Agenda Index City of Vancouver

Summary of Public Consultation Feedback Regarding A Framework for Action, A Four-Pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver

Parts A and B


November 2000 - March 2001

Presented to:

City of Vancouver, B.C.

Overview
The public consultation feedback regarding A Framework for Action, A Four-Pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver draft discussion paper was received by various methods, totaling approximately 400 items of input reflecting the views of over 1800 people:

This report covers the majority of the public consultation between November 21, 2000 and March 15, 2001.
Overall Results
The public feedback reveals strong support for the four major goals and many of the actions contained in A Framework for Action, as well as for the four-pillar approach to drug problems. The exception to this is the input received from the Community Alliance group, noted above, which is critical of most of the harm reduction actions.

Overall, the participants in the public consultation appear to be very receptive to implementing a new integrated approach to tackle drug problems in Vancouver and welcome the City's leadership in this area. The feedback expresses an urgent need for treatment facilities and a variety of supports for adult and youth addicts. Additionally, there is a recognized need for (greater) community and family involvement, prevention /education campaigns, harm reduction measures and increased and / or better-targeted enforcement efforts - all to deal with city-wide problems. The public consultation feedback also expressly asks for (better) co-ordination of services and it clearly asks for action now.

The multicultural participants are asking specifically for expanded services and staff to assist the various multicultural communities in dealing with the drug problems. They also ask for increased settlement services and support for non-English speaking immigrants adjusting to a new country. Multicultural participants identify a need to eliminate racism, stereotyping and harassment in general and especially among the police, media and schools.
Support for Major Goals in A Framework for Action
There is broad support for the four major goals identified in the draft discussion paper, A Framework for Action, as revealed in the Part A results from the short and long versions of the feedback forms. The feedback tabulations show that a range of 82% - 100% support each of the four goals, with a majority of participants 'strongly' in support. Opposition is minimal or nonexistent in each case.

Support for Actions from A Framework for Action
The long feedback forms presented the public with an opportunity to indicate the extent of their support or opposition ('strongly' or 'somewhat') to each of the 31 actions contained in A Framework for Action.
Given that the majority (ranging from 78% - 96%) support each action and there is little opposition to any of the 31 actions, these findings indicate broad-based support for an integrated approach to Vancouver's drug problems. Interestingly, when we look at the 'strong' support category alone, a majority of the 27 long form respondents 'strongly' supports 29 of the 31 actions in the discussion paper. The two actions just shy of this mark are Action 20 and Action 27 (both with 48% 'strongly' in support). However, combined support for these two actions is 81% and 78%, respectively.
The actions that are the most popular with 70% plus giving the action 'strong' support (total combined support ranging from 82% to 96%) are as follows:

Additionally, the open-end comments and suggestions offered at the back of each of the short and long feedback forms largely support the City of Vancouver taking a variety of steps or actions within each of the four pillars to attempt to deal with the pressing City-wide drug problems.
Furthermore, these consistent results underscore the views expressed by the public at meetings, forums and multicultural focus group discussions regarding the need to coordinate efforts and expand treatment services and facilities, as well as to implement some harm reduction measures to assist and counsel addicts.
Areas of disagreement are few but they appear to be mainly within the pillars of enforcement and harm reduction. There are some differing attitudes about whether more enforcement or different types of enforcement approaches are required and /or whether some drugs such as marijuana should be legalized.
Similarly there are differing attitudes about whether some aspects related to harm reduction are helpful or may add to the problems e.g. safe injection sites. This was particularly marked in the Chinese community, however, their outreach program report indicates that with information and dialogue many participants gained a better understanding of addiction issues and started to change their attitudes over the course of the discussions. Attitudes shifted from a perspective in some instances of only wanting to talk about toughening 'lenient' laws to one of recognizing that drug abuse is not just a criminal activity, but a serious health and social problem that needs to be addressed.
The Community Alliance organization designed their own questionnaire and provided background information to obtain their own type of feedback. Their results differ dramatically from the overall trends. A large majority of those filling out their forms are opposed to each of the following (harm reduction) measures: government-funded drug injection sites, providing government-funded free illegal drugs to drug addicts, and the Vancouver police taking measures to facilitate the use of illegal drugs such as testing for the purity of illegal drugs. Additionally, if more government funds are to be spent in the Downtown Eastside a large majority of those filling out Community Alliance forms believes it should be spent on encouraging legitimate businesses rather than on services for drug addicts.
Reaction to the Four-Pillar Approach for Drug Misuse
Consultation participants' impressions are very favourable regarding the integrated four-pillar approach of prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction to drug misuse.
Over three-quarters (77%) of respondents to the short feedback forms presented in Part A 'strongly' support this approach with an additional 10% 'somewhat' supporting it, bringing the overall support level up to just under 90%. Only 6% register any opposition to it.
On the long forms in Part A, all rated the approach as either 'excellent', 'very good' or 'good', with no one selecting 'fair' or 'poor' to express their reactions to this integrated approach to drug misuse. In fact, just under half rate it as 'excellent'.
These positive results are supported anecdotally by comments from the meetings / forums, the written correspondence and the multicultural focus group discussions where there appears to be widespread support for applying the four-pillar approach to Vancouver's drug problems. Some citizens or groups appear to believe that the current approach and /or the 'war on drugs' are clearly not working.
The multicultural communities appear to be especially keen on prevention / education programs and expanding treatment services and facilities with staff that can communicate in different languages. Cross-cultural understanding and cultural sensitivity appear to be key in the success of an integrated approach from their mutual perspectives.
The main exception to this prevalent pattern of support again arises in the Community Alliance feedback. A total of 86% of the 132 respondents to their questionnaire indicate that they support Vancouver following the Canadian drug strategy with three pillars, rather than Vancouver adding a fourth pillar, harm reduction.

Foreword - Part A
Objectives
The City of Vancouver introduced a Draft Discussion Paper, entitled, A Framework for Action, A Four-Pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver in November, 2000. This paper establishes four major goals and 31 actions using the four-pillar approach of prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction to deal with Vancouver's drug problems. Each pillar requires the support of the other three to achieve the overall objectives of balancing and improving public order and public health in the city.
Throughout the public consultation process on the discussion paper participants were encouraged to provide their feedback through 'short' and 'long' feedback forms, letters / faxes and e-mail, as well as verbally at the six public forums and more than 25 small group meetings.
Methodology
The summary provided in this section of the report is based on examining the results and themes from the various methods used by the public to provide their input. This feedback analysis is based on:

Vancouver's Coalition for Crime Prevention and Drug Treatment's Liaison Officer delivered the feedback materials and meeting notes, accounting for approximately 400 pieces of input, for tabulation and review.

* Some attendees at small group meetings provided their feedback via individual forms or through correspondence.

Below is a list of the meetings and forums, which included approximately 1100 individuals.
Nov. 16 - 3 Mayor's forums with Coalition Partners
Dec. 18 /19 - 3 Mayor's forums with Coalition Partners
Dec. 20 - Together We Can
Jan. 6 - Circle of Hope Community Circle at Kiwassa Neighbourhood House
January 8 - Evergreen Community Health Centre Committee
Jan. 18 - Broadway Youth Resource Centre
Jan. 23 - Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association
Jan. 24 - Nisha Family Services Board
Jan. 29 - Vancouver Agreement Partners
Jan. 31- WYCA
Feb. 1- Vancouver Aboriginal Council- Substance Abuse Portfolio
Feb. 6 - South Vancouver Health Care Providers at Boys & Girls Club
Jan. 29- 30 and Feb. 5- 8 - Six Public Forums in different Vancouver venues involving approximately 120-125 people each.
The summary notes from these meetings and forums are appended for reference.
All the feedback forms and Community Alliance questionnaires were coded and tabulated by McIntyre & Mustel Research. There were 5 open-end response questions, which were identical on both the short and long feedback forms. The comments were grouped and coded and provided in tabular form. The closed-end questions on the short forms were also tabulated and provided in the form of tables.

Results
Analysis is presented in the Summary of Results section, which discusses the findings from the public input in some detail. The key findings, including common themes that emerged during the entire public consultation process, are reported in the Overview.
The tabular data provided from the short feedback forms are appended, along with samples of the forms used to collect the data.

Summary of Results
Section A. Short Form Feedback Results
The base for the analysis provided here is the group of 187 respondents who sent in the short feedback forms or Vancouver Sun inserts.
1. Attitudes Toward Four Major Goals in A Framework for Action
There is widespread support for the four major goals identified in A Framework for Action. The majority 'strongly' supports each of the goals and the opposition levels peak at 10% for the public order goal, #2.
Goal 1. Provincial and Federal Responsibility

Over 80% 'strongly' support the goal of persuading other levels of government to take action and responsibility for elements of the framework within their jurisdiction. Only 4% register any opposition.

 

Goal 2. Public Order

Over 80% support the public order goal, with over two-thirds showing 'strong' support. There is 10% combined who 'somewhat' or 'strongly' oppose working toward restoration of public order in Vancouver

Goal 3. Public Health

Similar to Goal 1, over 80% 'strongly' support the public health goal, with only 5% registering any opposition.

Goal 4. Co-ordinate, Monitor and Evaluate
About 7-in-10 'strongly' support advocating for the establishment of a single, accountable agent to coordinate implementation of the actions in the framework and to monitor and evaluate implementation. Combined with those who 'somewhat' support the goal the total support level rises to over 85%. Less than 10% oppose.

Over three-quarters of respondents to the short feedback forms react very favourably to the four-pillar approach to drug misuse, including prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction. Just over 75% indicate they 'strongly' support this approach and an additional 10% say they 'somewhat' support it, bringing the total positive response level to just under 90%. Overall opposition is very low at 6%.

3. Comments and Suggestions for Prevention
About 60% of the 187 respondents entered a comment on the form under the heading prevention. Following are the main comments and suggestions - many in support of providing education and prevention.

5. Comments and Suggestions for Enforcement

Over half of the 187 respondents (56%) made comments on the form under the heading of enforcement. Following are the main comments and suggestions on this topic.

6. Comments and Suggestions for Harm Reduction

Just under 60% made comments on the form under the heading harm reduction. The following are the main comments and suggestions on this topic - both for and against some of the elements within this pillar.

7. General Comments and Suggestions

Over 70% responded in the general comments section at the end of the form. Following are the main comments for consideration.

Section B. Long Feedback Form Results
The base for the analysis provided here is the 27 respondents who sent in the long feedback forms.
8. Attitudes Toward Four Major Goals in A Framework for Action
There is widespread support for all four major goals in the Framework for Action. The only sign of any opposition whatsoever is found from one respondent who opposes the public health goal.
Goal 1. Provincial and Federal Responsibility

There is virtually unanimous 'strong' support for this goal of persuading other levels of government to take action and responsibility for elements of the framework within their jurisdiction. (26 out of 27 respondents).
Goal 2. Public Order

All respondents support this goal of working towards restoring public order in Vancouver. Well over half 'strongly' supports the goal, while the balance 'somewhat' supports it.
Goal 3. Public Health

Similar to Goal 1, virtually all 'strongly' support the goal of addressing the drug-related health crisis in Vancouver. The only exception is the one respondent who 'strongly' opposes this.
Goal 4. Co-ordinate, Monitor and Evaluate

Three-quarters (20 of 27 respondents) 'strongly' support the goal of advocating for the establishment of a single, accountable agent to coordinate implementation of the actions in this framework and to monitor and evaluate implementation. The remainder 'somewhat' supports it.

9. Impressions of the Four-Pillar Approach to Drug Misuse
Impressions of the four-pillar approach are very favourable, with all respondents rating it on the 5-point scale used as either 'excellent', 'very good' or 'good'. No one selects 'fair' or 'poor' to express his or her reactions to this integrated approach to drug misuse. In fact, the single largest group, just under half (or 13 of the 27 respondents) rates the approach as 'excellent'. The balance is divided evenly between 'very good ' and 'good '.
10. Level of Support for Actions from Framework for Action
All of the 31 actions contained in the Framework for Action Draft Discussion Paper were presented for evaluation in the long feedback forms in order for respondents to consider and indicate the extent of their support or opposition to each ('strongly' or 'somewhat'). The results are discussed here the way in which they were presented, that is, within the four pillars of prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction.
Given that the majority (ranging from 78% - 96%) support each action and there is little opposition to any of the 31 actions in the discussion paper, these findings indicate broad-based support among these respondents for an integrated approach to Vancouver's drug problems. Interestingly, when we look at the 'strong' support category alone, a majority of the 27 long form respondents 'strongly' supports 29 of 31 actions. The two actions just shy of this mark are Action 20 and Action 27 (both with 48% 'strongly' in support). However, combined support ('strongly' and 'somewhat') for these two actions is 81% and 78%, respectively.
Similar to the public opinion survey conducted in December 2000, what is perhaps surprising is the extent of the support for even what may be considered the more controversial actions contained in the discussion paper such as the needle exchange program and consideration of safe drug consumption facilities.
The actions that are the most popular with 70% plus or at least 19 out of 27 respondents giving the action 'strong' support are noted below. The total combined support here ranges from 82% - 96%.

