The Marginalization of Abstinence-Based Recovery
How a majority in City Council chose to disregard a model successful for decades
The events discussed in this posting occurred in Vancouver City Council during the public hearing about CD-1 Rezoning: 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue, and 2091 West 8th Avenue on July 25th, 2022. Here is the recording.
BC Housing lacks projects for funding through the Women’s Transition Housing Fund (WTHF) 1
If re-elected, Mayor Stewart claims he will use a 5% empty homes tax to provide homes for women and children, including those fleeing violence. 2
These women already exist in Kitsilano and have a working support system. They need transitional housing. They are at risk of homelessness.
For the half-million dollars budgeted per container unit in this building, real homes for these women and their children could have been built here.
Instead of building upon a successful model, the needs of these women were willfully ignored by City staff and the majority of Councillors in order to fulfill an MOU with BC Housing for singular modular units with a harm reduction focus.
Pay attention to the fact that Councillor Wiebe cannot accept that harm reduction is not compatible with abstinence-based addiction management.
Councillor Wiebe:
And moving forward, what type of programs would you like to see at a supportive housing project that would be beside yours? What are the things would be compatible with the type of project that you run?
Speaker 275
I don’t think we should necessarily talk about the programs when the housing itself needs to be addressed. There is no reason to speak about programs without knowing that the housing isn’t abstinence-based or it has some supportive…Reality is it needs to be abstinence-based. Period. We’re literally next door.
Read it all here…
Speaker 275 for Sancta Maria House – July 25, 2022, in public hearing about CD-1 Rezoning: 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue, and 2091 West 8th Avenue
We are in opposition for this proposed rezoning application in its current form.
We share with you about the home, why it has been a proven success in the community, what was shared by BC Housing and the lack of communication, potential impacts to the women in recovery, and the proposed building’s density and height impact to the home.
For the last 7 years, I have been supporting the women’s recovery home and currently sit on the Board as Vice-President. It is a non-profit, long stay residential recovery and healing home for women struggling with substance abuse along with mental health conditions and long-term related trauma.
Sancta Maria House has been in the Kitsilano community since 1960.
Since 2004, it shifted its focus to abstinence-based support recovery and has had over 200 women walk through their doors.
Many of the women are moms who have their children in the care of family or with the Ministry of Children and Family. And we have worked intensively with the Ministry to help the women regain custody of their children.
Some of the reasons why the home is a success is due to the amazing staff we call house moms, the neighbours that provide food, clothing and volunteer their support, and the various programs both clinical and spiritual.
The home fosters a safe place where the mental, physical and spiritual well-being are met through various programs and counseling.
The women learn to make cards, quilts and soaps that help to keep the lights on in the home and give back to the community.
We draw on resources outside the home from Coastal Health for clinical support and counselling.
In a typical year, we have very few calls to the VPD and none of them are related to drugs or alcohol or community grievances.
What makes us unique is we believe that healing begins by having a safe and loving home where women can experience unconditional love.
For some, it’s the first time in their lives to experience a safe space and receive love and care.
A home that’s really a home.
We have witnessed the amazing work they do and the women who have gone on to live a life of sobriety. They often come back to visit and pay it forward because they feel it is their second home.
When the home sent a letter to Chee Chan, the rezoning planner, expressing their concerns in April of 2022, the staff acknowledged our concerns and that someone would reach out to us.
However, we had received no call to discuss this, but a request to meet over Webex to go over their findings and amendments. There was no input or call in advance of this meeting to be a part of these amendments you see before you today.
So, I will share with full disclosure what they had not shared with you on June the 28th.
When asked about the number of supportive workers on staff to support up to 129 people, they had said 2 overnight and 6 to 9 staff in the day. We are unsure if their reference of staff applies to in-house support workers for the care of residents given what I’ve heard in the public hearing.
We have found that a 5 to 1 is the ideal ratio for residents receiving the best care and outcome in the day and at night, and that sometimes can be a handful. Based on this, you would need 26 workers for 129 people. At the minimum of 50% low barrier, you would need 13 support workers for 65 people.
When asked if this would be abstinence-based, they said “no.” Yet, I’ve heard that there will be a common use consumption drug room throughout this public hearing.
So our concerns still are:
The proposed housing is focused on harm reduction and will be next door to an abstinence-based women’s recovery home. It is common knowledge that dealers hang around detox sites in an effort to entice women who have been discharged or just going into detox. So when recovery homes are close to unrestricted supportive housing, a chance for relapse is increased, knowing there is a chance to access drugs and alcohol, exposed needles in the area, and drug trafficking. It could create challenges and negate the work that has been invested in bringing a safe space to these vulnerable women who have made a conscious effort to escape these areas. It’s like building a bar right beside a recovery home for alcoholics. Also, Sancta Maria House’s exercise program will be in danger, as women will have difficulty walking in the neighbourhood and being exposed to these triggers. These triggers can range from cravings to use. Serious triggers, like traumatic events of rape, beatings, knifings, etc. as they are literally brought back to their horrific situations. The increase number of police events and ambulance events will also undermine the safety they need to experience which is a vital part of their recovery.
BC Housing’s focus is not on wanting to partner with the community, but to push their agenda, goals without any input from the home. It was obvious by the lack of communication as stated earlier and engagement in receiving input. MLA George Heyman finally responded to my email from one year ago, stating that the city is focused on achieving a goal and I quote him “I know our government was elected on a mandate to address the housing crisis and no one is more profoundly affected by the crisis than our most vulnerable unhoused residents and those at risk of becoming unhoused.” I was shocked. It meant that women who made a conscious decision for abstinence, who he would call the most vulnerable unhoused residents or at risk of being unhoused, who made the choice to fight for their lives, their children and their future did not matter. Allison Dunnet, senior planner, had noted at the meeting that she would like to partner with the home. As wonderful as it might sound, a studio unit doesn’t provide a place for a woman to transition from a long stay abstinence-based residential home with her children. If there is in fact, a common place consumption drug room, then why would be we partner to put these women there? In addition, I reviewed the shadow studies by BC Housing and discovered that the home will be in darkness in the spring and fall from 4 PM onwards when the women use the backyard as a place of refuge. Having sunlight is a quality of life for everyone and a function of wellness.
I can’t help but think about senior planner Allison Dunnet’s Out of the Blue podcast interview, and I quote her “It’s about fast delivery and lots of homes.” But how do we as government step back and give the community the opportunity and agency to really create their own community and drive that change. Sometimes that’s tough for us as organizations that governments find easy to do. We did make lots of mistakes. So if the government admits to making lots of mistakes, wouldn’t they take this opportunity to learn from it? Whether you are in support or opposition, we must all agree the goal is to build a society where all can thrive. It’s just not about putting people in homes and calling it Housing First, but providing in-house wraparound supports to meet the needs of each high-risk tenant by providing prevention, treatment, accountability and above all a safe space for all to thrive and call home.
With that said, please say ‘yes’ to supportive housing, but ‘no’ to this current proposal so that women will be safe and the home will continue to be part of the Kitsilano community, as we have successfully done for over 60 years.
Thank you.
Councillor De Genova:
Thanks so much. I really appreciated your presentation. I am wondering, you don’t have to answer my questions, considering some of the concerns you’ve shared with us, can you share with us if you’ve spoken to any of the women currently staying at the house what that would mean to them and developments such as this to move in next to them? You’ve talked about the triggers overall. But I’m wondering from actually some of your clients staying with you currently?
Speaker 275:
I can speak through experience accompanying some of these women and I can tell you one of the challenges when they want to exit out of the home is finding a place, especially if they have a family they’re trying to reunite with their children. It’s a long process. So I can tell you that Sharon Dobbin can speak into this better than I can, as she is the President, and when a woman does enter into the home, we always encourage them to be there 6 months. Around the 3 month mark, depending on their needs, they start the process because right now BC Housing when it comes to family, support and family housing, it’s not there. It’s a slow process. Michelle spoke earlier into that. It took 2 years before she and her partner could find a home.
Councillor De Genova:
Thank you. I’ll ask you the same question that I’ve asked others…would you actually see this as welcoming if this was a project by BC Housing that did welcome families and offered that next stepping stone for women in Sancta Maria to be able to reunite with their families in this type of development, if that was allowed, would that be something that Sancta Maria would support?
Speaker 275:
We would absolutely support that. I think that Cheryl Grant explained that earlier with the proposed building about what it could look like. It excites us. It would work. It would keep the women in the community and to help provide the support they need and the wraparound services.
Councillor De Genova:
That’s good to know. I’ll ask staff about that afterwards. I can’t ask the applicant anymore questions, but I can ask for staff. The last question I have for you…if this project moved forward, as it currently is, would Sancta Maria continue its operations in its current location. Would you be able to do that? Have you and the Board of Directors already talked about having to relocate if that happened?
Speaker 275:
We haven’t spoken about it. We hope that would never be the case. We hope that level heads would prevail.
Councillor De Genova:
But if this project were to move forward, can I ask if you see yourselves being able to operate in the same way you currently do?
Speaker 275:
No.
Councillor De Genova:
Thank you very much for sharing that information and those stories with us. And I’ll follow up with our staff about those questions.
