Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Homeless numbers down slightly in region, significantly in Vancouver

May 24th, 2011 · 27 Comments

Still waiting the full numbers from Metro Vancouver, but in the meantime, I’m hearing that regional homeless count showed the number of homeless people was down by one per cent from 2008 to 2011 — an accomplishment considering the region adds 40,000 new people every year — and down six per cent in Vancouver. In addition, street homelessness in Vancouver down 65 per cent.

All that’s available officially so far is this news release from the province:

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2011ENER0033-000592.htm

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Julia

    on the street where I work, street homelessness is down zero. They are ALL still there.

  • Mark Allerton

    Given all this debate about whether “street homelessness” is a propaganda term invented by Vision to make themselves look good, it’s interesting to note that the Province uses this term in its press release and Metro Vancouver collects stats on this as part of it’s count.

    I am sure this is just a sign of how far reaching the conspiracy is, rather than of the legitimacy of the term.

    On a less sarcastic note, this looks like a very good result and I officially do not care who gets to claim credit if this kind of progress can be maintained.

  • Max

    The count commissioned by the city in 2010 showed an increase of homeless (not just street homeless) of 12% over the 2008 numbers.

    If that number is down by 1%, does that not mean that there was still an increase of 11%?

    Or, is measuring the 2011 numbers against those from 2008 more beneficial, political wise.

    Street homeless is down due to the shelters, which were still open in March and at the time of the count. Some of those shelters have not recieved new funding from the province – which means, those counted as sheltered are back out on the street until Oct/Nov. rolls around of which they will again be warehoused.

    The homeless number has not changed by much,

    Hanging onto the ‘street homeless in shelters’ theory reduces the number of street homeless is somewhat misleading.

  • higgins

    Frances, by pushing ‘polls’ like this on your blog you basically lost all credibility. Take your buddy and Vision local paper pusher, Allen from Vancouver Courier, Johnatan from Civic Scene if that blog is still alive, and Kevin the Exec assistant who probably was behind this commissioning and start a game of Bonking. I think allen will win! Sorry.

  • Max

    From Global BC:

    Overall, in Vancouver there are 1,605 people catagorized as homeless. Of those, 1,392 live in emergency shelters. Another 98 are classified as having “no fixed address” but who were staying in hospitals, detox centres or police cells. The remaining 145 live rough on the street.

  • Frances Bula

    @higgins. Excuse me, what are you talking about? This is not a poll. It’s a count. And the province’s housing ministry is out promoting the findings of this as well.

  • Jason

    Ok, could someone clarify this for me as even I’m getting confused here…

    The 2010 homeless count showed an increase in homelessness of 12% over the 2008 numbers. This article now suggests a drop of 6% over the 2008 numbers in Vancouver. Can someone please explain the discrepancy?

    Mark – as for the comment about the news release differentiating “street homelessness” from “homelessness”….I don’t think the argument was ever that it was a term invented by Vision, but rather that it was their new “goal post”. Hence the reason they are changing text on their website to include the word “street” in front of homelessness.

  • Max

    @ Jason #7

    This is a statement from Kerry Jang as posted on the Global BC site, which kind of clarifies the numbers. 6% is the rate of increase, which I take it as the percentage of new homeless persons for X period of time.

    ***

    Vancouver Coun. Kerry Jang said the numbers show Vancouver’s homelessness strategy is paying off. Since 2008 the rate of people being catagorized as homeless has slowed, from 16 per cent between 2008-2010 to nine per cent between 2010 and 2011, to six per cent in the latest count.

  • Ned

    Frances #6

    For some reason I got confused too. I thought this was a poll too. Anyway someone in the higher echelons are playing with numbers. And counting their bi-weekly paychecks in the process

    There:
    ‘145 street homeless from 815 – an 82-per-cent decline…2,623 in 2011 compared to 2,660 in 2008… the first time since the count began in 2002 t… significant improvement over the 2008 …approximate 20 per cent increase in the homeless population.
    Individuals are counted in two groups: “Unsheltered or Street Homeless” …the number of street homeless has decreased by more than half – from 1,574 in 2008 to approximately 731 today. ..people who are sheltered increased by 74 per cent overall since 2008 and 91 per cent…
    What a hell is this?