The following section of the report deals with reactions to each of the actions contained in A Framework for Action discussion paper.

Regional and National Drug Strategy (Actions 1-3)

Action 1. Three-quarters (20 out of 27 respondents) 'strongly' support the provincial ministries responsible implementing policy to ensure municipalities support the development of a full range of drug and alcohol services. No opposition to this action is registered.

Action 2. 70% 'strongly' support the provincial government implementing a policy framework to reduce harm to communities and individuals. Less than 10% are in opposition.

Action 3. Three-quarters 'strongly' support the federal government taking strong leadership in the areas listed. Less than 10% are opposed.

Prevention (Actions 4-7)

Action 4. Over 60% (17 respondents) 'strongly' support a community led process that increases the ability of Vancouver neighbourhoods to respond to the negative impacts of substance misuse in their communities. One respondent 'somewhat' opposes.
Action 5. All but one respondent supports the establishment of a prevention / education task force to develop a pilot city-wide school curriculum for elementary and high schools and a public education campaign to be delivered in community centres, neighbourhood houses and through the mass media. Over 60% 'strongly' support this action.
Action 6. Just under 60% (16 respondents) 'strongly' support exploring options for distributing BC Benefit cheques throughout the month in order to reduce harm to individuals and the communities by decreasing the sale and use of alcohol and drugs at one time during the month. Just over 10% oppose this plan.
Action 7. Just over half (14 respondents) is in 'strong' support of the action designed to consider the creation of a Healthy City office within the City of Vancouver to support a coordinated response to community health and safety and crime prevention in the City, and to support projects that work towards creating healthier and safer neighbourhoods. 1-in-3 (9 respondents) 'somewhat' supports this action and less than 10% oppose it.

Treatment (Actions 8-18)
Action 8. There is no opposition registered to improving methadone access in community health centres in order to treat an additional one thousand clients over the next two years, with the Downtown Eastside as a priority. Over half (15 respondents) 'strongly' support this action.
Action 9. Three-quarters 'strongly' support the action to ensure a continuum of long-term supportive housing is developed, including housing and / or shelter to stabilize those who misuse drugs and alcohol, and drug and alcohol-free housing for individuals in recovery. Only 1 respondent 'somewhat' opposes.
Action 10. A very high level, almost 8-in-10, give 'strong' support to the establishment of the planned 15-bed unit at BC Women's Hospital to provide detoxification and primary health care services. No one opposes this.
Action 11. Three-quarters 'strongly' support the establishment of 20 treatment beds for youth outside of the Downtown Eastside in several small, low-community-impact, residential treatment programs that recognize the role of drug misuse and risk taking in adolescent development. There is no opposition to this action.

Action 12. Results are identical to Action 11 above, revealing 'strong' support on the part of three-quarters of the respondents and no opposition to the concept of expanding support services to families of children involved with substance misuse.

Action 13. Results are identical to Action 10 above with almost 80% 'strongly' supporting establishing the 6 planned medical detox beds at St Paul's Hospital. There is no opposition here.
Action 14. Over 80% support the action to initiate clinical trials of a range of medications for heroin and cocaine addiction in order to increase the treatment options; the level of 'strong 'support is over 50%. Opposition is at just over 10% (or 3 respondents).

Action 15. A two-thirds majority 'strongly' supports proceeding with the proposed multi-city clinical research trials into the feasibility of heroin-assisted treatment. Opposition registers at about 15% (or 4 respondents) - most of it 'somewhat' opposed.
Action 16. Similarly, a two-thirds majority 'strongly' supports expanding and de-centralizing needle exchange services across the Vancouver / Richmond region by providing needle exchange in all primary health care clinics, hospitals, pharmacies and through non-profit groups and user groups. Only 2 respondents oppose this action.

Action 17. Three-quarters 'strongly' support, and only 1 respondent opposes piloting accessible support programs or day centres for addicts in neighbourhoods outside of the Downtown Eastside to help prevent drug users, particularly youth, from becoming more deeply involved in the inner city drug scene.
Action 18. About 7-in-10 give 'strong' support to the action designed to create a range of culturally appropriate strategies and services for Aboriginal persons using the four-pillar approach, with a priority on women and youth at risk. Opposition to this plan is at just over 10%.

Enforcement (Actions 19-25)

Action 19. Over 60% 'strongly' support increased policing in order to better target organized crime, drug houses that cause neighbourhood disruption and mid and upper level drug dealers that supply street level drug dealers. An additional 22% 'somewhat support' this action bringing the total support level to about 85%. Just over 10% are opposed.

