood experience, including sexual abuse, and incomplete brain development leading to addiction later in life. He led us through some exercises with a couple of individuals in the audience to demonstrate how important it is for care givers to be emotionally present and attuned to the people they are engaged with, including an awareness of the individual’s past trauma and present pain. He talked about how the adult human brain, with the help of this kind of compassionate intervention, has an amazing capacity to continue to develop new circuitry and essentially heal itself from the ravages of early adverse experience and incomplete development in a way that alleviates some of the pressure to use substances to feel emotionally whole and human.

So what is the relationship of all of this to the Omnibus Crime Bill and the United Church of Canada’s specific focus on its potential impact on aboriginal people? Dr Maté did not speak, on November 24, about his recent therapeutic work with the Peruvian psychotropic plant-based tea, Ayahuasca, partly because on November 7th Health Canada ordered him to stop his involvement with this substance or face criminal prosecution. The November 10th edition of the Nature of Things hosted by Dr David Suzuki, aired “The Jungle Prescription,” a documentary by Mark Ellam of Dr Maté’s foray into the Amazonian jungle to learn about the ritual use of Ayahuasca first hand, in order to bring this treatment back to Canada. (The program is available on the Nature of Things website.) On his return to Canada, Maté began the ritual and supervised use of Ayahuasca tea in therapy groups to the significant benefit of individual participants. Ayahuasca, which means “vine of the souls”, apparently unlocks emotional memory, often painful memory, and enables the conscious part of the brain to override deeply-rooted patterns of behavior. The ritual and supervised use of the tea revives in the memory situations of trauma and pain but with the capacity to change the way the brain has integrated these experiences. There is immense potential for people addicted to drugs to begin to heal from the underlying causes and experiences in which their addictive behavior is rooted.

However, some of the compounds found in the tea, if isolated, are considered illegal under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). At the time Dr Maté was speaking at First United, he had just received, thanks to Health Canada, a much needed but not welcome holiday from his hectic schedule as he had to cancel a therapy session with a First Nations group in which Ayahuasca was to be used.

A most moving section of “The Jungle Prescription” comes at the very end where an aboriginal woman, Cynthia, speaks of her experience with the Ayahuasca ritual. She had had numerous male abusers as a child. The memory that came up for her was a very clear picture of herself running down the street after her mother, who was leaving her alone to go off to the bar, and begging her not to leave. She was four. To the group she says that she had a hard time understanding how someone who loves you so much can take so much innocence from you. Cynthia tells Maté in the aftermath of the Ayahuasca experience that the pain in her chest is gone. “What is there instead?” he asks. She replies, “Relief.”

The War on Drugs mentality which characterizes federal government approach to harm reduction practices such as those at Insite, and which is embedded in aspects of Bill C-10, is also at work in Health Canada’s intervention in Dr Maté’s efforts to provide his patients with the healing benefits of Ayahuasca. In the latter case, this mentality is present in two respects: first, the refusal to allow technically illegal substances to be used as part of a healing regime; and secondly, in the implicit message, when taken together with the Omnibus Crime Bill, that punishment is more effective than compassion in the creation of safe streets and communities.

Stephen Gray

Issue number one is about the fact that Minister Coleman and Mayor Robertson have been quoted as saying that around 30% of those at First United have housing that is being paid for elsewhere. There are a number of things that need to be said in response to this:
1. The number has been inflated. I would like to see the evidence for those numbers. Surveys done by staff from the City and Province over past weeks have reflected around 17%, not 30%. And I am not sure why this number is so significantly different?
2. BC Housing is NOT paying twice for people. Despite the spin that is put on the funding contracts, BC Housing is not paying twice for anyone at First United. Minister Coleman has consistently announced that Heat Shelters cost around $100 per person per night. At that rate, BC Housing has until March of this year, paid less than a quarter of the cost for the 240 people at First United. And at those rates, BC Housing has since March this year, funded less than half the cost for 240 people. Of the 240 people, the statistics indicate that around 40 people have other housing that is also being paid for. Those 40 people are easily accounted for amongst the 130 people who are currently funded not by BC Housing but by our own donors.
3. There are genuine reasons for why people don’t use the housing allocated to them. It is convenient to point fingers at First United. It is easy to demand we simply send folk who have housing paid for elsewhere back onto the streets. It is also very naive. People who are not staying in the housing provided for them, have real reasons for doing that. Some housing units are too cockroach and lice infested; some are surrounded by neighbouring tenants deep into their addiction and/or mental illness such that people find First United a safer and less tempting place to be; some are just too lonely and frightening for people who are ravaged by anxiety or other demons and are terrified of being alone; some housing units are enmeshed in scams where third parties make money out of complex sub-letting. We all agree that the state should not pay twice for housing for somebody. But the real challenge lies in addressing the reason for why the housing is not ‘working’, not in ensuring they don’t have anywhere else to be. Refusing people entry does not result in them being back in the inappropriate housing that has been paid for. It puts them onto the streets.
4. Including people inside First United ensures we can address the real issues. Excluding people, ensures there is no relationship in which we can explore and address the reasons for why people are not staying in the housing that has been provided. Without the contact and in the absence of the housing providers addressing the issue, these folk are simply pushed into the streets and shadows.
5. The Housing Providers need to address why folk are not staying in their units, not put the blame on First United. The most significant aspect of all this is that the real responsibility for dealing with this issue lies with the Housing Provider, not First United. The housing provider should surely know if people are not using the housing allocated to them. And the housing provider should address the reasons for that, not simply demand that others should not accommodate them.
6. First United does not lure people out of their housing. It is ridiculous to suggest people are being lured out of their adequate and appropriate housing by the attractiveness of staying First United. One does not have to sleep at First United to enjoy the food, the welcoming hospitality, the sense of belonging, or the acceptance of all regardless of social circumstance. You cannot describe First United as scary, dangerous, unsafe and “loosely managed” and then also say it entices people away from their housing.

