Taking leadership from service users
Creating opportunities to be involved in program delivery and leadership that take limitations into consideration is what we mean by “meeting people where they are at”. This may mean opportunities for peer consultation that assist in meeting some of the other needs that peers may be managing, like for example with a meal served, honorarium paid or other measures of appreciation. (See Meeting Folks Where They Are At)
Peers in programs for people who use drugs are often accustomed to being patronized, tokenized, disregarded and stigmatized in interactions with service providers. This program works best when the people it serves are given meaningful opportunities to direct how it unfolds. Service organizations that may not have experience collaborating in service delivery with service users may be challenged in the relinquishing of control and building of trust that is required to do this.
Decolonizing, peer-driven approaches can take longer, be less predictable and harder to track through empirical measures. The impacts, however, are that peers will have a personal investment in the success of the program.
The recruitment of participants is one area where this can be easily observed. Peers will invite friends and speak highly of engagement opportunities where they have felt, seen, heard and respected.
Understanding that peers who are struggling with basic life management and may be extending all their capacity to navigating insecure housing, restrictive systems of social support (like welfare reporting, bail conditions or other court mandates), addiction (fundraising, purchasing, using, balancing relationships with suppliers, withdrawal side effects, etc) may not have what it takes to step into a high level of commitment.
Dynamics of structural oppression can replicate themselves within groups. This can be evidenced by noticing the ways that women will participate more if there are no men present, or the freedom people of colour have to speak when they are not worried about coddling white fragility. Obviously best case scenario, our groups and sessions are able to establish spaces that feel safe and inclusive for everyone’s participation, but the actual achievement of that may be overly optimistic. In the meantime, finding ways to engage potential participants who may not feel like the program is for them, based on the replicated power dynamics is crucial. This may involve offering special sessions for caucus groups, one on one content delivery, or other modifications.
The community-building aspect of Street College is foundational, but if the community we build doesn’t include and meet the needs of women, people of colour, trans folks, queer folks or people with disabilities it lacks the ability to be truly revolutionary. Finding ways to challenge toxic masculinity and decenter whiteness in regular group sessions are long term goals that need to be kept in scope while providing alternative access points.
Creating opportunities to be involved in program delivery and leadership that take limitations into consideration is what we mean by “meeting people where they are at”. This may mean opportunities for peer consultation that assist in meeting some of the other needs that peers may be managing, like for example with a meal served, honorarium paid or other measures of appreciation. (See Meeting Folks Where They Are At)
Peers in programs for people who use drugs are often accustomed to being patronized, tokenized, disregarded and stigmatized in interactions with service providers. This program works best when the people it serves are given meaningful opportunities to direct how it unfolds. Service organizations that may not have experience collaborating in service delivery with service users may be challenged in the relinquishing of control and building of trust that is required to do this.
Decolonizing, peer-driven approaches can take longer, be less predictable and harder to track through empirical measures. The impacts, however, are that peers will have a personal investment in the success of the program.
The recruitment of participants is one area where this can be easily observed. Peers will invite friends and speak highly of engagement opportunities where they have felt, seen, heard and respected.
Understanding that peers who are struggling with basic life management and may be extending all their capacity to navigating insecure housing, restrictive systems of social support (like welfare reporting, bail conditions or other court mandates), addiction (fundraising, purchasing, using, balancing relationships with suppliers, withdrawal side effects, etc) may not have what it takes to step into a high level of commitment.
Dynamics of structural oppression can replicate themselves within groups. This can be evidenced by noticing the ways that women will participate more if there are no men present, or the freedom people of colour have to speak when they are not worried about coddling white fragility. Obviously best case scenario, our groups and sessions are able to establish spaces that feel safe and inclusive for everyone’s participation, but the actual achievement of that may be overly optimistic. In the meantime, finding ways to engage potential participants who may not feel like the program is for them, based on the replicated power dynamics is crucial. This may involve offering special sessions for caucus groups, one on one content delivery, or other modifications.
The community-building aspect of Street College is foundational, but if the community we build doesn’t include and meet the needs of women, people of colour, trans folks, queer folks or people with disabilities it lacks the ability to be truly revolutionary. Finding ways to challenge toxic masculinity and decenter whiteness in regular group sessions are long term goals that need to be kept in scope while providing alternative access points.