Part I - Investigating the Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission

Introduction and Primary Documents

The majority of you know by now about the Supreme Court Johnson v. Grants Pass case, which overturned previously enshrined laws in the Ninth Circuit that imposed minor restrictions on criminalizing homelessness. Under this new ruling, jurisdictions can wantonly criminalize poverty and homelessness; this has already led to California Gavin Newsom essentially declaring war on encampments. Only time will reveal the full implications of this decision.

This is a story I have covered extensively already, and yet there remained this angle of it that I knew I wanted to dig more into, and which sits directly at the intersection of my interests and niche as a writer on homelessness and religion. 

At that intersection sits the Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission. GP GRM is the only shelter and homeless services provider in Grants Pass, OR, the very city that originally sued for the right to criminalize homelessness and lost over and over until the Supreme Court overruled it. Ostensibly, the Supreme Court ruled that even in a town like Grants Pass that only has one service provider with a limited amount of beds and strict rules and religious guidelines, cities have no responsibility to provide services before (or instead of) ticketing and arresting people for sleeping outside. 

This three part series is an investigative deep-dive into the Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission, not simply for the means of a takedown. The wide-reaching implications of this Supreme Court decision bring our attention to this little Mission which represents a few different key realities: the lengths to which an evangelical organization will miss the mark on homelessness for the sake of “making disciples”; the parts of the Constitution that we are willing to bend on when it comes to policing the poor; and the direct harm we inflict on bodies and lives when we collude in these ways. 

My primary source for this series is someone I will call Alison. We originally connected through social media when she came across something I wrote, and she told me that she appreciated my perspective because she had stayed at the Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission. I broached the idea of her sharing her story, which sparked a lot of interest and a lot of anxiety. We worked through the details and, under condition of full anonymity, she shared so much with me, including the documents I’m presenting today. Next week, Part II will present the majority of her story and experience. 

SUPPORT: Alison did a really brave and vulnerable thing sharing this all with me–not simply because it presents risks of identification and retaliation, but also because this process unearthed a lot of trauma for her. Telling me her story and finding/sharing the documents was work in a number of different ways. For this physical and emotional labor, I did compensate her–but she deserves more than I could offer. I wanted to ask you all to,if you are moved at all by Alison’s story and participation on this, to consider donating directly to her. For anonymity’s sake, I will collect those and pass them along. 

You can contribute via Venmo (@ kevin-nye-3), Cash App ($Revkev), Paypal or Zelle (kevin.m.nye@gmail.com).

Disclaimer: Because of the closed-off nature of the Gospel Rescue Mission and their services, there’s no way to fully verify the authenticity of everything I will present in this series. Wherever possible, I achieved confirmation of the accuracy of the documents, and compared the stories of some others who have experience with Grants Pass GRM to Alison’s. In every way, Alison’s experiences resonated with the things I heard from others, and I have no reason not to believe them. Nonetheless, I cannot present them as if they are facts, and you as the reader will ultimately have to make your own decision.

Documentation

I will provide some commentary, but the most important thing you can do today is read these documents that I obtained from Alison. They paint a damning picture of life at the only shelter option for unhoused people in Grants Pass, and now the only option to avoid tickets, fines, or even jail time. 

Please take the time to read through each page. There are three pages of Rules, followed by the Daily Schedule, and finally the Request for Extended Stay, which was filled out monthly.

When I shared these documents online, the number one observation people made was the 30 day limit (Rule 1) and the restriction from looking for work for the first 30 days (Rule 23). Yes, there is a fundamental discrepancy there, but my experience in these types of settings (as well as hearing from Alison) suggest that this isn’t so much error as it is a strategy. The Mission, and everyone who stays there, knows that the average stay will be much longer than 30 days. Who could possibly resolve their homelessness so quickly? 

I imagine the rule functions in the same way that a one-year lease on an apartment rental does; it’s not necessarily that the landlord only wants you to live there a year, but it gives them an easy out if they want to for any reason–you may have given them no cause (legal or otherwise) for an eviction, but there’s a baked-in timeframe where they can sever ties without needing any of that. Given that so many of the subsequent rules are highly subjective (and potentially illegal), this 30-day expectation protects the Mission from having to thoroughly justify why they ask anyone to leave. They are “exiting” them, they’re just “not renewing their stay.”

I’ve worked in lots of homelessness programs, including shelters, and I’ve dealt with my fair share of rules. I’ve even written a ton of them. (I’ve also written a post about how rules ought to function in space like this, here.) As I look at these rules, there are some I can absolutely understand as being based in reasonable thinking… but I can hardly name a single rule number without qualifying that only a portion of the rule is reasonable. Consider Rule 5, 7, and 12, which begin very reasonably in prohibiting drugs and alcohol, aggressive behavior, and restricting food to certain areas. I would probably tweak even these first portions, but they’re not outrageous. However, each of those three goes on to be unnecessarily controlling, rigid, and even bizarre. 

It isn’t just that drugs and alcohol are not permitted on campus–you can’t partake period, a rule which then extends to even nicotine. (Not to mention that quitting cold turkey from many substances is extremely dangerous… more on this next week.) 

It’s not just that aggressive behavior is not tolerated, it’s that it results in immediate termination for all involved. Is there nuance for who started it? If one person attacks another, are both terminated? 

It’s not just that food is disallowed in certain areas. (Do you want ants? Cuz this is how you get ants!) The same rule also contains a weird prohibition of hanging out at particular local establishments. Why is this a Mission rule, and not simply a “No Loitering” rule on the part of the businesses?

And then there’s the rules that are downright disturbing: You must be nicotine free even off campus? How would they even know? (More on this next week.) No fraternizing with the opposite sex! How enormously subjective this must be, that anything perceived as flirting would be a terminable offense. This also includes folks who may be in a relationship but not married. Shower every day! Punishable sick days! You have to go to Church, but only ones *we* like! Do your chores, no naps, and don’t miss a meal! 

Is this a shelter, or a prison?

Rule 4 concerns me the most. That the Mission would insist on managing everyone’s medication while also claiming that they are not medical professionals is deeply concerning. As you can see on the daily schedule, medication is only distributed twice a day. What if the medication is to be taken as needed, which does not align with the schedule? What if it’s supposed to be taken with food? GR GRM cannot claim to be medically ignorant and then assume the role of pharmacist. 

The more alarming part of Rule 4 is at the end, where they reserve the right to expel anyone from the Mission who has a physical or mentally disabling condition that precludes them participating in chores or work. In keeping with the theological and political ramifications, the following two conclusions arise:

1. The Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission isn’t interested in helping people who it can’t turn into workers

2. The is no place in Grants Pass to go if you are disabled and homeless, and now the Supreme Court has ruled you can be arrested for this. 

There is still so much that can be said about the rules, but I want to move on to the schedule.

The document titled “WOMAN’S DAILY OPPORTUNITIES”, which manages to be both grammatically ridiculous and extremely condescending at the same time, shows how much of the day is dedicated to religion and work–the same things that the “Request for Extended Stay” holds people especially accountable to. When in this schedule are people allowed to be people? When are they working with a case manager to obtain housing? This schedule is as clear a display of “homelessness exists because people are lazy and bad” as anything I’ve ever seen. 

Notice too that women are not granted even 8 hours of sleep each night. Assuming that everyone falls asleep right at lights out, women are only allowed to sleep 7.25 hours each night until the weekends. With no naps allowed and punishment for being sick, we are far from “services to the vulnerable” and quickly approaching “prison labor camp.” Folks on Twitter were quick to point out that sleep deprivation as a systemized tool is typical of both cults and torture. 

And finally, the “Request for Extended Stay.” The document which could only be designed a regular reminder of people’s vulnerability–the possibility that the only thing protecting them from the streets (and now arrest) can all go away if they don’t attend chapel enough, aren’t polite enough, don’t work hard enough, or keep their bunk clean enough. It’s hard to see this as anything less than a monthly shakedown; a threat. Stay in line, or go back to the streets. 

Altogether, the picture is bleak. A Christian ministry that treats those in need as prisoners in need of control, indoctrination, and “rehabilitation” more than care, services, or resources; a local government willing to allow this to be the only services available in their area and criminalizing anyone too disabled, too scared, or just too damn tired to accept it; and a nation whose highest court of law looked at all of this and declared it not only acceptable, but now open to replication across the country. 

I will always argue that it is unethical and UNCHRISTIAN to force religious practice on people, especially when you have the power to withhold life-saving resources. But now, the government has made it clear that the weight of the criminal justice system can be used to coerce people even further–that in towns like Grants Pass, if you are poor enough and desperate enough, you have two choices left: 

Go to jail, or go to church.

Christians–what say we to this? 

Will we continue to support institutions like the Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission who claim to be helpers but ostensibly run poorhouses? Will we collude with the government to colonize the destitute? 

Or will we listen to the experiences of the vulnerable, even if they make us uncomfortable? Even if they scandalize us? Even if they indict us?

If you’re willing to risk the latter, I invite you to take some time to read Part II, releasing next week: Alison’s story.

---

Reminder: Let’s support Alison financially for the risk and labor of bringing us these documents and her story. Every penny you send to me will go directly to her in addition to the amount I am committing to and have already given. You can contribute via Venmo (@ kevin-nye-3), Cash App ($Revkev), Paypal or Zelle (kevin.m.nye@gmail.com).

UPDATE to Part I - Investigating Grants Pass GRM