Councillor Hardwick:
How many residents are there at Sancta Maria House?
Speaker 275:
On average, we have about 5 residents. It doesn’t necessarily mean 5 residents throughout the entire year. They do change, because they enter in and exit at different times.
Councillor Hardwick:
And you have a 5 to 1 ratio for supports.
Speaker 275:
Correct. And that’s why we have a successful outcome for these women.
Councillor Hardwick:
Have you limited the size due to the physical space, because managing people in recovery in abstinence requires a small or larger space. Is there size of manageability from your perspective?
Speaker 275:
We have the ability to, well the average is 5. We can have room for 8. When it comes to, what was your second question again, Councillor Hardwick?
Councillor Hardwick:
I was just comparing the size and the ratio that you described.
Speaker 275:
Right.
Councillor Hardwick:
I was thinking of 129 with 2 overnight and 6 to 9 staff during the day in terms of manageability.
Speaker 275:
Absolutely. We find the best ratio is 1 house mother 1 support worker to five. It just works. We’ve seen it happen before where there are issues and cases. In each one of them, each have their individual needs and they need that support. So I can’t imagine how you can have 6 to 9 for 129 or 65. I don’t know how that works. Because we know from experience that’s impossible.
Councillor Hardwick:
But your experience is around abstinence-based.
Speaker 275:
Correct.
Councillor Hardwick:
As opposed to a harm reduction approach.
Speaker 275:
Correct.
Councillor Hardwick:
Is it conceivable then that there would be a different ratio of support between an abstinence and harm reduction approach?
Speaker 275:
I don’t know and I can’t answer that. What I can say is that having a home, an abstinence-based home, right beside a proposed building that is harm reduction is not a safe place for these women. Period.
Councillor Hardwick:
You mentioned there are a couple of other things I would like to touch on quickly. One is you commented about, wondering about BC Housing’s agenda. You commented quickly on that. Do you have any sense what that agenda is from your conversations?
Speaker 275:
I feel like they’re pushing this through without listening to the community and people at large. We are one of the key stakeholders. We are next to this home. This proposed housing that they’re proposing. And we haven’t received any consultation whatsoever. One-on-one consultation.
Councillor Hardwick:
Whose comment was it that they needed fast deliver for lots of homes?
Speaker 275:
That was Allison Dunnet. Out of the Blue podcast. October 2020.
Councillor Hardwick:
So there may be a correlation there.
Speaker 275:
Absolutely. I do believe that the government does have an agenda. That’s my opinion. That’s a subjective opinion. What I can say that statement alone indicates that governments do make mistakes. And so, this is a great opportunity, because if you want to get the community feedback, this is an important opportunity to pause for a moment, take a breath and address the needs of the community.
But what we’ve heard is “Use it or lose it.” If you don’t take advantage of this, then it’s gone. And that’s being used as a point to lever this quick decision.
Speaker 275:
Are you scared?
Councillor Hardwick:
About the vote?
Speaker 275:
Are you scared they’ll lose it? Use it or lose it?
Councillor Hardwick:
From my perspective, the land’s not going anywhere.
Mayor Stewart interference.
Councillor Hardwick:
I know we’re not allowed to have a conversation. Thank you for answering my questions and if you haven’t already done so, can you send in your remarks to Council.
Speaker 275:
Thank you. Will do.
Councillor Wiebe:
Thanks for coming to speak today. You said you had no one-on-one’s with BC Housing, is that correct, through this process?
Speaker 275:
Sorry, can you repeat that again, I didn’t hear that.
Councillor Wiebe:
You said you had no one-on-one conversations with BC Housing, is that true…
Speaker 275:
We had a conversation with BC Housing after the fact to share with us what the referral report would look like. We had no one-on-one.
Councillor Wiebe:
OK, so just after the fact.
Speaker 275:
Correct.
Councillor Wiebe:
And moving forward, what type of programs would you like to see at a supportive housing project that would be beside yours? What are the things would be compatible with the type of project that you run?
Speaker 275
I don’t think we should necessarily talk about the programs when the housing itself needs to be addressed. There is no reason to speak about programs without knowing that the housing isn’t abstinence-based or it has some supportive…Reality is it needs to be abstinence-based. Period. We’re literally next door.
Councillor Wiebe:
So for you, that’s really the only type of housing that could work beside yours.
Speaker 275:
I’ve already shared with you that having a harm reduction supportive housing next to an abstinence-based exposes these women at risk who are one of the vulnerable populations.
Councillor Wiebe:
I appreciate that. Thanks for coming in.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/organizational-structure/crown-corporations/ey-report-bc-housing.pdf, page 36
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/kennedy-stewart-housing-campaign-pledge/