Issue number two relates to the increasingly common claim that First United should exclude those who simply want to be there, but don’t really need to be there. This is a bogus distinction, based on a superficial understanding of the deep need people have for belonging (and the terror many have of being alone). If housing does not provide a genuine home, people need to find other places where they feel at home. This need is not an easily dismissed “nice to have”. It is a very deep authentic human need. Leaders from the Province, City and Police have disparagingly said people are going to First United because of the sense of community they find there – or more crudely, because it’s a “party place”. We will never break the endless cycle of chronic homelessness, if we glibly dismiss the reason as a ‘want’ rather than a ‘need’. The need is about a desperate longing of chronically homeless people for:
• Feeling accepted and validated rather than merely tolerated,
• Knowing they truly belong to and are part of a wider circle,
• Restoring what is broken in their sense of connection with self, family, friends and society.

We can build as many new housing units as we like but the people we put in them need to feel at home with sufficient and appropriate support 24 hours a day. Without that, they will continue to cycle through the system. The folk who are chronically homeless are typically the most traumatised, troubled and vulnerable people in our society. The fact that First United is “too welcoming and accepting” is not the problem. The problem is that too often these basic needs are not being met in the housing that has been provided.

The Province, City and Police have responded to the above concerns by calling for increased screening at First United. The screening is intended to help exclude those who have housing elsewhere and those who ‘want’ rather than ‘need’ to be at First United. This flies in the face of all the points made above. It assumes that housing is the solution to chronic or street homelessness. Housing is indeed a prerequisite for “solving” homelessness. But it is not sufficient. Homelessness is ultimately not about having a house but about having a home. If we do not get the difference, we will not end homelessness.

These two above-mentioned issues are windows into a very basic error being made by many who are presently the most critical of us. First United Church is not and never has been a Shelter. We were previously and still remain a place of refuge. When we were asked to open our doors 24/7 some three years ago, we agreed to extend what we were then doing Monday to Friday 8 hours a day. At that point we were offering folk a place to be where it was safer, warmer, drier and more caring than the streets. We agreed to extend the hours so as to provide a 24/7 refuge from the streets for those who had nowhere else to go. It seems that staff from the City and BC Housing are dismissive of the term “refuge”. But whether we like it or not, the fact is that we need a point along the housing continuum between the street and the formal Shelters. And we need a place where people who are excluded from Formal Shelters can be welcomed, cared for and engaged with. That is who and what we were before we opened our doors 24/7. That is who and what we still are.

I said at the outset that the real problem lies with the City and Province. We all want to break the cycle of chronic homelessness, stop failing deeply vulnerable people, and stop wasting inordinate sums of taxpayer money. The only way to do that is to commit seriously to an integrated and comprehensive approach to these issues. Simply doing more of the same with greater determination and within the same old government department silos, will not produce the change we need. We need the political will to move beyond traditional regulations and best practices. We need a sincere commitment to find new and effective strategies via collective wisdom. We can only do this by sitting together around one table, doing the shared analysis together, working together to develop creative out- of- the- box strategies, collectively allocating resources and together implementing daring new initiatives. Only the political leaders at Provincial and City level have the authority and resources to finally get all the parties into one room. Only they can ensure the parties are committed and empowered to deliver what has been agreed. We have had enough talking, and enough posturing. We have had enough of doing more of the same over and over again. It’s not about numbers and statistics and regulations. Ultimately it’s about people: real people in very real pain. We need something different. We need it from the Leaders in the City and Province. And we need it now.

The City of Vancouver has ordered the Church to comply with a maximum occupant load of 240 people. This is despite the fact that the number of people seeking shelter at First United has consistently exceeded that number and that there are no places to go to for those that are turned away.

As from 4pm yesterday (November 30) the Church will be ensuring strict compliance with a maximum occupant load of 240.

In the past 4 winters, the Church with the full awareness of the authorities did not turn anyone away. In recent months extensive efforts were made by the Church in consultation with the City, Police and Province, to reduce the number within the building while avoiding putting folk back on the streets.

Before the Olympics we were urged to bring people in from the streets and we were able to accommodate as many as 300 people with the full awareness of the authorities. Now we are being told to put people out onto the streets when we all know there is nowhere for them to go.

Until yesterday, the Church only exceeded the occupant load after it had carefully ensured there were no other shelter beds available. Now, while the Church remains deeply concerned that this will immediately force people back onto the streets, it will comply fully with this order.

The real issue is not about occupant load, it’s about what the City and Province are going to do tonight to care for those who have nowhere to go.

Until we have a better alternative, we need to carefully assess the impact that rigid adherence to regulations has on the real lives of real people. The City’s order is essentially saying people will be safer on the streets. But when we lock people out so as to limit risk and to provide greater safety for the majority, we are putting the most troubled and vulnerable people back onto the streets in order to protect OUR liability. At the moment all the energy is going into getting people out of our building, rather than addressing the factors that bring them to our doors. In the end, the people who pay the price for our fear of liability and our inability to provide other options, are the people who are most helpless. Triage always costs real people real lives.

The people we turn away are people we know and care about. They are family. I would like those who impose these regulations to stand next to our staff at 2am and look in the eyes of a family member and say “sorry I know you have nowhere else to go, and you may even die out there tonight, and I know you see a half empty gym behind me, but we have reached our occupant load and you can’t come in”

Our collective risk of liability has been addressed – The deep need of immensely vulnerable people has not. That is the issue that we all have to acknowledge and deal with.

Thank you for supporting this sell-out event held on November 18^th

FEATURING: Dee Daniels • Marcus Mosely •  Fred Stride Orchestra • theSacred Music Gospel Choir  • Sojourners •  Tap Dancer: Alex Dugdale

This was the third year that this full concert performance of the Sacred Music of Duke Ellington was performed in Western Canada.  Duke Ellington considered the Sacred Concert to be amongst his most significant accomplishments. Rick Cluff, Emcee for the third time remarked that the performance of this concert has grown in stature each year and this was the best ever.  The audience of over a thousand was treated to a rousing and inspiring “Duke Ellington” experience. Dee Daniels and Marcus Mosely with the Fred Stride Orchestra The Sacred Music Gospel Choir, Sojourners and Alex Dugdale blended their talents into a soulful performance that filled the beautiful space at St Andrews Wesley United Church.

Proceeds will benefit the work of First United Church which has supported those most in need in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside for 126 years providing shelter and services for more than 600 people daily.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Making Music. Making a Difference.

Co-presented by First United Church and Coastal Jazz Society.

Event Sponsors

Co-sponsor:

Corporate Sponsors:

Media Sponsors:

Georgia Straight contest answer:  Billy Strayhorn

Visitors to Vancouver frequently take a drive into the surrounding countryside. They are typically bemused by the signs directing them to Hope (50km to hope, Turn right to Hope, etc).

The theme of hope is of course a very current one! Barak Obama reached the Whitehouse because of a movement south of our border propelled by hope. The Gospel reminds us of the Hope revealed in the stable and the Hope offered in the empty tomb. Finding hope for the challenges of the Downtown Eastside daily occupies the attention of our local newspapers. We are all pretty keen on hope – and at the same time probably have some very different ideas as to what ‘hope’ actually looks like and feels like.

For some people, drowning in their personal circumstances, frustrated by lack of resources and overwhelmed by a deep sense of powerlessness, hope is an empty and foreign concept. For them it is at best a distant aspiration, a beguiling promise never to be realised. Hope seems to be an experience and companion for those at the centre of society, denied to those who are defined as being on the margins. It becomes a bankrupt promise, a cynical tormentor that contemptuously reminds you that you are an ‘outsider’.

———————————————————————————————————

Hope: A Destination?
Mark spends 5 days a week at First United. But in his binge periods of total submission to crack cocaine, Mark knows the desolation of being haunted by the ghostly presence of a hope that has ethereal presence but is bereft of any substance. Simon who so often sits beside Mark, has his own need for hope. He is confounded by the inner voices that drive him in multiple directions. He desperately tries to discern the voice of the Spirit in the midst of his confusion. And despite the clamour in his head, Simon senses only a deafening silence and a devastating emptiness when he reaches despairingly for hope. Simon and Mark have frequently said quite simply, “There is no hope”

Confronted by their despair, some caring people hurry forward to point Mark and Simon to the signs along the road that suggest otherwise. They urge people like Mark and Simon to see the perhaps faint but yet unmistakable signs of light that suggest alternative options at the end of the tunnel. Sadly, despite these well-intentioned efforts, Mark and Simon still see only a destination: a place to which they may one day get. They hear “keep going and you will get there”. They see signs that say “go this way”, “slow down”, “speed up”, “only a little way further”. But Hope remains a promised tomorrow: always ‘then’ and never ‘now’. It is a destination that beckons and taunts.

———————————————————————————————————

Hope: A Starting Point?
The good news for Michael (another very active member of the community at First United) is that he has actually touched and embraced hope. He struggled for many years with a deep sense of inadequacy and has carried crippling guilt for being an “abject failure” (his words). Today Michael has new perspectives on his past life, a conviction that he can be more fully alive and can give himself the right to be free to be who he is. And yet Michael struggles daily with the reality and power of what he calls “the dark side”’ or “evil”. He tells how every day (and every moment) is an ongoing battle with the internal and external things that pull him in such different directions. Hope became for Michael not only a destination at which he arrived, but a place from which he moved forward. The hope for a new way of life became a springboard, a starting point for new effort and energy. But that was also all that it was, a beginning point and nothing more. In that sense hope becomes a launch pad into what can still be a scary, uncertain and threatening future: “hope” is the impetus that rapidly recedes into the past as you struggle with the present.

———————————————————————————————————

Hope: A Journey!
First United Church has increasingly become a community in which we have all discovered that in its truest form, hope is essentially a journey: a process of self discovery. It is an interactive, moment by moment shared experience of life. The Christian Faith tells us that Hope (whether expressed in the Incarnated Baby in the stable or the Crucified and Resurrected Christ) stands at the centre of the intersection between being Christ for others and meeting Christ in others. Hope lives and breathes and has its being in the Body of which we are all a part. Hope is far more accurately understood as an unfolding relationship lived in every sequential moment than it is as either a destination or starting point. Hope is a companion that gives life. Hope becomes real, engages fully in the present moment and fills the void when we are hope for one another.