Action 20. About 80% support instituting a senior-level Drug Action Team with just under half in 'strong' support. Less than 10% oppose this plan.

Action 21. There is no opposition here to the action of initiating a pilot Drug Treatment Court in Vancouver and advocating for creating a range of programs within the criminal justice system that give the option of entering treatment and support programs rather than going to trial and prison. About 70% 'strongly' support it.

Action 22. This action designed to review existing Federal and Provincial laws and City by-laws to determine what changes are needed to give police and the courts better tools to respond to changes in the illegal drug trade, receives the highest level of 'strong' support for any of the 31 actions measured at over 8-in 10. Only 1 respondent is opposed.

Action 23. Continuing the deployment of police officers in the Downtown Eastside to increase contact and visibility and to improve co-ordination with health services and other agencies receives the 'strong' support of two-thirds and garners just over 80% support in total. Just over 10% oppose it.

Action 24. Just over three-quarters (78%) support exploring legal and policy options related to mandatory treatment for a small group of repeat criminals, addicted to heroin, cocaine or alcohol, and responsible for a high percentage of crimes in the city. This includes over half who support this action 'strongly'. 15% are 'somewhat' opposed.
Action 25. Exploring legal and policy options related to mandatory drug treatment for youth is rated similarly to the above action. This time with just over 80% in support and just over 10% opposed. The level of 'strong' support lies just under 60%.

Harm Reduction (Actions 26-31)

Action 26. There is no opposition here to the action that deals with providing short-term shelter and housing options for drug users living on the street. About 70% 'strongly' support it.

Action 27. Over three-quarters support the establishment of a task force, with representation from all levels of government, to consider the feasibility of a scientific medical project to develop safe drug consumption facilities in Vancouver and in other appropriate areas in the country. The level of 'strong' support is just below 50%, while the opposition level is less than 10%. The 'not stated' level is 15% (or 4 respondents) slightly higher than for other actions measured, perhaps indicating that some are unsure about this aspect.
Action 28. Only 1 respondent opposes implementing an overdose death prevention campaign, while a two-thirds majority 'strongly' supports it.

Action 29. Over three-quarters support establishing testing procedures for street drugs, including just over 50% who support it 'strongly'. About 15% 'somewhat' oppose this action.

Action 30. This action to advocate for appropriate housing for those with mental illness and dual diagnosis problems throughout the region generates the highest level of 'strong' support among the 6 harm reduction actions, at a level of almost 80%. Only 1 respondent registers any opposition.
Action 31. A two-thirds majority 'strongly' supports advocating for the establishment of a single, accountable agent to co-ordinate implementation of the actions in this framework, and to monitor and evaluate implementation. The opposition level is less than 10%.

11. How Public Would Like to be Consulted

The respondents to this long feedback form indicate that they would like to be consulted in a variety of ways: written feedback forms, e-mail, small group meetings, and public forums were each mentioned by 7-8 people out of the 27 respondents. Fax is the only option on the list that is not as popular.


12. Comments and Suggestions for Prevention
About 60% of the 27 respondents entered a comment on the form regarding prevention. For consistency, the codes used to group these open-ended comments are the same as those used for the 'short' feedback form returns in this and the following four open-end questions.
Following are the main comments and suggestions on this topic - mostly in support of providing education and prevention.

13. Comments and Suggestions for Treatment

Over half (or 15 of 27 respondents) entered a comment on the section on the feedback form dealing with treatment. Following are the main comments and suggestions - primarily focussing on the need for expanded treatment services.

14. Comments and Suggestions for Enforcement

About half of the 27 respondents (52%) entered a comment on the form under the heading of enforcement. Following are the main comments and suggestions providing direction.

15. Comments and Suggestions for Harm Reduction

About half of the 27 respondents made comments on the form under the heading of harm reduction. Following are the main comments and suggestions - both for and against some of the elements within this pillar.

16. General Comments and Suggestions

Two-thirds of the 27 respondents made entries in the general comments section at the end of the form. Following are the main comments for consideration.

Section C. Public Meetings, Forums and Correspondence
17. Level of Support for Framework for Action / Four-Pillar Approach
A review of the meeting / forum notes and the correspondence in particular reveals an overwhelmingly high level of support for the direction contained in the Framework for Action draft discussion paper. Consistent with the feedback form results there appears to be widespread support for applying the four-pillar approach to Vancouver's drug problems.
There is broad recognition of the merits of an integrated, comprehensive approach and the need for balance and for all four pillars to work in concert. This is coupled with the feeling expressed by some that the current approach and / or 'the war on drugs' are clearly not working. Accordingly, many of the participants in the public process are urging the City to proceed with implementation and fast action on the four-pillar approach. They indicate they want a coordinated effort and (better) integration of services.
Underscoring this show of support, in many of the public meetings and throughout the correspondence participants commend the City of Vancouver's leadership on the drug issue. Many thanks, congratulations and words of support are passed on to Donald MacPherson and particularly to Mayor Owen for their constructive efforts and for the "courage", "compassion", "dedication" and "foresight" displayed in tackling this complex issue.

There is a great deal of consistency in the themes expressed in the small group meetings and the six public forums that were held from Nov. 2000 to February, 2001, following the release of the draft discussion paper, A Framework for Action. In addition to the overall support expressed for the integrated four-pillar approach, below is a summary of the key recurring themes that illustrates clearly what the public believes are the pressing needs in the community.

The correspondence, in the form of 31 letters and e-mails that were directed to the Mayor's Office and to Vancouver's Coalition for Crime Prevention and Drug Treatment, were primarily from private citizens but include input from the Mayor of Olympia, Washington and from several organizations. The organizations on record are as follows:

Virtually all (but two) of the pieces of correspondence were generally very supportive of the direction spelled out in the Framework for Action in one form or another.
Additionally, there is strong support shown specifically for the four goals identified in the discussion paper as well as for the four-pillar approach... "keep going with the four-pillar approach", "full agreement", "agree with it all", "applaud approach", "correct new approach", "Vancouver ready and eager to find new solutions", "need to start somewhere", "important, progressive, must keep going", "appreciate the initiative", "need for integration of services", "need a vision of how people can be supported in ending addiction", "time for action", "need action".
Others as noted earlier, express great appreciation for the courage and leadership being displayed on the issue, urging the City to proceed with their efforts to deal with the drug problems.
Comments and suggestions were also made regarding each of the four pillars, summarized in point form as follows.
Prevention:


Treatment:

Enforcement:


Harm Reduction:

The main caution issued here in two pieces of correspondence in particular is not to lower legal standards or liberalize laws to tolerate drug use. One is opposed, in fact, to anything that would make drug use easier, for example, safe injection sites, needle exchange, or heroin prescriptions for fear that Vancouver will become a magnet for users and pushers. There is also a question included here about where economic support will come from for this drug strategy given that the health system is overtaxed now - who should pay the piper?

Section D. Results from Community Alliance Forms

The responses to the 8 closed-end questions on the 132 questionnaires submitted by Community Alliance are summarized below. Please refer to the form appended to more fully understand the responses as background information is provided in advance of the questioning in several instances.

Q.1 A total of 86% of respondents indicate that they support Vancouver following the Canadian drug strategy with three pillars, rather than Vancouver having its own strategy which they say adds a fourth pillar, harm reduction.
Q. 2 A total of 92% indicate that services and facilities for drug addicts should be decentralized throughout the city and the province to provide services for the drug addict in his or her own community, rather than being concentrated in the Downtown Eastside.
Q. 3. A total of 98% do not support establishing government-funded drug injection sites for drug addicts to inject illegal drugs.
Q.4 A total of 99% do not approve providing government-funded free illegal drugs, including heroin or cocaine, for drug addicts.
Q. 5 A total of 96% do not support the Vancouver police taking measures such as testing the purity of illegal drugs to assist or facilitate the use of illegal drugs.
Q.6 A total of 78% support a full and complete audit of the funds currently being spent on programs in the Downtown Eastside to determine how effectively they are being spent.
Q. 7 If more government funds are to be spent in the Downtown Eastside, a total of 84% support spending more money on economic development to encourage legitimate businesses in the Downtown Eastside; 14% support spending an equal amount of money on services for drug addicts and for economic development to encourage legitimate businesses in the Downtown Eastside; while only 2% support spending more money on services for drug addicts in the Downtown Eastside.
Q.8 A total of 85% indicate that if there were to be health referral and "life skills" facilities for drug addicts they should be managed by health professionals rather than by service groups and other addicts.

21. Summary of Comments
Just under 20% (25 respondents) filled in the General Comments section at the end of the form. Following is a summary of the main comments for consideration.

