Reaching beyond the polarisation

The privilege of leadership always brings appreciation and criticism. Leaders soon realise that the more challenging the situation, the greater the intensity of both the affirmation and the disapproval. For many leaders the moments when the heat is really on, become the moment for careful reflection – and for making clear where they stand. The past months have generated such a moment for me.

In recent weeks I have become increasingly aware that there are people who see me as indifferent, irresponsible, arrogant and inflexible:
• Indifferent to the needs of vulnerable women and indifferent particularly to the ongoing sexual abuse of women;
• Irresponsible for allowing inside the building at First United people with very dubious records, people for whom the Police have secured No-Go orders, people under 19 years of age and people in excess of the legal occupancy load
• Arrogant for not listening to the wisdom and counsel of the Police on the ground, of City staff and BC Housing staff.
• Inflexible for not giving way on the demands indicated in the second bullet above

I experience each of these perceptions as very painful since I neither value any of them as in any way desirable or acceptable, nor do I see myself in that way. In an effort to understand these perceptions I have tried to outline the factors that may be playing a part in all of this.

The first factor is always and obviously one’s own interpersonal style and level of social skills. One can be passionately convicted about something and still remain gracious and respectful, avoiding attacking the character and worth of others. These are things I genuinely strive to do, but no doubt have at times failed to achieve. For that I am genuinely sorry. I welcome direct frank conversations that will help me see when and where I have failed and how I might do things differently.

In response to the accusation of indifference, I want to state categorically that despite the distortions in one media article that gave rise to further misleading reports, I do not believe that victims of abuse are ever responsible for the abuse they suffer. I do want it understood that in describing the behaviours that lead to the intensity in our building, I at no point said these behaviours were intentional attempts to draw attention – nor that they in any way implied individuals were responsible for any abuse that may be inflicted on them. I keenly understand the painful sensitivity of others to any comment that seems to blame the victims – there are far too many women (in the Downtown Eastside in particular, but throughout our society) who have suffered unbelievable abuse and who live with a daily ongoing struggle to cope with the trauma that never leaves them. . I am genuinely sorry for the way these well intentioned but awkward comments have caused distress and conflict. I wish that I had found alternative words with which to convey what I was trying to say about how people bring with them the traumas and challenges of the streets and of their lives in ways that add to the intensity and unpredictability inside First United. I wish I had found more helpful ways to engage and respond to the hurt and offence my comments caused as they impacted on many who still suffer the effects of past and/or ongoing abuse. I remain committed to personally ensure that we daily accommodate the immensely vulnerable women who seek refuge in our building (some of whom are barred from other institutions because of their behaviour). I remain committed to personally ensure that we have policies, structures and procedures that are constantly reviewed for improvement to protect women against exploitation and abuse. My deepest passion is, and always has been, for justice for the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.

I understand the concerns about irresponsibility, arrogance and inflexibility to be, at least in part, informed by a larger context. I have outlined elsewhere (http://j.mp/rlgcQf and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2FoY8PfjiY) my sense that our contemporary social analysis seems to be based on an inner mainstream circle, surrounded by an outer second circle consisting of those at the margins of society. In responding to and caring for those outside of mainstream society in that second circle, we tend to operate in a “fix” and/or “contain” mode. The most typical approach seems to me to be based on fundamental model that ensures the safety and wellbeing of the majority (or of a specific group) by excluding those who might threaten that. I sincerely believe this is necessary and appropriate. I also believe it is not sufficient. We need also to find ways to care for the folk who are deemed a threat to others and are excluded from the formal shelters and other facilities. These most troubled of the troubled constitute a third concentric circle. We know that not all individuals can be “fixed” or “contained”. Many are not ill enough to be apprehended under the Mental Health Act and not criminal enough to be detained for long periods. Instead they drift in the shadows, as a risk to themselves and society – or cycle through the system in and out of prison and/or care. This reality is confirmed in recent media reports on the ineffectiveness of dealing with seriously mentally ill people on our streets – and by the statements of the Chief Justice supporting the Law Society’s observation that the most troubled (and therefore most troublesome) are cycling through the legal system. More than a third of the population in our prisons are people with mental illness. As a society we spend a fortune in not meeting this need – and we continue to fail these most vulnerable of the vulnerable. These folk need places of refuge where they can be engaged with and where effective individual care plans can be developed and implemented (with integrated and collective effort across authorities, disciplines and organisations). The intensely divisive challenge in this is that our conventional established approach is fundamentally anchored in the second circle. There is immediate discomfort with any approach that does not exclude the “few” who are a risk to others and to the institution. Any person or organisation that deliberately operates in the third circle of the most troubled of the troubled, will confront sustained pressure to conform to approaches used within the second circle paradigm.

In the interaction with some of the other agencies and with institutions like the City, Province and Church, it is this divisive issue that in my view has driven the increased polarisation. I have experienced overwhelming pressure to conform to the conventional approach of the second circle. In those conversations, I have clearly failed to help others understand and agree with our views on the need in the third circle. I acknowledge that I have determinedly persevered in presenting the challenges of the third circle. I can absolutely see how that determination can be experienced as arrogant and as inflexible. However, I confess that I remain convinced that we do need an additional and different approach in order to connect with and respond to the needs of those in the third circle. I really do struggle to let go of that belief.

Because of my belief that we need to find ways to engage and not exclude the most troubled of the troubled, our approach by definition does not follow the conventional understanding of what it means to be responsible. It clearly requires a willingness to enter a messy, scary and risky world of caring outside of the conventional structures and standards. The act of providing hospitality in the stable on the first Christmas was an act in the third circle. The innkeeper moved beyond and outside of the obvious hygiene and physical risks. In a world of mitigating liability, it would be foolishly irresponsible to allow a young pregnant couple immanently about to give birth, access to the stable. No insurer today would provide cover for such an act and no responsible organisational leader would sanction such an act. It would also be irresponsible and very risky to lie about the baby’s presence in response to a question from soldiers seeking to kill newborn babies – or to conspire to help the baby escape detection. Fortunately, the Baby was born in another time and place. The conventional wisdom of the second circle does not allow for a Jesus who heals on the Sabbath and regularly moves outside of the law. For work with the vulnerable, it does not allow for the employment of folk with criminal records for violence (like a Nelson Mandela who initiated and led armed insurrection). It does not allow for actions that break municipal bylaws and safety standards (like those by Ghandi and Martin Luther King). It is at odds with our current provision of Sanctuary for Rodney Watson in the face of legal processes that have declared him to be illegally in the country. To be deemed responsible seems to require conforming to these regulatory and social constraints – and seems to be defined within the mental models anchored within the second circle. I am immensely saddened that our commitments to caring for those in the third circle are seen as irresponsible acts. I truly wish it were different.

There are some specific points at which others have deemed me to be irresponsible, inflexible and arrogant:
• A demand that we agree to be a formal Shelter where the wellbeing of the majority is protected by excluding the few who are deemed to pose a threat to the others – despite the fact that we are there precisely for those who are typically excluded elsewhere and that we have clear policies and procedures for limiting such people to very specific supervised parts of the building away from the majority.
• A demand that we agree to limit the numbers in our building to meet best practice standards of formal Shelters even if that means that people who have nowhere else to go are sent back onto the streets – despite the fact that we continue to work with all parties to find ways to stay within the determined occupancy levels but insist that when the demand exceeds those limits without actually threatening people’s safety, we need to provide a place for them to be while we all (Province, City, Society) collectively address the core issue of why so many folk have nowhere else to be (much like we would do if we housed people in halls after an earthquake).
• Demand that we never allow into our building anyone that the Police or others have deemed should not be allowed in, based on the standards and practices that are used in conventional Shelters – despite our ongoing practice of working with the Police and others to not simply impose such no-go orders but to always try to ensure that if such an order is to be issued and respected, we need to ensure there is a realistic care plan in place for that person to ensure the individual receives assessment and treatment and not merely exclusion from the premises or a brief jail stint.
• Demand that we not allow anyone who has housing elsewhere to stay in our building overnight – despite our belief and experience that simply sending such people out does not mean that they are willing or able to return to their allocated housing (which is often seriously inappropriate or being utilised by someone else who prevents them from doing so themselves), despite our belief that the housing provider needs to accept prior responsibility to know about and to address the reason for such a person not staying there, and despite our commitment to work with all concerned to develop appropriate care plans for each such person while they are at First United to sustainably resolve the reasons for why they are not staying in the housing provided for them.
• Demand that we do not employ anyone with a dubious or offensive history, regardless of whether or not they actually pose a threat to the wellbeing of others – despite our commitment that we will at all times conduct thorough criminal record and other checks and that we will not employ anyone who poses a genuine threat to the wellbeing of others in capacities where they could harm others
• Demand that we do not at any time allow anyone under 19 years of age into the building – despite the fact that we are a Church and an intentionally inclusive community, have within the community that lives at First United people with children, and have clearly articulated policies for securing the wellbeing of any under age persons

Each of these is an issue that I believe to be fundamental in providing caring within the third circle. That does not mean that we have casually dismissed the concerns that others have raised. In an ongoing effort to hear and respond to ideas about how we might improve the way we do things, we have paid careful attention to the following:

1. We have 32 cameras in our building; visible staff with radios and emergency cell phones based on the floor in every area of the building at all times; 24 hour women-only space and 24 hour couples-only space, and the remainder of the sleeping areas reserved for men only.
2. We have policies and procedures that ensure staff pay attention to proactively identifying and mitigating potential conflict; staff intervene immediately in the event of any sudden assault or conflict to de-escalate and ensure no continuation or escalation of the conflict; staff provide immediate support for the victim(s); staff ensure immediate calls to the police and provide support in pressing charges. We ensure all incidents are recorded and documented.
3. We have for the past four years very intentionally engaged with and worked on relationships with the Police, with Government departments and with other agencies to find more constructive ways of dealing with the issues that lead to homelessness.
4. We pushed in 2010 with City and Provincial leaders via a “share the gold” campaign for a collective integrated and comprehensive approach across all parties to try to resolve the core issues behind the number of street homeless people, and have recently again initiated multilateral meetings to try to identify how we can collectively reduce the number of people who come to First United for help.
5. We have readily embraced strategies to reduce those numbers, by welcoming additional resources to find sustainable housing for folk, by working with Mental Health agencies, the Police and the courts to get individuals apprehended under the Mental Health Act or to support action that will get them arrested as the first step to meaningful treatment and help, and by ensuring our community workers connect closely with individuals to identify why they are not using housing that may have been previously provided.
6. We very carefully take into account the criminal record and general background checks on people who apply to be employed at First United. We never employ any person who we deem to be a genuine threat to the wellbeing of others. We have policies, procedures and management practices (and 32 cameras) that help us monitor staff performance and attitudes. We ensure that no staff person with any questionable background (despite our confidence that they are not a threat to the wellbeing of others) is ever alone with a vulnerable member of the community.

For me, (and I believe for many others) the Gospel call and a deep inner passion compels us to stand with the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, the most marginalised of the marginalised. It calls us to care for the one lost sheep, the one lost coin. It demands that we not sacrifice doing what is right for the individual, on the altar of what best serves the interests of the majority. I have profound respect for those who work within the second circle. I have genuine respect and appreciation for formal Shelters and other entities that provide an appropriate risk-avoidance response for many in need. I regret that my own comments and interactions may have suggested otherwise. We need those services and approaches. At the same time, I believe we also need responses that function outside of that box, beyond those horizons. I remain convicted and compelled to speak and act in ways that will help us to embrace the realities in the third circle. I feel real pain at my inability to do so without offending and polarising. I am desperately striving to find ways to hold this space with more grace, more gentleness, and more acknowledgement of my own inadequacies and limitations. What I cannot do is to turn away from the one lone individual, lost in his own sense of not belonging, haunted by the demons that are rampant within her mind and heart. What I cannot bring myself to do is to trade that person’s worth and beauty in the interest of the collective wellbeing. For me, the wellbeing of that person cannot be separated from the wellbeing of us all. I believe that at some level we all share that belief and awareness, regardless of the approach and policies for which we argue. I wish I knew how to engage this conversation in ways that better allow us to build off the values we share and that allow us to reach beyond the constraints that currently limit our ability to care for those at the furthest ends of our society. I know this is needed. I know it is possible. I would like to be a creative participant in helping make it happen.