Rebecca discovered that truth when she could no longer ignore the relentless love of her parents and home community. Despite the overwhelming power of the attractions (and escape) of the downtown eastside – a lure that over many years had torn her again and again from the reach of her parents and friends – Rebecca finally found a new beginning and gave birth to a daughter (who she named Journey), surrounded by the family and friends who had always loved her and been her hope moment by moment. She lives today within that community, being hope for others as they have been (and continue to be) hope for her.

Simon, Mark, Michael, Rebecca and many others at First United Church day by day live the truth that we are a community of hope. We are a community because of hope. We are hope because we are a community.

Scott Bernstein analyzed the Insite decision. The germ of the decision is that the federal Minister of Health’s use of ministerial discretion to refuse an extension to the Insite exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) was seen to be arbitrary and grossly disproportionate considering the public good, and thus not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. This Court decision based on Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms strikes a balance between public safety and public health and has good implications for future applications for supervised injection sites. Where there is compelling evidence of the public health benefit then the minister should grant an exemption. (More on this below).

Damon Barrett looked at the significance of Insite and the Supreme Court decision from the high level of international policy. He spoke about the influence at that level of the International Narcotics Control Board. Since I did not know anything about that body before going to this talk, I looked up the INCB and this is a little bit of what I found:

Mandate and Functions

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is the independent and quasi-judicial monitoring body for the implementation of the United Nations international drug control conventions. It was established in 1968 in accordance with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.  It had predecessors under the former drug control treaties as far back as the time of the League of Nations.

Functions

The functions of INCB are laid down in the following treaties:  the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961; the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971; and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988

Broadly speaking, INCB deals with the following:

1. As regards the licit manufacture of, trade in and use of drugs, INCB endeavours, in cooperation with Governments, to ensure that adequate supplies of drugs are available for medical and scientific uses and that the diversion of drugs from licit sources to illicit channels does not occur. INCB also monitors Governments’ control over chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of drugs and assists them in preventing the diversion of those chemicals into the illicit traffic;
2. As regards the illicit manufacture of, trafficking in and use of drugs, INCB identifies weaknesses in national and international control systems and contributes to correcting such situations. INCB is also responsible for assessing chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of drugs, in order to determine whether they should be placed under international control.

The INCB which seems to have great influence over UN and international drug policy is opposed to supervised injection sites on the grounds that they violate the international drug conventions named above. Damon Barrett predicts that in March 2012 the United Nations will condemn the Insite decision in line with the thinking of the INCB.

Damon articulated two fundamental principles with respect to harm reduction that should be defended at the national and community levels: the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to benefit from scientific progress. He noted that under the Obama administration the United States has shifted its stance to one much more supportive of harm reduction measures, though Obama himself steers away from using the term. He noted that Russia was now the leading international opponent of harm reduction strategies. And he noted that Russia wields very broad influence in this regard on the world scene.

In general the message from this day’s talk was that change must come from the bottom up. It is not likely to emerge at the international level, or the national level in the case of Canada. The current federal government prefers to base public policy around drugs on popular opinion rather than on solid evidence. The move to increase mandatory minimum sentences is an example of this. Insite is a small but significant judicial window that says evidence counts.

In reading the Supreme Court decision on Insite with a layperson’s eyes, and listening to these two speakers, I have come up with the following understanding. The application to the Supreme Court by Portland Hotel Society, two individual users of Insite and VANDU (Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users) was based on three alternatives: that the provincial government’s jurisdiction over health care (including Insite) is protected by the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity from the implementation of the possession section 4(1) of the federal CDSA; or, that the provisions of the CDSA with respect to possession of drugs at Insite was a violation of section 7 rights of the Charter which concerns the right to life, liberty and the security of the person; or finally, that the Minister’s decision to deny the extension of the Insite exemption to Section 4(1) of the CDSA regarding possession of drugs violated the claimants’ section 7 rights. (VANDU also unsuccessfully sought a declaration that the offence of possession anywhere violates section 7 of the charter.)

The claimants lost on the first two grounds, but had their claim upheld on the third ground. With respect to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, the Court based its decision on an interpretation of the Canadian constitution which I do not pretend to understand fully. But simply put, the Court found that the doctrine was neither necessary nor helpful in resolving the dispute over Insite between the provincial and federal governments. With respect to the second ground, the Court found that while the prohibition on possession of the CDSA did limit the section 7 interests of the claimants, it did so in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. This is so, reasoned the Court, since the Act contains, in addition to Section 4(1) on the prohibition on possession of illegal drugs, the provision in Section 56 that empowers the Minister to grant exemptions to health service providers like Insite.

The Court then turned its attention to the third ground—the denial of the exemption as a Charter violation. The Supreme Court ruled that the effect of the Minister’s decision to deny a further exemption would have been “to prevent injection drug users from accessing health services offered by Insite, threatening the health and indeed the lives of the potential clients.” Further, the Court ruled that the Minister’s refusal to grant Insite an exemption, as mentioned above, was “not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The remedy of the Court was to order the Minister to grant an exemption under section 56 of the CDSA.

The interesting part of the decision for future applicants for exemptions is the following guideline that appears in the decision: “Where the Minister is considering an application for an exemption for a supervised injection facility, he or she will aim to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety goals. Where, as here, the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.”

Apparently there are groups in several Canadian cities currently in the process of preparing for applications to enable the setting up of supervised injection sites similar to the one in Vancouver. At the present time, only eight countries across the world have such facilities, although Germany apparently has 28 of them.

Stephen Gray

With the opening of the overnight refuge, a shift in my job responsibilities, and a revamping of the website, the Advocacy Journal went into hibernation. It has now awakened from its three year sleep to appear once again as a feature of our website.

Last Sunday I attended worship at Grace Memorial United Church and was privileged to see and hear a presentation from Rosemary Collins, advocate at the Wilson Heights United Church community advocacy program, which is a partnership with the Vancouver South Presbytery. Rosemary screened a recently released video on their advocacy program, and she told stories that spoke eloquently of the spirit that informs her work. It so happened that the scripture readings for the day were from Micah Chapter 6 and Matthew Chapter 25. And these same well known readings are used in the video to highlight the scriptural underpinnings of the Wilson Heights program: from Micah, “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God;” and from Matthew, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers, you did for me.” (See the video on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZPPCripTM4)

Watching the video, and listening to Rosemary, I was brought back to the roots of the First United advocacy program as we have always known them. As much as our advocates get entangled in the nitty-gritty of case work involving bureaucratic systems, tribunal hearings, tenancy disputes and all of the attendant legislation and jurisprudence that comes into play, our work is informed by a gospel commitment to justice and mercy-mercy in the compassion and empathy with which advocates sit down every day with very vulnerable and challenging people seeking help, and ferret out the merits of the case; and justice in the passion with which they pursue a  just resolution of whatever matter is brought into their office.

Since August 2010, our advocacy program has been enriched through funding from the Law Foundation of British Columbia with the addition of three advocates to a program that was already rich in experience and ability.  Our team now includes Susan Henry, Janet Berry, Didi Dufresne, Kirsty MacKenzie and Scott Waters, with Stephen Gray as Director and part-time front-line advocate. You may wonder how we integrate the aims and objectives of the Law Foundation with those of the Church. In fact there is splendid harmony between the two in the goals of advancing and promoting a just society. Our caseload contains those who are among the most marginalized in the Downtown Eastside including a high percentage of First Nations people, women involved in the sex trade, individuals who are homeless, disabled people, and recent immigrants to the country. The work done by First United advocates has always included the information/referral, case advocacy, representation, systemic advocacy, community involvement and public legal education that the Foundation guidelines call for. It is indeed a natural fit.

The faith perspectives of our staff are not a consideration for employment. But all of us work within the overall vision of First United as an inclusive, intentional community at the margins of society rooted in and informed by the Christian faith, whether we are a member of a Christian denomination or not. The advocacy program gives particular expression to one of the key marks of the Church-Diakonia-care or service, which we have contextualized, in the words of our Executive Minister Ric Matthews, as about “being physically and emotionally in the places of brokenness, and about challenging in actions and words the systemic drivers and sustainers of injustice.”

Just as First United Church has proclaimed emphatically that we are a Church not a shelter, though a Church which serves as an overnight refuge for 240 homeless people, we are also a justice-seeking Church involving ourselves in hundreds of cases a month of poverty law work with people of the Downtown Eastside.

In ensuing instalments I hope to explore, with the help of our advocates, many of the current issues and problems with which they are engaged at both the case-work and systemic levels, as well as broader themes in public advocacy that arise from the overall work with the community at First United Church. Please stay tuned!

 Stephen Gray

Click here to view the embedded video.

In recent weeks I have become increasingly aware that there are people who see me as indifferent, irresponsible, arrogant and inflexible:
• Indifferent to the needs of vulnerable women and indifferent particularly to the ongoing sexual abuse of women;
• Irresponsible for allowing inside the building at First United people with very dubious records, people for whom the Police have secured No-Go orders, people under 19 years of age and people in excess of the legal occupancy load
• Arrogant for not listening to the wisdom and counsel of the Police on the ground, of City staff and BC Housing staff.
• Inflexible for not giving way on the demands indicated in the second bullet above

I experience each of these perceptions as very painful since I neither value any of them as in any way desirable or acceptable, nor do I see myself in that way. In an effort to understand these perceptions I have tried to outline the factors that may be playing a part in all of this.

The first factor is always and obviously one’s own interpersonal style and level of social skills. One can be passionately convicted about something and still remain gracious and respectful, avoiding attacking the character and worth of others. These are things I genuinely strive to do, but no doubt have at times failed to achieve. For that I am genuinely sorry. I welcome direct frank conversations that will help me see when and where I have failed and how I might do things differently.

In response to the accusation of indifference, I want to state categorically that despite the distortions in one media article that gave rise to further misleading reports, I do not believe that victims of abuse are ever responsible for the abuse they suffer. I do want it understood that in describing the behaviours that lead to the intensity in our building, I at no point said these behaviours were intentional attempts to draw attention – nor that they in any way implied individuals were responsible for any abuse that may be inflicted on them. I keenly understand the painful sensitivity of others to any comment that seems to blame the victims – there are far too many women (in the Downtown Eastside in particular, but throughout our society) who have suffered unbelievable abuse and who live with a daily ongoing struggle to cope with the trauma that never leaves them. . I am genuinely sorry for the way these well intentioned but awkward comments have caused distress and conflict. I wish that I had found alternative words with which to convey what I was trying to say about how people bring with them the traumas and challenges of the streets and of their lives in ways that add to the intensity and unpredictability inside First United. I wish I had found more helpful ways to engage and respond to the hurt and offence my comments caused as they impacted on many who still suffer the effects of past and/or ongoing abuse. I remain committed to personally ensure that we daily accommodate the immensely vulnerable women who seek refuge in our building (some of whom are barred from other institutions because of their behaviour). I remain committed to personally ensure that we have policies, structures and procedures that are constantly reviewed for improvement to protect women against exploitation and abuse. My deepest passion is, and always has been, for justice for the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.