Appendices - Part A

meeting / forum notes A-I

computer tables - short feedback forms A-II

short feedback form sample A-III

long feedback form sample A-IV

community alliance form sample A-V

Foreword - Part B

Objectives

As part of the process of obtaining public feedback to the City of Vancouver's A Framework for Action draft discussion paper, the City implemented an outreach program to facilitate public consultation and discussion with multicultural communities and different language groups. Materials were translated into four different languages, communications campaigns were conducted in various ethnic media and a series of meetings and focus group discussions were conducted to solicit feedback and suggestions for handling Vancouver's drug problems.

The purpose of the multicultural focus group discussions were specifically to:

Methodology

A variety of small meetings, presentations, workshops and the focus group discussions involving about 700 people in total were conducted from December 2000 - March 2001 within each of the major ethnic communities represented in Vancouver. Those with a variety of backgrounds and interests, including members of various multicultural organizations and social agencies attended these meetings to offer their opinions. Most communities held at least 5 focus groups with the numbers increasing to 10 and 14 among the Chinese and Indo-Canadian communities respectively. A more detailed description of the procedures pertaining to each community is described in the reports appended.

The following five written reports were submitted to the City of Vancouver as a summation of the components of the multilingual outreach programs. Each report presents a summary of the feedback from the focus group discussions, including a wide variety of suggestions and recommendations.

A Framework for Action Multilingual Outreach Project Report on Chinese Outreach - George Hui

Four-pillar Approach Project- Framework for Action Community Consultation (Vietnamese Community) -Zung Trinh

A Framework for Action Responses from the Indo-Canadian Community - Poonam Kapoor

Final report- Spanish Focus Group Discussion on the draft document: A Framework for Action, A Four-pillar Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver (concentrating on DTES) - Hector Cortes

A Framework for Action Latin American Outreach Project (concentrating outside DTES) - Irene Policzer

Results

The results reported here are a summary of the common themes as well as reactions to and suggestions for each of the four pillars that emerged from discussions in the various ethnic communities as reflected in the five reports. These key findings have been incorporated into the Overview on Pages 1-3.

The five multicultural reports are appended for reference.

Summary of Results

A. Common Themes to Emerge from Multicultural Public Consultation

1. Common Themes Pertaining to the Multicultural Communities

Overall the multicultural consultation on the City's four-pillar approach to drug problems as documented in the discussion paper, A Framework for Action, concludes with a favourable response. This occurs once the various communities have the opportunity to better understand both what is being proposed and the rationale underlying this integrated approach. The Chinese community participants, which according to their report perhaps were the most skeptical going into this process, and initially only wanted to focus on law enforcement, now appear to be quite supportive of this approach once informed of the details and given an opportunity for dialogue. Similarly, the Indo-Canadians also reported some mixed opinions but are said to be largely supportive of the four-pillar approach.

There is consistency in a number of the themes that emerge from the multilingual public consultation process. Among these are certain identified needs and areas of concern that distinguish the multicultural community response from the feedback reported in Part A. The main points are as follows:

1) the need for expanded multicultural services and staff to serve the multicultural communities, including in the important area of drug treatment,

2) the need for increased supports and settlement services for non-English speaking immigrants adjusting to a new country,

3) the need to eliminate racism, stereotyping, and harrassment not only amongst the general public, but among specific groups such as police, media, and the schools. There is a shared request for greater cross-cultural understanding and cultural sensitivity at all decision-making levels. For example, it was mentioned that Latin Americans have been "blamed as a source of drug problems" when many feel they should be looked upon instead as "victims" of poverty and civil war etc.,

4) the need for an increased emphasis on prevention and (early) education programs to eliminate problems before they occur or assist in deterring immigrants from turning to drugs and alcohol to deal with loneliness, isolation, homelessness and poverty. There is an expressed need for a better understanding of what causes addiction along with better access to recreation facilities and programs to help youth make healthier choices,

5) the perceived need for tougher law enforcement for the 'big' drug dealers and increased effectiveness in the general area of law enforcement. Some say the credibility of the police must be improved within ethnic communities in order to make efforts to deal with drug problems more successful.

