Category Archives: Homeless

Homeless

Homelessness in Metro Vancouver up 20 per cent since 2005

Leave a comment

Homelessness in Metro Vancouver up 20 per cent since 2005

Frances Bula and Doug Ward
Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

METRO VANCOUVER – Homelessness continues to increase across Metro Vancouver, especially in the suburbs, according to preliminary numbers from the latest homeless count announced today.

There are now close to 2,600 people in shelters and on the streets any given night in this region, almost a 20-per-cent increase from the last count done in 2005.

But the numbers didn’t go up as much as people thought they would and it’s far less than the increase between 2002 and 2005, when numbers almost doubled, said Alice Sundberg, co-chairwoman of the Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, which directed the count.

That is giving people such as Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts some hope that increased services and aggressive efforts to reach out to the homeless are beginning to slow the flow a little.

Surrey’s counts indicated that 386 people were either in shelters or, predominantly, sleeping outside on the night of March 11, when the count was done. On one hand, that’s grim news. On the other, the number of street homelessness is up only 15 per cent from 2005.

“We have the lowest increase in the region,” Watts said. “I think that’s because we’ve made a really concentrated effort with outreach. We’ve housed almost 300 people in the past two, 21/2 years, and put them into permanent housing.”

So although the tap of homelessness is still turned on, the drain seems to be working better.

The early counts show that suburbs such as Burnaby, the Coquitlam region, and the Langleys showed the sharpest jumps in homelessness. At the same time, they had the fewest shelter beds proportionally to accommodate them, so that the majority of their homeless were out on the street.

Langley city Mayor Peter Fassbender said that picture will be drastically different in three years. A new centre that combines 30 shelter beds with 25 transitional housing units, along with a “feeding centre” and space for counselling and training, is due to open in June next to the Kwantlen University College campus. That centre, jointly financed by the city, township, Salvation Army, province and federal government, is Langley’s acknowledgement that it must help.

“It’s a big step. We have come to the place of saying we have to be part of the solution,” Fassbender said.

In Coquitlam, Mayor Maxine Wilson said the area’s three municipalities are looking for a location to put a permanent shelter. Coquitlam is also working with the YWCA on another project to build supported housing for women and children.

But Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said he thinks it’s reprehensible that municipalities are constantly made to feel that it’s their job to solve homelessness, when it’s the provincial government that cut housing programs and tightened up access to welfare.

His city is focusing on long-term housing solutions, building on a foundation of the second-highest number of social-housing units of any other part of the region. (Only Vancouver has more.)

The homeless-count statistics prompted responses from both Downtown Eastside advocates and Housing Minister Rich Coleman about what they meant and what the trends for the future are.

A coalition of advocacy groups held a press conference outside an up-for-sale rooming house downtown to highlight the ongoing problems of evictions and speculation in the Downtown Eastside, which they say are accelerating homelessness. And they accused the provincial government and city of doing little to address the problem.

But Coleman said he was actually relieved by the numbers.

“People were predicting it would be double or triple [the 2005 numbers]. The way I look at it now, we have 2,500 homeless and what have I got in the pipeline? Do I have 2,500 units coming? The answer would be yes.”

But even Coleman cautioned that doesn’t mean the problem is solved, because there are always more people becoming homeless.

That’s something that certainly proved true in Vancouver where, in spite of Mayor Sam Sullivan’s commitment to reduce homelessness by 50 per cent in time for the 2010 Olympics, the number of street homeless actually increased by 32 per cent, so that there are now almost exactly the same number of people on the street (about 780) as in the city’s numerous shelter beds.

The count also fueled debate about what is causing the significant increases in suburban homelessness.

Sundberg, from the regional homelessness steering committee, said she believes it’s a case of homeless people now being able to stay in their home communities because there are finally some services there for them.

David Eby, a homeless advocate with the Pivot Legal Society, said he thinks the numbers are going up in the suburbs because people from Vancouver are being driven out of the city by the continuing losses of the city’s cheapest housing in the Downtown Eastside.