    Up, down, up again, down again, we are talking people here right, not numbers? This is what bothers me.
    And BTW COUNTING sounds like something one would do on a cattle farm. Despicable.

  • Julian Christians

    @ Jason 7
    I don’t think that we can read too much into changes of ~ 10%. Bear in mind that this is a count done by volunteers on one night. Presumably there is a huge amount of uncertainty (i.e., if they had done the count again the following night, they would have found different numbers).

    According to the report of the 2010 count:
    http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/VancouverHomelessCount2010.pdf

    the increase from 2008 to 2010 was 9%, not 12% (see p. 10 (p.14 of PDF))- this is the change in total homeless (sheltered+non-sheltered) in (I think) the City of Vancouver, not Metro Vancouver. In terms of numbers of people, that is 139. A 6% decrease from the 2008 numbers would be 95 people. It seems quite plausible that a large part of this variation could be due to chance (in terms of being able to find people). For example, as the report points out, it is easier to count homeless people in shelters, and there were more shelters in 2010 than in 2008, which could explain part of the increase. If it was warmer/ drier on the one night they counted in 2011, more people might have chosen to sleep outside (and so fewer would be counted).

    The regional numbers are presumably a bit more accurate (because they are based on more sampling).

  • Baran

    @ Ned #8,

    I understand your frustration. But, if they don’t do al count, how else do you suggest we can get a sense of whether homelessness is increasing or not in our city/region? You need baseline numbers to know if policies/plans etc are working or not. That said, the numbers don’t say it all and we’d have to put them in context. But, they are a starting point for characterizing the scope of the problem. No body is suggesting that people are cattle or worthless.

  • david hadaway

    For lack of anything else we have to rely on these figures but they are clearly not of a nature to be very reliable other than over a much longer time span. Also we have already seen how percentages can give very misleading impressions in a previous discussion.

    That said, it is good if true that a few people have possibly found homes. However this hardly justifies the Mayor’s triumphal tweets. In fact they just makes me more dubious about his personal qualities, down a few more percent one might say since his 2008 exploitation of tragedy.

    Homelessness may have been partly swept off the streets but it isn’t gone or significantly improved, let’s not pretend otherwise, and dealing with it should be a matter of political consensus not self congratulation.

  • Sean Bickerton

    In 2008 the Metro Vancouver count showed 1,580 people homeless in the City of Vancouver proper.

    Today their 2011 count shows 1,605 people homeless in the City of Vancouver proper, a small increase.

    While the Province and Robertson deserve credit for opening shelters, the homeless crisis Robertson decried 3 years ago stating that Mayor Sullivan had “failed the people of Vancouver” has only grown worse on Mayor Robertson’s watch.

    The only difference is that “Candidate” Robertson called the report of 1,580 people homeless “a state of emergency”, while “Mayor” Robertson today simply denied the facts, stating: “It’s great news to see a decrease in the number of homeless people in Vancouver and it validates the City’s focus on our most challenging problem.”

  • david hadaway

    Thank you for the figures, Sean. I can’t believe I could be so naive as to think Robertson was actually telling the truth.

  • spartikus

    .I don’t think the argument was ever that it was a term invented by Vision, but rather that it was their new “goal post”. Hence the reason they are changing text on their website to include the word “street” in front of homelessness.

    And as you have been informed on more than one occasion, Jason, this was not the case. As the Sun’s Jeff Lee points out today.

    What do you call people who continue to spout wrong information after their errors have been pointed out? Others might use a different term, but I call them liars.

  • Chris Keam

    “What do you call people who continue to spout wrong information after their errors have been pointed out? ”

    Candidates.

  • david hadaway

    Spartikus and Chris

    To quote Jeff Lee’s article;

    “.. why the revisionist changes to the site, Vision Vancouver?”

    Pot, kettle and black come to mind, guys.

  • david hadaway

    Well, I’m having an early night but here’s Gregor at the Vision Vancouver debates;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3hgdjmh–o&feature=related

    Here’s a typical headline and story at the time, actually the first one you get on Google;

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/11/15/bc-vancouver-mayor-election-results.html=related

    My apologies, Chris, if I was misreading your comment as supporting Spartikus. If you meant all candidates, well I might not entirely agree but pretty near!

  • Chris Keam

    @david:

    I don’t make much of anyone updating their website. If one wishes to take issue with Vision for changing their tune, that’s one thing, but updating a website to reflect changes in promises or policies happens all the time, with political parties of all stripes, companies, even individuals. I would definitely have an issue if someone went and changed the gist of an official media release after it went public, but updating a web page is pretty common. I don’t expect websites with specific agendas to cleave to the level of veracity that suits their opponents.

    If however, this focus on who said what when results in all candidates sticking to the specifics of their promises if and when they get elected, then we will all benefit.

    But given what we all know about political campaign promises, regardless of party, making good on those promises is a grand idea, until it’s time to follow-through on those proclamations.

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Night

    ’36B-22-34. These numbers and Pamela Anderson’s boobs are absolutely real. ‘

    Trust me.

    For the homeless numbers test Gregor. I wish you good luck with that. Trust me, you’ll need it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqmHXnryakA

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • spartikus

    “.. why the revisionist changes to the site, Vision Vancouver?”

    Pot, kettle and black come to mind, guys.

    Yes, I see that CityCaucus feels they have got the ultimate “gotcha” showing that Vision Vancouver has “revised” history by altering their website. They even have a nice graphics of a pig with the caption Can you spot the difference between Vision in 2008 & 2011?

    Unfortunately for CityCaucus, the evidence they use to prove there are differences between the webpage for the period 2008 and 2011 – supposedly to fool voters – is from….2009. They use the Wayback tool from archive.org and they chose to use the snapshot from May 25, 2009. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this was 6 months after the election.

    I ask because there’s a snapshot for Oct 22, 2008 available. Why didn’t they use this pre-election piece of evidence?

    Probably because it doesn’t the gotcha they seek. Look for yourself.

    Why does the May 2009 say something else? I dunno. Copy error? Sinister plot? Who knows.

    But it wasn’t the copy the voters looked at.

    All of this though is semantics of the worst kind and I am growing quite disgusted. If you actually care about homelessness rather than scoring partisan points of tthe most dubious kind, knock it off and start talking substance.

  • Michael Geller

    If the number of people permanently sleeping on the streets has been reduced because they have homes, I think this is wonderful.

    However, if the numbers have been reduced on this particular night, because of the number of temporary shelters that happened to be available, and other measures that might have been taken on the night of the count, I’m not quite so pleased.

    Rather than focus on just the numbers, I would like a summary of the various actions that the city has supported to address homelessness and the related problems. For example:

    1. What is the status of Kerry Jang’s much promised modular housing initiative? According to radio, tv and newspaper accounts, a proposal call was to be issued by the city months ago to create more affordable housing on public and private sites using prefabricated housing.

    2. How many homeless people have been housed in existing rental stock (apartments, basement suites, etc.) a la the Toronto Street to Home model?

    3. What is the status of the various health related programs including dental, grooming, ‘dress for success’ that are much needed in the DTES and elsewhere. Has the city supported any of these initiatives?

    4. What initiatives has the city undertaken to support efforts to find employment for those seeking work, and capable of full or part time work? Has the city increased support for BOB, EMBERS and similar programs?

    5. Has the city pursued friend and family ‘reunification’ programs, as I and others have suggested?

    6. Has the number of detox beds increased?

    7. Has the city achieved any success with the Province to avoid the bizarre event known as ‘welfare wednesday’ when everyone in the DTES receives a welfare cheque on the same day, often causing havoc?

    8. What new projects have been started, other than those negotiated by the previous administrations?

    9. What is the city’s housing department and other departments doing to reduce the cost of new housing?

    10. What is the status of the required social housing projects on the Concord Lands, which, while not necessarily catering to the homeless, could, if built, free up other housing stock for the homeless?

    11. What results have been achieved by the city’s promised new approach to enforce maintenance and occupancy by-laws?

    These are not intended to be rhetorical questions. I look forward to some answers.

  • Max

    Robertson celebrates landslide

    Gregor Robertson vowed last night to end homelessness in Vancouver — making his first promise as mayor-elect the same pledge that launched his wildly successful leap from the provincial legislature.

    By The Vancouver Province November 16, 2008

  • Max

    Gregor Robertson is the best choice for mayor of Vancouver

    Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Column
    Tuesday November 4, 2008

    …..’ Robertson has promised to end homelessness by 2015, modelling his plan on successful examples in Portland, Calgary and New York City.

    It will be difficult and ambitious – but that’s exactly what Vancouver needs.

    And it’s obvious to anyone who walks around Vancouver that our homelessness problem has got dramatically worse during three years of NPA rule under Mayor Sam Sullivan and Peter Ladner.

    Sadly, Ladner said in a debate, October 9, when asked what he would do as soon as elected: “I don’t have anything that’s burning in my mind that we’re absolutely going to jump in there and change the minute I become the mayor.”

    Robertson’s answer: “On day one, we need to pull people together right away to start crafting our plan to end homelessness in Vancouver by 2015.”…..’

    *************

    Perhaps Robertson was confused as to which form of homelessness he planned on ending at that point in time.

  • Frieda

    @ David Hadaway #14

    You are not naive enough to think Robertson is truthful, but would you be so naive so take what an NPA candidate for council (Sean Bickerton, #13) says against Robertson at face value?

  • david hadaway

    Spartikus

    I’m not here to fight City Caucus’s corner. I’m pointing out that your description of Jeff Lee’s article was not quite the slam dunk you imply nor was your claim about contemporary reporting of Gregor’s speechifying. You yourself are often highly selective with facts, as I’ve pointed out before, and fair enough if you’re putting forward an argument, it’s up to your opponents to counter and put forward theirs.

    Please, however, spare us the sanctimonious lecturing. Disagree with you as I may I don’t question your personal sincerity and character, and won’t without solid grounds to do so.

  • Sean Bickerton

    Hi Frieda,

    I attended the Metro Vancouver 2011 Homeless count announcement yesterday in Burnaby, and the figures I cite are taken from Metro Vancouver’s report on the survey, linked below.

    Their Press Release headline? “2011 Metro Vancouver Homeless Count Finds Same Number of Homeless …More in Shelters”

    Further, the total count for unsheltered and sheltered homeless for Vancouver in 2008 was 1580 if you read the report below, while the 2011 total is 1605.

    http://stophomelessness.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/v8_preliminaryreport_may23_finalversion1.pdf

    No matter how the Mayor or supporters try to spin it, those are simply the facts that Metro reported.

    Faced with that number of homeless in 2008, Mr. Robertson said it was a crisis and the Mayor had failed the people of Vancouver. Faced with the slightly higher number reported yesterday for our city, Mayor Robertson said it was good news that more people are sleeping in temporary shelters.

    The last administration he pilloried founded the Street to Home foundation cited by all players as key to the solution, set aside funds and extensive land and secured provincial funding for more than 2,000 permanent units of social and supportive housing. 1200 of those units plus 300 from a previous administration are now open.

    By comparison, Mr. Robertson cut the social housing at the OV in half, and managed to initiate less than 100 net new units of social and supportive housing.

    It’s not partisan to point out that his rhetoric does not match the reality and that he has accomplished very little that’s lasting, compared with the predecessor he criticized so relentlessly during the last campaign.

    We can disagree about whether he actually meant to do good and just failed, or whether he cynically used the issue to propel himself into office. But either way, the sad facts speak for themselves.