B. Reactions and Suggestions for the Four Pillar - Approach
There is overall support for the four-pillar approach according to the multicultural reports. Clearly, the more information residents receive directly, the more they develop an understanding and ultimately become more supportive of many of the proposed actions (or the type of actions) contained in the paper.
Many believe the City's integrated plan will be successful (only) if there is an understanding of the implications of the language barrier and multiculturalism is taken into consideration in the final approach that is adopted. Increased services and staff who can communicate in different languages are considered necessary.
Some are looking for clearly defined channels for community participation and decision-making within each of the four pillars. Others are seeking integration of services for effective action, especially within the pillars of prevention and treatment that were a central focus of a number of the multicultural discussions.
Better cooperation among the three levels of government and a commitment to long-term funding are also identified as prerequisites for success by some.

There is clear and consistent appreciation throughout the multicultural communities for prevention and education programs relating to drugs..."best action is prevention". There also seems to be broad interest in ensuring parental / family involvement in these types of efforts.

Following is a list of the main types of suggestions and recommendations related to prevention and education that were made by various participants in the multicultural public consultation.

3. Treatment
Similar to findings in Part A of this report there appears to be an urgent need for treatment facilities and services - in this case with the added need for this type of service and support in different languages.

Following is a list of the main types of suggestions and recommendations related to treatment made by various participants in the multicultural public consultation.

4. Enforcement

There appears to be a common desire to close down the open drug scene, however, there is some mixed feeling with regard to the importance of or how exactly to approach the law enforcement issues as related to illegal drugs. For instance, the Chinese community was reported initially to want to focus strictly on strengthening 'lenient' laws to deal with drugs, treating this as a criminal issue rather than a social problem. Further, some Latin Americans are reported to be skeptical of the effectiveness of the police when they consider police harassment and stereotyping to be part of the problem.

Education and dialogue appear to be contributing to a better understanding of the issues and to creating movement towards agreement on how to tackle the drug problems. More now appear to believe that enforcement alone is not the answer, but that still the laws should be tightened to deal with the non-addicted commercial dealers.

Following is a list of the main types of suggestions and recommendations related to enforcement made by various participants in the multicultural public consultation.

5. Harm Reduction
The concept of harm reduction seems to be generally well accepted as one of the four pillars, although perhaps with a few reservations. Overall a feeling emerges from most in multicultural communities that individuals with drug problems do need community support. They deserve to be respected, given treatment and harm should be minimized. Many in the multicultural communities view drug addiction as a health issue, not just as a criminal activity.
Initially, however, this pillar created some controversy within the Chinese community in particular. Some thought 'lenient' laws provide too much protection for addicts. The report indicates that as the Chinese participants in the consultation gained a better understanding of addiction issues such as causes, limitations, inadequate treatment programs etc., their attitudes did change. While some continue to insist drug use is a crime, most now acknowledge it is a serious health and social problem. The Chinese participants began to accept harm reduction as an interim measure for improving health and safety and supported the four-pillar approach.
The issue of developing safe injection sites needs special comment. The perceived benefits are to help close down the open drug scene, to prevent overdose deaths and to minimize the risks of dirt and disease, associated with drug abuse. There is mixed reaction within the Chinese community - some support and some opposition - but other communities appear to be generally in favour of safe sites, especially if regulated and closely monitored. The Indo-Canadian report reveals there is mixed reaction to whether the sites should be located close-by or further away, but they do favour the provision of clean injecting equipment through various agencies working with drug users throughout Vancouver.
Following is a list of the few other suggestions and recommendations related to harm reduction that were made by various participants in the multicultural public consultation. This is in addition to the above thoughts on safe injection sites and the general support for needle exchange, (particularly if conducted on a 'one for one' basis), which some discuss in the context of harm reduction.

Appendices - Part B

a framework for action multilingual outreach project report on chinese outreach B-I

four-pillar approach project- framework for action community consultation (vietnamese community)B-II

a framework for action responses from the indo-canadian CommunityB-III

final report- spanish focus group discussion on the draft document: a framework for action, a four-pillar approach to drug problems in vancouver B-IV

a framework for action latin american outreach project B-V

Meeting / Forum NotesA-I

Computer Tables - Short Feedback FormsA-II

Short Feedback Form SampleA-III

Long Feedback Form SampleA-IV

Community Alliance Form SampleA-V

A Framework For Action Multilingual Outreach Project Report On Chinese Outreach B-I

Four-Pillar Approach Project- Framework For Action Community Consultation (Vietnamese Community)B-II

A Framework For Action Responses From The Indo-Canadian CommunityB-III

Final Report- Spanish Focus Group Discussion On The Draft Document: A Framework For Action, A Four-Pillar Approach To Drug Problems In Vancouver B-IV

A Framework For Action Latin American Outreach Project
B-V

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver