Report on Living Conditions at
Gatineau Emergency Shelter - Alexandre Deschênes -
The following report describes the living
conditions of residents and the working conditions of staff at the
emergency shelter that was set up in the Robert-Guertin Arena in the
Hull sector of Gatineau, Quebec in March 2020. The shelter continued to
operate until July 1, 2021 when residents were relocated to motels and
other accommodations. Summary  On
February 13, 2021, the Collectif régional de lutte
à
l'itinérance en Outaouais (CRIO) was mandated by the Soupe
Populaire de Hull (Hull Soup Kitchen -- SPH) to conduct an observation
mission on living conditions at the Robert-Guertin Arena (ARG)
emergency shelter. CRIO conducted an on-site observation and held
discussions with citizens housed there, the management and coordination
of the Soupe Populaire, as well as other stakeholders and partners.
The report produced highlights the particular context in which
this centre was opened. It analyzes the physical layout of the
premises, which is poorly adapted to the needs of the three categories
of citizens housed there. It highlights multiple issues experienced by
both the residents (deterioration of mental health, health and safety
issues, difficulties in meeting the criteria for accessing transitional
housing due to the very structure of the shelter, etc.) and the staff
(overload, exhaustion, turnover, violence, insecurity, etc.). It shows
how the current form of the management structure complicates the
implementation of changes. The report also highlights the impossibility
of respecting certain fundamental rights under the current living
conditions, which are continuing beyond the initial schedule, even
though the arena is considered a temporary solution, which,
nevertheless, will continue being used going forward. Finally,
the report makes clear recommendations, which can be broken down into
three main areas: the relocation of the housed
citizens; the creation of a joint coordination committee between the
partners; and the promotion of a participatory approach, which is
nevertheless impossible in the current context. 1.
Setting the Context The global pandemic
situation that is affecting us has forced public and health authorities
to reorganize shelter spaces. A so-called "temporary" emergency shelter
was hastily set up in March 2020 to accommodate people in a homeless
situation. The first site chosen at the Père Arthur Guertin
centre in the Lambert district was not suitable for the growing demand.
Difficulties were also experienced in cohabiting with the residents of
the neighbourhood due to the large number of citizens being housed
there. The civil authorities decided to move the accommodation to the
ARG in May 2020. This site is still in use to this day. This
centre is managed by the SPH. However, what was intended to be a
temporary situation is now extending beyond the time initially
allotted. Concerted meetings between the various stakeholders to form a
relocation committee have not led to any long-term solution. The ARG
can accommodate a set maximum capacity of 59 housed citizens. While
this initially met the demand, the arrival of cold weather and the
significant increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness
caused it to reach a breaking point. As the maximum capacity was
reached, some people were refused access at the entrance. As
a result of the prolonged occupation of the premises, tensions between
housed citizens, the deterioration of their mental health as well as
the precariousness of the working conditions were repeatedly underlined
by the site manager to the ARG. The CRIO was therefore mandated to
produce a report on possible human rights violations within the shelter.
This report therefore presents our observations and
recommendations to ensure that these rights are respected. We will
demonstrate throughout the report that the suggested changes are the
responsibility of provincial authorities, beyond the scope of the
community and administrative authorities that currently manage the ARG.
The observation was conducted over a three-hour period within
the ARG. Four men and one woman (8.7 per cent of
the population present) were interviewed. Upon our arrival, two beds
were still vacant. The emergency shelter coordinator at the
ARG was also consulted as well as the executive director of the SPH and
the management of the Gîte Ami shelter. Community and
humanitarian stakeholders were contacted for consultation purposes.
2. Observation Report and Comments from Housed
Citizens 2.1 The
physical location The 59 cubicles serving
as rooms are arranged in an oblong fashion around the perimeter of the
ice rink. Separated only by black sheets and with the front open to the
centre, privacy is thus compromised or even non-existent. In this
sense, a housed citizen mentions, "My room is located right in front of
where the speakers are. There is just a small wall separating me. They
can all see me. I have no privacy." Moreover, since no soundproofing is
possible with sheets, the noise is constant, not to mention the
incessant screaming of people in crisis due to a mental health
condition requiring medical follow-up, or of people in a state of drug
consumption. This situation creates an environment of constant tension,
highly anxiety-provoking not only for the residents, but also for the
workers. We observed a domino effect of an isolated event, which led to
the disorientation of several sheltered persons and which ended with
the arrival of the police force. Note that orange
boundary lines are visible at the front of the cubicle to delineate not
only the space, but also the boundary that must be respected to comply
with measures taken to contain possible COVID-19 infections. Large
tables are set up in the centre, with chairs spaced two metres apart to
comply with sanitary measures. However, because of the number of
people, but especially because of their psychological state, the
measures required by public health are difficult to apply without
creating new tensions between employees and residents. Indeed, a
certain cognitive and emotional stability is required to understand the
magnitude of the pandemic crisis and the importance of measures such as
the wearing of personal protective equipment or physical distancing.
However, for various reasons (people in a state of disorientation,
people in a state of consumption, people in a state of survival), there
is a certain dichotomy in the understanding of the said issues among
some ARG residents, which prevents the full application of the measures
and fosters a feeling of injustice experienced by these people who do
not grasp the urgency of the pandemic impacts. The desire to maintain
the calmest possible climate thus takes precedence over the application
of measures in a highly cacophonous, even unstable, living environment.
This leads to a lack of clarity in the application of rules and creates
a vicious circle when there is an attempt at control. In this regard,
another housed citizen states: "We are asked not to
enter the room to keep the two metres, but we can have dinner within
two metres. We are obliged to wear the masks but the person in
psychosis is not." The rest of the arena surface is
used for moving about. A television is installed there, the only real
activity inside the walls. If the SPH would like to offer workshops and
activities to the citizens housed, a lack of workers on the floor
prevents this initiative. The survival situation that the organization
faces, due to a lack of human resources, hinders its adoption of an
intervention approach focussed on development and recovery of the
housed citizens. This translates into a disturbing observation: several
people in the shelter are pacing incessantly, a symptom of
confinement in a place that is unsuitable for people requiring mental
health medical follow-up. At the time of the
observation, no laundry facilities were available on site, compromising
the right to hygiene and health. A housed citizen mentioned: "It costs
us a cab there and back, and the laundry costs. I don't have $50 to put
into laundry every week." As for personal hygiene amenities, another
said, "the water (in the shower) is either freezing or boiling. It
doesn't encourage you to shower. Plus, a lot of people never take one.
It's not livable. The plumbing is old and not adapted to such a large
group." Another said, "The toilets are always broken, and we only have
one sink for all the men." The SPH said that they frequently have to
call "311" because the toilets are often blocked, sometimes several
times a day. Finally, in their complaints, the housed citizens
underline the lack of electrical outlets for their telephone and that
the place reserved for this purpose (the centre of the ice rink)
encourages theft. "How do you expect us to get a job if we don't have a
phone?" asked one of the people we met. It should also be
noted that, according to the SPH, since the citizens housed do not have
a room with a door, nor a personal closed space for storage, they often
have their belongings stolen, which adds to their mental burden and
makes them hyper-vigilant. 2.2 High
staff turnover It was noted that in the
past year, 180 employees have been documented by human resources. The
high turnover rate compromises not only the integration of knowledge,
but also its acquisition, and adds an additional burden on the
employees who must constantly repeat the training. Also, the bonds of
trust between workers and residents become impossible to develop. This
bond is vital for the stability of the person receiving the attention,
and therefore in a more global perspective, for the general atmosphere.
The lack of experience of the new employees favours self-regulation by
the sheltered citizens: self-regulation which occurs, however, through
verbal violence, intimidation and threats, as we have observed.
Moreover, the laws of the street create a harmful dialectic with the
house rules that the SPH tries so hard to implement, and which
compromises internal security for everyone. Another effect is that
support staff who resign often find the conditions of community work
(in general) not to be advantageous, which jeopardizes the hiring
process not only of the SPH, but also of other agencies. This gives the
SPH a bad name and affects its ability to attract specialized people.
