More than Words at Stake

When we made the decision to open First United overnight in response to the request by Mayor Gregor Robertson, we made some decisions that put us at odds with the decision-makers in the province and city and eventually even the decision-makers in the local governing bodies of The United Church of Canada. Having engaged in conversation with people who had been coming inside to sleep on the pews for many years before, we had a sense that there was within the population of people who lived in the Downtown Eastside a group who did not feel comfortable sleeping in the shelters. For some the rules of the shelter were too confining; for some there was never a bed available when needed. Some people, like the woman named Tracy who burned to death after she accidentally set her bedding on fire in the winter of 2008, would not go into shelters because they couldn't take their possessions with them. Some had pets who they depended upon for companionship and whom they could not leave behind no matter how bad the weather. Some were so suspicious of people or damaged by life that they would not give a name or any other information about themselves and therefore weren't suitable for the shelter system's expressed goal of housing everyone.

Those are the people we knew that we wanted to be there for - the ones that no one else seemed to want or knew how to welcome. We had a sense that you had to invest a lot of time with people like this on their terms if you wanted to have relationships and relationships were mainly what we were about as a church.

And so we made some decisions about how we would be different from the shelter system run by BC Housing. In those early months, we could be different because our funding had been cobbled together from a variety of sources including churches in the Lower Mainland. Since we were the first place to be asked to open overnight by HEAT (Homeless Emergency Action Team - a group of advisors pulled together by the Mayor), we felt like we were treading on new ground. We didn't have to fit into any pre-conceived boxes. We could learn from our experience and we could work out the best way forward in consultation with people in the Downtown Eastside.

Never at point did we agree to be a formal shelter. Never. We agreed to open overnight for four months- from December 2008 to the end of March 2009 and we believed that we could do that for about $40,000 in total. The money came from a variety of places but never in a large enough amount from any one source to change our vision.

To make it clear that we were not joining the shelter system, we opted to call what we offered a place of refuge. This seemed in keeping with Advent/Christmas season and the story of Mary and Joseph and the birth of Jesus. Dunbar Heights United Church had created a life-size crèche for us and so having people sleep in our sanctuary seemed a fitting addition to that scene. First United had been sleeping people during the daytime in its sanctuary for over ten years and so the extension of hours to include the night-time just seemed like a logical extension of the commitment to the neighbourhood. And as no one had ever suggested that what First United had offered during the daytime was a shelter, we didn't see why the shelter language needed to apply to an extension to the night.

As a place of refuge, we decided that we would do the following:

1) We would not take anyone's name.
Our goal would be to learn people's names when/if people were willing to share and to be in relationship with them on their terms. If giving a name was a barrier to being indoors, we would not impose that requirement upon anyone. It wasn't our goal to collect data on anyone for anyone else. We were providing a humane response to what was looking to be a horrendous winter.

2) We would not case-manage anyone.
Given that we were an emergency response to be open for only four months and running with a minimum number of staff, case management wasn't even on the radar. All we were concerned about in those early months was keeping people warm, safe and dry. Ric described it at the time as being like an indoor park and that, in many ways, is what it felt like.

3)We would not limit our numbers by locking our doors.
We knew that there were people who could not wait in a line-up for a shelter bed. In 2008, many shelters did not do their intake until 11 p.m. and with somewhere between 25 and 40 beds available, they would often fill up in a hurry. For those who were the most vulnerable in the neighbourhood, waiting in line on the off-chance of getting a bed was virtually impossible. As well, many who came to First United were using or drinking and by the time the late evening came, they were in no shape to find a shelter bed.

We believed that everyone should have the option of being inside and so we decided that our doors would be open all night. People could come and go as they pleased. They could sleep if they wanted. They could sit up and talk. What we would not do was prevent them from coming in. That need to provide a space in the neighbourhood that was open 24/7 was affirmed time and time again. When the Contact Centre near the Carnegie Centre closed, First United became one of the few places open where people could go to get first aid. Women working the street came in to use the washrooms between tricks. When INSITE closed at 4am users came to catch some sleep under the watchful eyes of staff who made sure that they were safe. When the shelters discharged their clients at 6 a.m. people came to First to get some additional sleep or to wait indoors for breakfast.

Much has been made about our refusal in the Fall of 2011 to honour the occupant load set by the Fire Department. We were concerned about this in the summer of 2011 and asked for a meeting with City and Provincial officials to talk about other alternatives to lessen the stress on our building. There was no interest at that time even though it was apparent that winter was going to come. The annual game of "chicken" played between City Hall and the Minister of Housing would have to be played out before anything changed.

Of course for the three winters prior to the Fall of 2011, the occupant load was exceeded with the knowledge of the City and the Province. We had sent them daily records of our 5 am and 2 pm counts. Everyone knew that we were dealing with a housing emergency and while the situation wasn't wonderful, it was better than putting people on the cold streets.

4) We would not bar people
Another issue of contention which we struggled with was the decision not to bar anyone. Unacceptable and inappropriate behavior has been a reality at First long before the refuge opened. For the first year that I worked at First, it was not unusual to have shouting matches in the sanctuary which would on occasion result in a fight. People would be angry about how long someone talked on the free phone or how slowly someone was talking at the reception window. People would be angry during mealtime and food and dishes would be thrown. Violence is not unexpected when you are dealing with people who are scrabbling just to survive in a society that doesn't really care enough to change anything that would make a lasting difference. I would be hard-pressed to respond with as much grace and humour as I have seen expressed by people in the Downtown Eastside if I was in similar circumstances.

In the early days we worked on a barring/banning policy. We had a list of offenses and each offense had a length of time attached to it during which the offender was not allowed to access the building and its services. The policy was in place because we believed that there needed to be consequences for unacceptable behaviour and because we needed to indicate to the community that staff had to be respected. Some people were sent out for a few hours; some were gone for months. I don't remember if anyone was permanently barred although I hazard a guess that they weren't. Our staff were always interested in giving someone a second or third or twentieth chance.

While our policy looked really good on paper, we came to the conclusion that it didn't work. First of all, with an open door policy and over 200 people it was impossible to make sure that a person didn't enter or re-enter the building. Secondly, many people were in such bad shape when they were belligerent, they simply didn't remember that they had been abusive. Those with brain injuries had problems with long term memory. Those with anger issues couldn't always help themselves. Many who were mentally ill didn't know what was going on. Those who could perhaps do things differently had often been banned from other places and this was the last place they were welcome. To ban them was to put them out into the cold. And so we stopped barring/banning people. We might have asked them to takes walk but we didn't ban them. Sometimes we called the police and had people arrested but they always knew that we would be there for them. To our way of thinking, you can't work with a person if you don't know where they are.

5) We would remain a church not a social agency.
This meant that we would operate out of a theology of radical hospitality that would not sacrifice the needs of the one for the well-being of the whole. This meant that we saw everything that we did within the building of First United Church as an integral part of our ministry. We looked to the stories of the lost coin and the lost sheep and we held to the belief that each person, no matter how damaged or how difficult their behaviour could be, was a child of God. We imagined a different way of being a church. We were not interested in being an outreach ministry or a social agency that served the needs of the poor. We were interested in building an inclusive, intentional community at the margins, informed by Christian theology.

To define one's work within these ground rules was to agree to live with a certain amount of chaos and tension. Living into a different paradigm is never easy. Defining our work this way meant confronting the fears that often drive so many interactions with individuals in the Downtown Eastside. It was always our goal to run as safe an operation as humanly possible but we also committed ourselves to working with those who are among the most vulnerable in the neighbourhood and their behaviors sometimes put themselves and others at risk. While it would have been easier to eliminate the difficult people, it would not have been faithful to what we we saw as First United's unique contribution to the neighbourhood - its gift of sacrificial love.

What started as an agreement with the Mayor to provide a place of refuge for four months turned into a three year commitment. The initial estimate of $40,000 to run First United for four months turned into a $243,000 a month commitment by BC Housing. For all of that time, we fought to maintain our original vision to provide a place of refuge within our understanding of what it means to be a church committed to radical hospitality. In the end we couldn't maintain our grasp on the vision in the face of the United Church's fear of liability and pressure from BC Housing, the police department and the city. Some of us had to let go and leave.

Everything has changed with the start of 2012. First United has become a shelter, closing its doors at 11 pm to everyone except those who have already found shelter inside. I don't know what happens to the people who empty out of the bars at 2 a.m. in search of some place to sleep off the activities of the evening; I don't know if the women who work the streets at night go to the emergency women's shelter to use the washroom; I don't know who provides the listening ear or the observant eye or the skilled hands to assess whether someone needs a trip to the hospital in the night. That used to be the role of the brave and passionately committed staff who still work at First United. It isn't any more. And what will remain for the community after BC Housing funding stops at the end of March 2012 is unknown.

The vision born out of workshops with the community and refined through work with the Oversight Board has been abandoned without consultation. A safer, less controversial path has been chosen.