911吃瓜

The from the memberships of VANDU and the Western Aboriginal Harm Reduction Society (WAHRS) to the academy. In other words 鈥� it came from the community to the university, rather than from the university and imposed on a community.

There are so many people who urgently , who , who deserved better in life, and toward all these things. P.O.W.E.R. is one group among many challenging the machinery of violence, harm and killings by law enforcement. Likewise, P.O.W.E.R. learns from and incorporates safety and from other groups and communities who challenge

Police officers continue to face relatively from the official . Over the years, VANDU and WAHRS had received informal reports of police incidents and with the resources available. By then, parts of the initiative had already been established, particularly through the leadership of

The invaluable feature of P.O.W.E.R. growing from the street upward came with the reality of an extended timeline to get off the ground. It is more common for researchers to enter a community with their own funding, set parameters of study, and the approval of a university research ethics board. During the first P.O.W.E.R. meetings, the group had no title, no funding, no research ethics board approval, and no established design or protocols. Instead, every step of the project was co-designed and submitted (with approvals then waited on) collectively. P.O.W.E.R. began operations in June 2024, and each aspect has been strengthened by being grounded within and directed by community members. This longer, intentional process has helped foster strong cohesion and buy-in into the project, because each of these components has been transparent and the rationales shared across the membership along the way.

Multiple members of P.O.W.E.R. have lived in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) for decades. Many of the members do not have ambitions to become employed by academic institutions. For this reason, contributions from many members often have less to do with academic career pursuit or letters after names (aka 鈥榓lphabet soup鈥�) 鈥� but rather leveraging the institution as a tool for empowering community and building resistance to organized abandonment, harm and . This dynamic contributes to keeping the intentions behind the project situated within and more accountable to the community.

The DTES has been 鈥� and , including authors of , there are often dozens or more research projects occurring in the community at a given time.

Without community-direction, studies can fall into the trap of becoming This is research that reflects a performance of participants in its findings 鈥� i.e., participants in a heavily researched neighbourhood systemically giving information to outsider-observers based on what it seems like they want to hear.

Community direction protects from research becoming swiss cheese in at least three ways: 1) people who participate can see that the intentions are, at the very least, backed by some community members; 2) research findings go through an extensive community review for a more accurate reflection of community life or social issues prior to publication; and 3) community members are able to conduct data collection themselves, offering an alternative gaze to an outsider-observer.

(The authors who have previously ensured access to courses on the for non-academics, incl. people who use drugs, to further decentralize research, which P.O.W.E.R. has benefitted from).

In concrete terms, many members who live in the neighbourhood are not about to leave 鈥� and face accountability for their public facing roles in research, including within P.O.W.E.R.

Community-directed research can guide academic researchers to identify issues that are considered localized priorities, and may have not come to mind of academic institution-based researchers. Community-directed projects therefore have a high potential to meaningfully inform policies and programs that directly affect the community involved.

In 2023, in collaboration with VANDU and Pivot Legal Society, researchers at 911吃瓜 published a 鈥� which contributed to the inter-organizational relationships at the foundation of P.O.W.E.R. 鈥� which characterized documented harms associated with police drug seizures without arrest. Had the academic researchers not adequately engaged with the community, they would not have added questions about this policing practice into their major study 鈥� which drew on insights from 995 participants.

This study became part of the evidence in a against BC's attempted () public drug consumption ban, which was set to increase police tools to in 2023. The study was cited by the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court in his decision that the legislation would cause 鈥渋rreparable harm.鈥�

P.O.W.E.R. aims to build on these histories to continue to reveal the nature of these processes of dehumanization 鈥� practices the group considers to be 鈥渓egalized harassment鈥� at the very least, and often much worse 鈥� using multiple tools.

P.O.W.E.R, like , leverages research resources to facilitate skill and capacity building. P.O.W.E.R. members with more experience have mentored members who are in their early stages of engaging and/or leading research already.

P.O.W.E.R. members have found that some people who come and share their stories express that, at the very least, the reporting system offers a place to vent, get things off their chest, and speak openly, with confidentiality if needed. P.O.W.E.R. has also facilitated support groups for and by people negatively impacted by law enforcement on an ad-hoc basis.

This is in contrast to the province鈥檚 , where formal complaints about officers are seldom addressed adequately. The formal police complaint process via the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, the body that manages most cases that are below the threshold of serious harm or death, means to begin the resolution process.

There are no official supports, resources or services specifically for people harmed by police, or the community of people, including family members, impacted by a police killing.

Evidence and research

As a group, P.O.W.E.R. on the impacts of 鈥榮treet sweeps鈥� in Vancouver 鈥� the study brought attention to the links between the forced displacement of people in public space, and the increased likelihood of experiencing public health harms, including overdose.

Last month P.O.W.E.R. published

In brief, the study shows some ways in which people who use drugs continued to experience criminalization during the periods of the province鈥檚 decriminalization pilot, including after the 2024 鈥渞ecriminalization鈥� amendment (). Participants shared multiple, alarming examples of police physically interfering with overdose responses during the ongoing toxic drug emergency.

Members' own experiences informed the study鈥檚 analysis: how the carrying of everyday items, such as tools, is perceived differently by police if you are coded as a 鈥榙rug user鈥� or DTES resident by officers. Members spoke on other shared experiences with participants, including perceptions of unreasonable searches by police officers in Vancouver.

Province-wide research completed earlier by the BC Centre on Disease Control similarly by police during decriminalization, even before the recriminalization amendment was implemented.

Moving forward

P.O.W.E.R. exists amid the continued and leveraging of departments, alongside a , while social media is largely becoming concentrated in the hands of the few.

Some of P.O.W.E.R. 's tools are direct approaches 鈥� the distribution of goods, tracking police practices, running support groups, doing presentations and talking to people in the community, while others are more conceptual, i.e., finding ways to bring the truth to light. Neither set of approaches are particularly useful without direction and reciprocity. And the work has just started.

Consider so the group can continue to build up our direct communications regardless of social media algorithms.

Photographs provided by ; and support with coordination and editing on this post from Ben Ingoldsby and Sunny Manhas