I understand the concerns about irresponsibility, arrogance and inflexibility to be, at least in part, informed by a larger context. I have outlined elsewhere (http://j.mp/rlgcQf and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2FoY8PfjiY) my sense that our contemporary social analysis seems to be based on an inner mainstream circle, surrounded by an outer second circle consisting of those at the margins of society. In responding to and caring for those outside of mainstream society in that second circle, we tend to operate in a “fix” and/or “contain” mode. The most typical approach seems to me to be based on fundamental model that ensures the safety and wellbeing of the majority (or of a specific group) by excluding those who might threaten that. I sincerely believe this is necessary and appropriate. I also believe it is not sufficient. We need also to find ways to care for the folk who are deemed a threat to others and are excluded from the formal shelters and other facilities. These most troubled of the troubled constitute a third concentric circle. We know that not all individuals can be “fixed” or “contained”. Many are not ill enough to be apprehended under the Mental Health Act and not criminal enough to be detained for long periods. Instead they drift in the shadows, as a risk to themselves and society – or cycle through the system in and out of prison and/or care. This reality is confirmed in recent media reports on the ineffectiveness of dealing with seriously mentally ill people on our streets – and by the statements of the Chief Justice supporting the Law Society’s observation that the most troubled (and therefore most troublesome) are cycling through the legal system. More than a third of the population in our prisons are people with mental illness. As a society we spend a fortune in not meeting this need – and we continue to fail these most vulnerable of the vulnerable. These folk need places of refuge where they can be engaged with and where effective individual care plans can be developed and implemented (with integrated and collective effort across authorities, disciplines and organisations). The intensely divisive challenge in this is that our conventional established approach is fundamentally anchored in the second circle. There is immediate discomfort with any approach that does not exclude the “few” who are a risk to others and to the institution. Any person or organisation that deliberately operates in the third circle of the most troubled of the troubled, will confront sustained pressure to conform to approaches used within the second circle paradigm.

In the interaction with some of the other agencies and with institutions like the City, Province and Church, it is this divisive issue that in my view has driven the increased polarisation. I have experienced overwhelming pressure to conform to the conventional approach of the second circle. In those conversations, I have clearly failed to help others understand and agree with our views on the need in the third circle. I acknowledge that I have determinedly persevered in presenting the challenges of the third circle. I can absolutely see how that determination can be experienced as arrogant and as inflexible. However, I confess that I remain convinced that we do need an additional and different approach in order to connect with and respond to the needs of those in the third circle. I really do struggle to let go of that belief.

Because of my belief that we need to find ways to engage and not exclude the most troubled of the troubled, our approach by definition does not follow the conventional understanding of what it means to be responsible. It clearly requires a willingness to enter a messy, scary and risky world of caring outside of the conventional structures and standards. The act of providing hospitality in the stable on the first Christmas was an act in the third circle. The innkeeper moved beyond and outside of the obvious hygiene and physical risks. In a world of mitigating liability, it would be foolishly irresponsible to allow a young pregnant couple immanently about to give birth, access to the stable. No insurer today would provide cover for such an act and no responsible organisational leader would sanction such an act. It would also be irresponsible and very risky to lie about the baby’s presence in response to a question from soldiers seeking to kill newborn babies – or to conspire to help the baby escape detection. Fortunately, the Baby was born in another time and place. The conventional wisdom of the second circle does not allow for a Jesus who heals on the Sabbath and regularly moves outside of the law. For work with the vulnerable, it does not allow for the employment of folk with criminal records for violence (like a Nelson Mandela who initiated and led armed insurrection). It does not allow for actions that break municipal bylaws and safety standards (like those by Ghandi and Martin Luther King). It is at odds with our current provision of Sanctuary for Rodney Watson in the face of legal processes that have declared him to be illegally in the country. To be deemed responsible seems to require conforming to these regulatory and social constraints – and seems to be defined within the mental models anchored within the second circle. I am immensely saddened that our commitments to caring for those in the third circle are seen as irresponsible acts. I truly wish it were different.

There are some specific points at which others have deemed me to be irresponsible, inflexible and arrogant:
• A demand that we agree to be a formal Shelter where the wellbeing of the majority is protected by excluding the few who are deemed to pose a threat to the others – despite the fact that we are there precisely for those who are typically excluded elsewhere and that we have clear policies and procedures for limiting such people to very specific supervised parts of the building away from the majority.
• A demand that we agree to limit the numbers in our building to meet best practice standards of formal Shelters even if that means that people who have nowhere else to go are sent back onto the streets – despite the fact that we continue to work with all parties to find ways to stay within the determined occupancy levels but insist that when the demand exceeds those limits without actually threatening people’s safety, we need to provide a place for them to be while we all (Province, City, Society) collectively address the core issue of why so many folk have nowhere else to be (much like we would do if we housed people in halls after an earthquake).
• Demand that we never allow into our building anyone that the Police or others have deemed should not be allowed in, based on the standards and practices that are used in conventional Shelters – despite our ongoing practice of working with the Police and others to not simply impose such no-go orders but to always try to ensure that if such an order is to be issued and respected, we need to ensure there is a realistic care plan in place for that person to ensure the individual receives assessment and treatment and not merely exclusion from the premises or a brief jail stint.
• Demand that we not allow anyone who has housing elsewhere to stay in our building overnight – despite our belief and experience that simply sending such people out does not mean that they are willing or able to return to their allocated housing (which is often seriously inappropriate or being utilised by someone else who prevents them from doing so themselves), despite our belief that the housing provider needs to accept prior responsibility to know about and to address the reason for such a person not staying there, and despite our commitment to work with all concerned to develop appropriate care plans for each such person while they are at First United to sustainably resolve the reasons for why they are not staying in the housing provided for them.
• Demand that we do not employ anyone with a dubious or offensive history, regardless of whether or not they actually pose a threat to the wellbeing of others – despite our commitment that we will at all times conduct thorough criminal record and other checks and that we will not employ anyone who poses a genuine threat to the wellbeing of others in capacities where they could harm others
• Demand that we do not at any time allow anyone under 19 years of age into the building – despite the fact that we are a Church and an intentionally inclusive community, have within the community that lives at First United people with children, and have clearly articulated policies for securing the wellbeing of any under age persons

Each of these is an issue that I believe to be fundamental in providing caring within the third circle. That does not mean that we have casually dismissed the concerns that others have raised. In an ongoing effort to hear and respond to ideas about how we might improve the way we do things, we have paid careful attention to the following:

1. We have 32 cameras in our building; visible staff with radios and emergency cell phones based on the floor in every area of the building at all times; 24 hour women-only space and 24 hour couples-only space, and the remainder of the sleeping areas reserved for men only.
2. We have policies and procedures that ensure staff pay attention to proactively identifying and mitigating potential conflict; staff intervene immediately in the event of any sudden assault or conflict to de-escalate and ensure no continuation or escalation of the conflict; staff provide immediate support for the victim(s); staff ensure immediate calls to the police and provide support in pressing charges. We ensure all incidents are recorded and documented.
3. We have for the past four years very intentionally engaged with and worked on relationships with the Police, with Government departments and with other agencies to find more constructive ways of dealing with the issues that lead to homelessness.
4. We pushed in 2010 with City and Provincial leaders via a “share the gold” campaign for a collective integrated and comprehensive approach across all parties to try to resolve the core issues behind the number of street homeless people, and have recently again initiated multilateral meetings to try to identify how we can collectively reduce the number of people who come to First United for help.
5. We have readily embraced strategies to reduce those numbers, by welcoming additional resources to find sustainable housing for folk, by working with Mental Health agencies, the Police and the courts to get individuals apprehended under the Mental Health Act or to support action that will get them arrested as the first step to meaningful treatment and help, and by ensuring our community workers connect closely with individuals to identify why they are not using housing that may have been previously provided.
6. We very carefully take into account the criminal record and general background checks on people who apply to be employed at First United. We never employ any person who we deem to be a genuine threat to the wellbeing of others. We have policies, procedures and management practices (and 32 cameras) that help us monitor staff performance and attitudes. We ensure that no staff person with any questionable background (despite our confidence that they are not a threat to the wellbeing of others) is ever alone with a vulnerable member of the community.

For me, (and I believe for many others) the Gospel call and a deep inner passion compels us to stand with the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, the most marginalised of the marginalised. It calls us to care for the one lost sheep, the one lost coin. It demands that we not sacrifice doing what is right for the individual, on the altar of what best serves the interests of the majority. I have profound respect for those who work within the second circle. I have genuine respect and appreciation for formal Shelters and other entities that provide an appropriate risk-avoidance response for many in need. I regret that my own comments and interactions may have suggested otherwise. We need those services and approaches. At the same time, I believe we also need responses that function outside of that box, beyond those horizons. I remain convicted and compelled to speak and act in ways that will help us to embrace the realities in the third circle. I feel real pain at my inability to do so without offending and polarising. I am desperately striving to find ways to hold this space with more grace, more gentleness, and more acknowledgement of my own inadequacies and limitations. What I cannot do is to turn away from the one lone individual, lost in his own sense of not belonging, haunted by the demons that are rampant within her mind and heart. What I cannot bring myself to do is to trade that person’s worth and beauty in the interest of the collective wellbeing. For me, the wellbeing of that person cannot be separated from the wellbeing of us all. I believe that at some level we all share that belief and awareness, regardless of the approach and policies for which we argue. I wish I knew how to engage this conversation in ways that better allow us to build off the values we share and that allow us to reach beyond the constraints that currently limit our ability to care for those at the furthest ends of our society. I know this is needed. I know it is possible. I would like to be a creative participant in helping make it happen.

By their own calculations, at least 15% of those housed by BC Housing are no longer housed after 6 months. In addition there are significant numbers of people who BC Housing cannot even get into housing in the first place. All the latest statistics and comments by the Police and Justice departments confirm that we are not effectively addressing the needs of the chronically homeless and the deeply troubled homeless folk on our streets. We do not have a clear collective strategy or the necessary facilities for addressing this critical need.

In the meantime, those who are chronically homeless and those who depend on the HEAT shelters have needs that extend beyond mere housing. They need more than housing, they need homes in which they feel they belong. At present we have large numbers of people for whom housing is not available – or is inadequate or inappropriate as a home.

At present this very real social need is falling between BC Housing and Coastal Health – and neither is addressing this sufficiently. We need an integrated Provincial and City initiative. We cannot afford to keep the current approach in which too many departments are more concerned about their budgets and liabilities than about actually meeting the needs for which they exist.

The frustration is that everyone knows it is costing the tax payer more to not a address this, than it would to simply provide what is needed.

We need to fund what is needed this winter and we need to build a collective long-term strategy across government departments. What we are doing right now is not working, is wasting resources and betraying those who are the most vulnerable within our society.

A September 17^th article in The Globe and Mail quotes Hebert:

Sitting at his home, nearly a week after the safe return of his son, Paul Hebert is no less sympathetic to Randall Hopley than he was the day he proclaimed his forgiveness for what he did. “Forgiveness is a condition of the heart,” he said on the phone. “There’s two paths you can choose when you come into a situation like ours: anger or compassion. Anger is for people who only want to see themselves as the victim. Compassion allows you to get beyond that and move on.”

That does not mean, Mr. Hebert was quick to point out, that Mr. Hopley shouldn’t be held accountable for what he did. Or that he shouldn’t be forced to get the help he needs.

“But how can you be angry with someone who needs help as much as he does?” said Mr. Hebert. “He still had the compassion to bring Kienan back and I can’t forget that. I believe there isn’t a human on earth who isn’t salvageable.”

Recent media attention directed at First United which concerned our hiring of a man given a conditional discharge on a charge of indecent exposure also raises some important social questions that are larger than simply a question of safety at First United Church.    The outrage expressed at the actions of First United to hire a man deemed by the judge to pose no threat to vulnerable people reveals a hysteria that covers up the harder questions that we all have to deal with.  If a man deemed not to be a threat, in a court-ordered supervised treatment program, cannot hope to work in an environment where there are at least six other staff on site, a designated women’s area staffed only by women, 240 pairs of vigilant eyes plus 32 security cameras monitoring every one’s behaviour how is it expected that we can ever integrate people who have been guilty of more significant crimes back into human society?  And if we don’t integrate those people and we do not have the grounds on which we can lock them up, where do they go?

Last week’s outrage reveals the hypocrisy in this neighbourhood.  We have heard reports of sexual violence taking place at other facilities including woman-on-woman sexual assault.  Those instances of violence don’t get the kind of attention we have received.  Nor do the policies of exclusion which limit the problems agencies have to deal with.  First United Church has been intentional over the past four years in welcoming those who are not welcomed elsewhere.   We deal with individuals and behaviours that many other agencies, including those who are most vociferous in criticizing us, are not willing to deal with.  We welcome those who have been banned from agencies like WISH and the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre.  When they can’t go to those places, they come to us.  Plain and simple.  We do this because we believe with Paul Hebert that “there isn’t a human on earth who isn’t salvageable.”   Until there is a clear policy in this city and province to deal with those who are among the most difficult to deal with, there is no moral high ground on which any of us can stand.

This story explicitly names the employee and provides graphic details of the incident for which he was found guilty. It has now been repeated in numerous other media.

The facts are that the employee was found guilty on September 16, 2010 of committing an indecent act but was given a conditional discharge, meaning that after completion of the required counseling and probationary period he would eventually have no criminal record. A outline of the implications of a conditional discharge states that “Once the conditions imposed are met, that person can honestly say they have never been convicted of a criminal offence.” When he applied for this position he disclosed this to us and our criminal records check confirmed it. The actual Court Judgment explicitly stated that this person should not be prevented from continuing to work with the children and youth that were currently part of the daily activities in which he was engaged. It essentially made it clear that the Judge did not believe he constituted any threat to society or to vulnerable children and others within it. Based on the above, we went ahead with the employment. He is now one of our star performers and has received many statements of appreciation and affirmation from other men and women on the staff and within the wider community. As a leadership team we value highly his work and commitment to the community.

We understand that people have different opinions and perspectives and will interpret differently our work and our approach. However, it is important to understand that we are a Church and a place of refuge. We are not a formal Shelter where the wellbeing of the majority is addressed by excluding the few who pose a threat. First United is one of very few places where those excluded few are able to find care, refuge and help towards the interventions needed in their lives. We remain absolutely committed to being alongside the most vulnerable and to doing our very best to ensure their wellbeing and safety.

We have worked hard to make this a safe place in the midst of this ongoing housing crisis. We have had an ongoing and welcomed police presence in our building since December 2008. We have a dedicated women’s area staffed by women staff members. We have a complete security camera system operating on all floors of our building. We very intentionally restrict to a very specific part of the building any person who poses a threat to the wellbeing of others. We have all the policies and procedures needed to deal with the possibility of any outbreak of violence. We also remain committed to those men and women who are the most troubled and troublesome – many of whom are barred from the very places that are criticizing us for not caring for them. Because we care deeply about safety and wellbeing for all, we deliberately try to maintain contact with those who are most challenged and challenging. Within the ongoing relationship, we have opportunities to monitor and influence what happens in their lives – rather than leaving them excluded, isolated and unsupported and posing an even greater threat to themselves and to the wider society.

We ask that you judge us by what we do and by the assessments of the 240 people who daily choose to be in and at First United, particularly those of the 30 or more women who choose to sleep there every night.

The issue hinges on a critical assumption: namely, that “it is irresponsible to have in a position of leadership at First United, any person guilty of a sexual offense”. However, the very judgment that found this person guilty also deliberately included a formal statement that he posed no threat in his ongoing work with children and youth – which continues to include vulnerable young women. The Judge who heard and assessed all the details related to this incident, very intentionally made it clear that this conviction did not mean he was a threat to or should be disqualified from work with vulnerable people. While it may make political and strategic sense to avoid employing anyone with any previous convictions, it flies in the face of our deep commitment to seeing the gift and worth of every individual. The decision to employ this Shift Manager was not taken lightly, but with considerable attention to the wellbeing of all within our building. We remain convinced that he is a constructive and valuable member of this community. We are grateful for his gifts and presence – and in concurrence with the implication of the Court Judgment we are confident that he is not a threat to the safety of the women within this community.

We are in contact with the employee and his family and are available to anyone to address any concerns or questions you may have.