2.3 Three groups of people who
require facilities tailored to their needs We
have observed that the people who have found refuge at the ARG fall
into three main categories: autonomous people, semi-autonomous people
and people requiring ongoing clinical mental health follow-up. The
mixing of these three categories in one place greatly compromises the
health and safety of these people, but also of the workers. Independent
people are denied access to an improvement in their lot, as underlined
by comments such as: "When you give your address and it's the Arena,
forget about the job or housing. They don't call you back when they
don't just hang up on you" and "You know, the conditions for going into
the transitional program, forget about it, it's too strict, impossible
to get there." This impression may stem from the fact that the criteria
for transitional housing, although entirely attainable, are difficult
to meet for people living in the AGR, since this place was not
originally designed with housing in mind. For example, although the
participatory approach and the individual care of the housed citizens
is an eligibility criterion for transitional housing, the AGR as
currently organized (high density and social mix, atmosphere not
conducive to rest, lack of access to basic services, disorientation of
others) does not favour the engagement of the housed citizens, who find
themselves in a survival situation. Thus, the internal structure and
its associated issues can be an additional barrier to meeting the
eligibility criteria for either the transition or the St. Anthony
Project. Whether due to lack of space or lack of preparation, a
transitional failure can have an impact on the motivation of the housed
citizens. It is important to note that these projects are promising,
offering structure, but should always be increased in a way that is
adapted to the specific needs of the three main categories of people.
Three of the people we met are actively looking for housing,
but the current and permanent crisis in the Outaouais, marked by a
shortage of vacant units in the rental housing market and an increase
in prices, make this option unattainable. Mixing with people with
multiple mental health issues affects their sleep considerably. Lack of
activity drives consumption: "What else do you want
us to do?" If this problem exists for autonomous people, it is even
more true for those in a semi-autonomous situation, since access to
support is practically non-existent, and workers are constantly dealing
with crisis management. As for the people requiring continuous clinical
follow-up, no attendant can substitute for adapted and adequate
psychiatric care. Psychosis, toxic or not, is a major issue inside the
Arena. The addition of security guards is not a viable solution for
attending to these individuals, as they do not have the training
required to defuse a crisis. This group of people requires a medical
evaluation to refer the person to hospitalization, detoxification,
psychiatric care, etc. On the other hand, it is
important to mention that some of the citizens sheltered mention
feeling safer. What we are saying is that if we add security agents, it
must be proportional to the addition of qualified workers. 2.4
Dangers to staff All of the
above factors create a climate of distrust of staff, who then serve as
an outlet for the frustration of housed citizens. The threats and
intimidation are constant. The lack of respect is blatant and the bond
of trust is either fragile or broken. Throughout the interviews, we
sensed this divide even greater with respect to the night staff. The
anxiety is palpable. The current conditions are not conducive to
professional fulfillment. It is difficult to take pride in a job when
insults and threats are omnipresent. According to SPH staff, there is
an increase in physical violence not only between the citizens housed,
but also directed towards the workers and security agents. The presence
of knives in the cubicles has also been raised by the intervention
teams and the management of the SPH. This contributes to the general
feeling of insecurity while increasing the risks of incidents, of which
up to one per week occur. We are concerned about the health of the
workers who are, nevertheless, very resilient. What's
more, this project, which was supposed to last a few months, has been
in place for almost a year. Organized as a temporary service and
inadequate for the "long term," the workers are constantly putting out
fires and struggling to keep their heads above water. Continued
uncertainty about relocation creates anxiety for both the housed
citizens and the workers, as neither have control over the
decision-making process. 2.5 Other
comments from housed citizens On several
occasions, we heard comments such as: "I can't stand it any more,"
"I'll go crazy here." Some people
mentioned the fear of losing their place once they are given limited
access, the feeling of being abandoned, the impossibility of
socializing, the care that is not adapted to their physical and mental
health needs, the insufficient number of yellow containers to collect
material from drug consumption that is abundant inside and outside the
ARG, as well as a feeling of injustice with regard to certain
interventions. With regard to the latter, some housed citizens
mentioned a lesser tolerance of certain workers or security guards
towards housed citizens with a non-heterosexual sexual orientation.
However, there is no evidence that this is widespread: it is an
isolated event or two. This may be an indicator of a weakened trust
relationship, or simply that the contextual structure is not conducive
to trust. 3. Further Analysis
What was intended to be temporary is increasingly becoming a
permanent solution that is ill-suited to the situation. Whether it is
the architecture of the premises or the inadequate or non-existent
amenities inside the building, we are faced with an environment that
hinders the right to human dignity, a right enshrined in the very
preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which stipulates in Article 1 that: "All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights [...]" In November
2009, the Commission de la santé et des services sociaux sur
l'itinérance au Québec (Health and Social
Services Commission on Homelessness in Quebec) tabled a report in the
National Assembly which stated that "reducing the risks associated with
homelessness is not simply a matter of giving people a bed, food and
clothing, but of giving them back the ability to break out of the
impasse of a social emergency."[1]
However, this approach requires an adapted and concerted intervention,
which is not implemented in the current context, either because of a
lack of staff, staff turnover or simply because of the mix of different
categories of citizens housed in high density. The Commission
emphasized that it was "essential that the public and community
networks provide services in a continuous and harmonized manner, from
the emergency situation to social reintegration [...]," while
expressing concern "about its reduced capacity to deal with people with
multiple problems."[2] This
observation applies to the conditions prevailing at the Robert-Guertin
Arena. According to Michel Simard, "shelters and
emergency accommodation [...] play a role analogous to medical
emergencies in the health care system. In the same way that it is
necessary to try as much as possible to relieve medical emergencies, it
is necessary to relieve social emergencies."[3]
The very dynamic of crowding a population inside the Arena, which is
not structured in a way that helps them exit this environment,
represents a glaring statement of failure in this regard. This
has the negative consequence that the manager is unable to fulfill his
or her primary mandate, seeing himself or herself confined to a role of
crisis management and imposing restrictive measures to maintain a
minimally safe climate. The manager is thus faced with an untenable
situation that does not allow him or her to create an environment
conducive to front-line involvement aimed at directing sheltered
citizens towards the necessary services or towards a way out of their
extremely precarious conditions. These measures have the other
pernicious effect of multiplying limited access, despite greater
tolerance on the part of workers during cold weather, as the ultimate
means of protection in order to ensure a safe work environment for
employees. This access creates an overflow at the Drop-in service and
taints its mission, since it ultimately welcomes people in crisis and
great distress. Although the SPH staff is not in favour of limiting
access, in the current structure, with the lack of staff and clinical
support, this is the only means available to them to ensure a safe
environment. It is important to understand that
there is no judgement about internal practice or management per se: it is not
the organization's place to substitute for institutional expertise in
mental health. And since there is a co-responsibility situation, with
the city as owner, the Centre Intégré de
Santé et de Services Sociaux de l'Outaouais (CISSSO -- the
Outaouais Health and Social Services Centre) as sponsor and SPH as
manager, this requires independent coordination. The SPH administers an
internal structure that comes to it virtually predefined and that it
cannot change on its own. This is especially true considering that the
Arena is also home to the Old Hull Drop-In Centre and given the
proximity of the overdose prevention site and the Gîte Ami, a
proximity that brings with it other organizational cultures, being
managed by different autonomous and sovereign organizations. On this
point, Simard states that "Public institutions have a central and
essential role to play in creating this space of co-responsibility
[...] because they have service mandates that only they can exercise."[4] If
the CISSSO is involved in the service offer, and the city is involved
in the location process, their involvement must be sufficient and
adapted to the internal needs of the housed citizens and the manager.
In short, in this context of complex co-responsibility, where
the community organization is not ultimately the decision-maker for
what it administers, and where two authorities (the municipality and
the CISSSO) with different mandates are involved, decision-making is
difficult and changes are difficult. Ultimately, we insist that the
Quebec government must be singled out for putting the various partners
in an awkward situation and undermining the partnership necessary to
overcome the crisis. Indeed, we deplore the inaction of Quebec, which
had promised to take charge of the file, for its lack of direction, and
its refusal of financing to support the projects. 4.
Conclusion and Recommendations We are not
stating anything here that has not already been pointed out. The SPH
had already produced a document of recommendations on emergency housing
in September 2020. The authorities themselves recognized that, beyond
the temporary vocation of the place, it was ill-suited to long-term
needs. The multiplication of relocation and cohabitation committees
supports this statement. Our recommendations are operational in a few
possible scenarios. We will stick here to a logic of structure
favouring the respect of fundamental rights and not one of formality in
the field, the actors involved being able to propose the implementation
of internal management measures. 4.1
Independent coordination We suggest
creating a management committee for all community services, which would
be made up of the various partners, external observers and
representatives of the housed citizens (see point 4.2). This committee
will determine the role of each of the partners and will coordinate
human and material resources while harmonizing practices and protocols
to ensure that basic needs are met and that the primary mission of the
project is respected. This new coordination will be able to decide on
thorny issues on a democratic basis and will allow the partners to have
an objective and global view of the daily situation, and thus ensure
the smooth running of operations. This will also remove a moral burden
from the project manager, while making the other partners responsible.
It can ultimately act as a mediator if necessary. 4.2
Participatory approach We
advocate a participatory approach for housed citizens in their living
environment. A committee of housed citizens is necessary to ensure that
their voices and concerns are heard on a regular basis. The objective
is to empower them, but above all to use their power to act and their
potential in the decision-making process for their housing. This will
also give managers a certain freedom to adapt their practices as
needed, while reducing the accumulation of irritants experienced by the
latter. It should be noted that a representative of the housed
citizens' committees must sit on the independent coordination committee
(see point 4.1) with the same decision-making power as the other
committee members. Since the housed citizens are full citizens and the
decisions directly affect their living environment, it is essential
that they be an integral part of the solutions and their
implementation. This has the double effect of making housed citizens
more responsible and allowing them to move towards greater autonomy in
order to one day hope to get out of their situation with support.
However, we consider the current ARG location inadequate for this
approach. This brings us to the next point. Finally, various workshops
must be instituted and given by competent personnel, be it artistic,
legal, job search or any other deemed relevant to create a healthy,
dynamic and welcoming living environment in addition to providing them
with tools that will serve them in their approach to improve their
condition. 4.3 Relocation
4.3.1 In the same sector
Relocation is necessary in the same sector because of the
proximity of community services, including the SPS [overdose prevention
site]. However, two centres are recommended, one for semi-autonomous
people and the other for people who need ongoing medical follow-up. In
the first one, the community manager is recommended, while the second
one should be taken in charge by public health with psychiatric
services and a medical team, but without abandoning community support.
For people in a situation of autonomy, since the evaluation for
transitional housing is impossible at the Arena, we recommend their
temporary relocation to a semi-autonomous environment in order to
ensure a certain stability required to evaluate their needs. 4.3.2
Relocation to another sector with additional services
On another level, a relocation could
also be considered in another area, as long as we divide the number of
people in autonomous and semi-autonomous situations in two centres and
add a second SPS. This will have the effect of reducing the impact of
cohabitation in the chosen neighbourhood while improving the service
offer in the neighbourhood. 4.3.3
Status quo This is a
non-alternative. If the status quo is preferred, it will require a
major reconfiguration of the premises to ensure that the safety of the
employees and the citizens housed there is paramount, that privacy is
respected, and that there is effective separation for the different
needs. Building anew is often easier than repairing the irreparable.
We share the concern of the manager of the Arena about the
security of the premises. We conclude that the rights to dignity,
safety and housing of the citizens housed there are not recognized
under such conditions; that
their chances of moving on under such conditions are compromised, if
not non-existent; that such a situation in Quebec in 2021 is
unacceptable; that temporary projects cannot become an alternative to
development projects. We call on the Quebec
government to assume its responsibilities with respect to the human
rights of all its citizens and to remedy the situation without delay. Notes
1. Itinérance:
Agissons ensemble, 2009, p.59 (Homelessness:
Working Together). 2. Ibid, p. 38
3.
L'itinérance dans les
sociétés modernes contemporaines, M.
Simard, 2016, p.140. 4. Ibid, p.140.
This article was published in
August 4, 2021 - No.
65
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/WF2021/Articles/WO08653.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