Corrigan said he thinks the numbers increase, especially in cities like his, are driven by a deliberate plan in Vancouver to “push these people out into the suburban municipalities, trying to clean up for the Olympics.”

Those actually out on the streets see it a little differently.

Chris Fontaine, whose battered face fits his life story of bad luck and bad decisions, has been homeless in Surrey for about 18 months.

“It’s a crappy life to live. But, hey, I get by,” Fontaine said Tuesday while staying at The Front Room shelter in Surrey – a last-resort place for people whose addictions and mental illness make it difficult for them find housing elsewhere.

It’s no surprise to Fontaine that a homeless task force recently found about 390 homeless people in Surrey over a 24-hour period.

“I can believe it. They come from Vancouver, Burnaby, New West – they all come to Surrey,” he said.

“There’s better resources here. It’s a better area. More drugs, I guess. There are at least 40 guys that I know who are down here from the Downtown Eastside.”

The 33-year-old single man hopes to find a cheap apartment but knows the odds – and his own past – are stacked against him.

“You need a rental history and my rental history around here ain’t so good.”

For now the Front Room, with its 40 beds, is home.

“The people here at the Front Room – they care about us a lot. They give us hope.”

Federal, Homeless, Provincial

Callousness, irrationality or amorality?

Leave a comment

I was pondering the fact both the provincial and federal governments are pursuing policies that de-house people, forcing them into homelessness; and the fact that both levels of governments continue to choose not to engage in policies to re-house people. Leaving me to mull over why both levels of governments seemingly aspire to increase the numbers of homeless, as opposed to decrease the number of homeless on the streets.

The only rational explanation would appear to be that these are anti-terrorism driven policy choices. Drive enough Canadian citizens into life on the streets; make it difficult, if not impossible, to get back onto their feet and into housing; force them to live under bridges, in, around and under other pieces of infrastructure; you have in place a solid first line of defence against any terrorists targeting our nations infrastructure. While perhaps effective, this entails a callous disregard for, and devaluing of, the people being (ab)used.

Alternatively, we are dealing with government behaviour, thus there is a high probability that these are simply your average run of the mill, day-to-day irrational government behaviours.

Of course, given their ideology, there is the distinct possibility that the BC Liberal Party and the Canadian Conservative Party just lack the ethical and spiritual values that would make the levels of homelessness and poverty unacceptable; values that would necessitate pursuing policies to reduce homelessness and poverty.

Mr. Campbell, Mr. Harper: is it cold -blooded anti-terrorism, irrational behaviour or a lack of ethical and spiritual values?

Homeless, Provincial

Why let Reality intrude on your Plans?

Leave a comment

62 people hungry people, including a mother with three children who “just had no money for food”, were fed Tuesday night at Calvin Presbyterian Church. This is the third year for Tuesday night meals at this location, three years of increasing numbers of hungry people needing to be fed.

Two days earlier the Blue Bus handed out bags of food to 113 people – before running out. Late comers were at least fortunate there was some stew and coffee left to put something in their hungry stomachs.

Wednesday at Global Harvest floor space to move around was at a premium because of the need to crowd extra tables onto the floor to feed the hungry, including children, who came for an evening meal.

At Hillside’s monthly lunch there was just enough to give everyone one serving where usually there is enough for seconds and thirds – and it was not the quantity of food that changed.

Gordon Campbell and Rich Coleman blithely assured British Columbians that there was no need to react to the report prepared for BC Mental Health that cited 15,500 as the number of homeless on the streets of the province because “These reports always lag behind” and “I know what is happening on the ground”.

NO, you “know” what your plans say is happening on the ground. We all know just how much attention Reality pays to “plans” – none. If the politicians took the time to step outside their sheltered, privileged existence, they might come to see the difference between what they think is happening and what is actually occurring.

Rather than spending the Easter break lying on a sun soaked beach, courtesy of the large raises they voted themselves out of taxpayer’s pockets, Mr Campbell and Mr Coleman should earn those exorbitant salaries by booking their places on the Breckenridge Homeless Life Tour.

Nights spent at various locations – the emergency shelter, under bridges, bush camps, doorways or just on the street. A chance to learn how to find washroom facilities you can use or to find a place cleanup or to shower. A culinary tour de force of food sources for the hungry poor, including far too many chances to experience the delight of having to survive the night(s) without food.

Pack light tourists; keep in mind your need to carry all your belongings with you. The tour does include the one opportunity to wash and dry your belongings – if you are fortunate; it also includes opportunities to seek used clothing.

The Tour provides a unique opportunity for direct feedback from those so directly and adversely affected by government policy or lack of policy.

Whether Mr. Campbell or Mr. Coleman will take the Tour, whether they have the mental and physical toughness to last two weeks in the reality the homeless and poor face daily, they need to get out of their golden castles into the real world and experience the world of seniors, families and children who “just cannot afford food” or of the poor and homeless who “simply cannot afford housing”.

Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coleman and all the Liberal MLAs need to heed Jawaharlal Nehru’s admonition on the need to temper theory with reality; they need to open their eyes and truly see the effects their decisions and actions have on the citizens living in BC who are not part of the privileged classes.

Homeless, Provincial

One size does not fit all.

Leave a comment

BC Housing is in the process of forcing the Emergency Shelter in Abbotsford to switch to a 24/7 (hours/days) schedule and adopt operational policies dictated by BC Housing.

This change will have negative consequences not only on the shelter operations but upon all other programs offered at the Centre of Hope.

Why should Abbotsford be concerned? The homeless are part of our community and actions that have negative consequences upon them will in turn have negative effects upon the community as a whole.

The concern is not that BC Housing has come up with a new homeless program to be implemented through the shelters in BC, but rather that it is being imposed on all shelters without considering if the new policies are appropriate for a given shelter and/or location. They are forcing even shelters not wanting to run on the 24/7 basis, for good sound reasons, to run 24/7 – or they will not get any funding. Either the Emergency Shelter runs under their program or Abbotsford loses its shelter funding.

Since the new policy comes with increased funding, one would think that BC Housing would recognize that there must be serious concerns about the negative effects on some of the shelters for them to seek to not receive more money. Unfortunately BC Housing has not shown any evidence that they are interested in whether there are good reasons to not change shelter operations. Rather they are blindly forcing all shelters to change, ignoring that “one size fits all” policies often have very negative consequences for those of odd size.

For communities with multiple shelters, for larger shelters and shelters with separate entrances the new policy is doable.

The emergency shelter is the only shelter in Abbotsford/Mission, it is small – actually totally inadequate in size for the increasing demand for shelter space and it shares the entrance path with the majority of other programs. In fact the shelter space is used during the day for other programs.

I want to be very clear that the concern is not with the new shelter policy itself, but that due to the size and location of Abbotsford’s emergency shelter implementing it will have negative results that will far outweigh any benefits, causing a great deal of damage and hardship to the people the policy is suppose to help.

The concept behind the new policy is good. What is lacking for the new shelter policy to be solidly successful, is the other programs needed to follow upon and provide support for the homeless to transition out of the shelter system and into more (and increasingly) stable housing. The government has put up a doorframe and door as an entrance point but they have failed to build the rest of the structure needed to provide a home to the homeless. But that is an argument for another time.

As stated I like the concept behind the new shelter policy initiative. However I think that the specific physical reality of the Abbotsford emergency shelter makes it totally unsuitable to running 24/7. Forcing the shelter to run under the new 24/7 rules will have many negative consequences far outweighing any possible benefits.

Addressing homelessness requires participation by the community. In this case what is needed is for members of the community of Abbotsford to contact our local MLA’s Mike de Jong (mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca), John van Dongen (john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca) Minister Rich Coleman (rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca) and Premier Gordon Campbell (gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca) asking for their help in getting BC Housing to continue to fund the emergency shelter under its current operations rather than forcing a change with negative outcomes upon the shelter.

It would not hurt to ask them to see if there are any other shelters that will be or are being negatively impacted by being forced to adopt new operational behaviours and policies.

Addiction, Homeless

Asking in order to evaluate or creat recovery based programs

Leave a comment

When I was looking to find a new mechanic I asked 4 or 5 people for their recommendations. It turned out there was one garage they all recommended and that was where I went. It has proved a very good choice and when asked about where I go to have my auto cared for I do not hesitate to recommend them myself.

When I wanted to know about mechanics I asked those who used them; for who better to make judgments about the capability of the mechanics? An intelligent approach that is applicable to evaluate effectiveness in a variety of applications and circumstances.

Why is then, that the government does not ask for the input of those who use the programs and services?

This question came to mind recently as I offered to write (and wrote) a letter to those involved in making the decision about continuing funding to a mental health program. I wrote in the context of someone who had been a client of the program and knew how important the program was in my continuing journey of recovery.

This is an important point because it is my experience that a substantial barrier to recovery is that often those making the funding decisions and judging the programs do not seek the opinions or input of the people in the best position to judge program efficacy – those using the programs in their personal recovery.

This is of particular importance with programs such as this one where the most important, and to often overlooked or not appreciated, benefits to the clients are not easily or at all quantifiable. This is an employment oriented program but my experience, and that of other clients (users) of the program, was that the support offered to people by the program was far more important and useful in recovery than the “job” side was.

It is easy to come up with numbers for the “job” side of the program, but how do you quantify the support provided by the program? And yet … my personal experience and observation is that without support recovery is not possible and that lack of support leads to relapse. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind that had I not been fortunate enough to find the program I would not have made the progress I have.

The program provided support at a time when I was most vulnerable and in need of support. I wrote in support of the program to ensure that those in need of support would be able to find the support to find their path to recovery.

Yet it is only by asking those such as me that someone evaluating the program would be aware of this aspect of the program and how important it is.

Asking also needs to apply in awarding contracts to provide services. I have seen and experienced, on several different occasions, the fallout of the current process the government uses for awarding contracts. And while in some cases the contract needed to be awarded elsewhere, in others it turned a useful resource/program into something that was of benefit only to those awarded the contract.

Auditors general have a term of reference involving “value for money”, as in are we getting our monies worth? That is the question that should be poised when making contract awards. And you make that judgment by asking the people who use the programs and services. I mean ask directly. I have been involved with programs where client feedback was part of the program, through the contractor. Fox guarding the henhouse.

This concept of asking clients or users what they think is also needed in establishing new programs. It is through experience that one learns what the real needs are, which are often different from what would appear to be or theoretically be the needs.

It is easy to “sell” the concept of an employment program, much harder to convince someone that a program offering support is truly needed if those needing this support are to every have an opportunity to be employed. Yet support is a fundament or key concept in recovery.

It is a major frustration that so many politicians, experts and others “know” what needs to be done for a variety of problems that require some form of recovery, without ever asking the people who need and or are seeking recovery. This “knowledge” leads to programs that are pointless, that fail to provide what is truly needed for recovery, that fail to provide what is their stated purpose to provide and waste millions of taxpayer $$$.

Yes we need ideas from as wide a source as possible, for having lots of ideas is the best way to ensure having good ideas. But to evaluate what is a good idea, what is needed, what programs are effective or which providers do an excellent job we need to ask and listen to those who need and /or use the programs.

If our goal is to provide the programs and services needed for people to move into and follow the path to recovery we need to be sure that we ask those whose life experience has provided them with understanding and insight into recovery and what is needed for recovery for their input. Then listen and pay attention to what those in recovery or in need of recovery say, and be willing to act on their input.

Homelessness, mental illness, addiction, poverty are all issues we face, but can address if we so choose. Part of that choice is choosing to ask for input and listen to the answers – even if they are answers we did not expect or want to hear.