Risk and Commitment

The question of safety is always a question that is at the forefront in the minds of those of us who work and participate in the life of the community at 320 East Hastings.  We want this place to be safe for everyone – for those who use this place as a daily drop-in, for those who sleep here nightly, for those who participate in programs from other neighbourhoods, for those who come as practicum students to learn and share, for those of us who are staff and who are in this building daily.  We want this place to be safe.

 The question of whether First United is “safe” is a complicated question to answer.  Although it seems very straight forward on the surface, the question itself carries many layers of meaning. It cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”   

In some ways it’s like talking about cars and safety.  We all live with a certain amount of risk in our lives in order to enjoy our lives to the fullest.  That risk is calculated risk and we all do our best to minimize the amount of risk we encounter.  When I drive my car, I trust that the guys in my local garage have done all of the safety inspections that are necessary.  They’ve checked my brakes and my tires.  My car passes all of the safety regulations put in place by the province.  I am a competent driver. I don’t drive if I’ve consumed alcohol. I drive my SMART car cautiously (especially when I go past a BIG truck) and I don’t venture out in horrendous weather.

And yet bad things happen.  We know that people die in car accidents.  Despite our best precautions, situations happen that are beyond a person’s control and the consequences are tragic for all.  I suppose that if one was making a choice between walking and driving a car one might logically surmise that overall one is safer if one walks.  That doesn’t stop us from owning, riding or driving cars.  We all live with a certain amount of risk, an amount that we deem appropriate, in order to take advantage of the benefits of car riding, to achieve our goals and to live our lives to the fullest.

Some of us can live with more risk than others and still claim their activity is safe.  Occasionally I channel-change past shows which feature car racing like the Indy 500.  I assume that race car drivers believe that their race cars are safe.  I have to assume that for the activity that they are involved in that they have done all of their safety checks and that they are good drivers. I have to assume that they know what they are doing and that they are in their right minds. The fact that most of them make it around the track time and time again suggests that perhaps race car driving is safe.  I wouldn’t be comfortable doing it, though.  It carries a risk factor that’s a little higher than what I can comfortably live with.     So when we talk about “safety” it’s important to know something, first of all, about levels of risk and secondly, about the purpose of the activity before we can fully assess it.

Working with those who have been chronically homeless and who are struggling with physical and mental health issues carries with it a certain amount of risk.  We know that First United is not a risk free environment.  But like my image of a car, we have worked carefully to put in place the correct policies and procedures to minimize that risk and to help people be safe.  We have committed significant financial resources to increase the number of staff who are on the floor at any one time.  We have worked with BC Housing and all departments of the City to make sure that we meet all building safety, health and fire codes.  We have hired additional women to staff the women’s area, an area that we have had in place since the first winter we opened.  Most recently we have increased the size of our women’s area and created women only, men only and couples only areas.  We have worked out a clear policy with the Ministry of Community and Family Development to make sure that we know what to do if a person under the age of 19 should want to sleep at First United.  We have continued to do training with our staff about how to de-escalate situations of potential violence.  With help from BC Housing we have installed additional security cameras throughout our building.  Our staff are trained in first aid.  We have been very intentional in working with the Vancouver Police Department to make sure that whenever there is criminal behaviour, that we have done our best to support the efforts of the police. We support the presence of the police in our building because we want this place to be safe for everyone. 

 Despite our very best efforts we have had violence in our building.   It is the hard reality of this neighbourhood and those with whom we are in community.  The chaos of personal lives spills over into relationships with other people and sometimes conflict erupts or those more vulnerable are taken advantage of.   When incidents occur,  we take it very seriously because violence between people violates the very goal of building community to which we remain committed.   Our staff respond to provide care and incidents are reported to the police.

We have had many individuals and groups tell us that the solution to the problem of violence is to ban those who exhibit such behaviour.  We have declined to follow their advice.  Our refusal to ban is not the result of some misguided do-gooder refusal to acknowledge the damage that violence does.  Nor is it to shield those who engage in criminal behaviour by granting them “sanctuary.”  We have granted “sanctuary” to one person and one person only at First United-and that is Rodney Watson.  The very narrow definition of “sanctuary” which was agreed to by the Oversight Board of First United does not apply to any other individual in our building.

We refuse to ban because banning doesn’t work.  It is a band-aid solution that absolves an organization of liability but it doesn’t do anything to solve the deeper underlying problems of what to do with the really difficult, damaged people who are known by every organization in this neighbourhood.  In our case, it simply displaces the problem from inside the building to outside of it.   Rather than being a step forward in making the neighbourhood safer for everyone, it is a step backwards.   It breaks the fragile bonds that our staff have established with those who are problematic making it impossible for us to develop the kind of interventions needed to help those who are most troubled. We cannot get alongside people when we don’t know where they are. You can’t build trust if you’re not willing to meet a person’s basic needs for food, shelter and companionship.  From our perspective, it is better for us to deal with those individuals in our building than have them wander the streets disconnected from healthy human community.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that those whose behaviour is problematic are allowed to run freely among those who are vulnerable.  Nor does it imply that we don’t call the police when someone refuses to behave or that we won’t press criminal charges when needed.  We will honour a police “no-go” order if we know that there is an agreed upon plan to get someone the kind of help that they need.  We will ask for someone to be charged so that we can work with the criminal justice system to make effective change happen.  When people exhibit disruptive behaviour, their access to parts of the building is curtailed.  Through it all we remain committed to being in relationship with an individual regardless of their behaviour.

From our conversations with levels of government, the police and other service providers, we know that there is no overarching strategy in place to help those in our city who are among the most difficult to deal with.  Our mental health and addiction treatment resources are woefully inadequate.  There is no integrated response across helping professions to create coordinated responses.  Our expectations about the ability of some people to access and maintain housing, even supportive housing, are unrealistic.    In our experience, it  takes intentional and persistent effort to establish relationships with people whose behaviour suggests that they aren’t interested in help.   It takes commitment even in the face of potential violence. 

 The measures of success are often difficult to see.  They don’t show up in the reports issued by agencies or governments.   Sometimes they are encapsulated in a small story told in passing by a community worker who has a conversation with someone who has not spoken to another living soul in a year.  While the stars in the heavens might not have realigned themselves or the heavenly choruses offered a resounding “hallelujah!” each tiny step towards health and wholeness is celebrated.  For those of us who work at First, these tiny steps are enough.  They are more than enough.

 

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized