“Blinding Ignorance does mislead us. O Wretched Mortals, open your eyes.”     Leonardo da Vinci

In April of 2014 the Maple Ridge News printed: “Preliminary results of the 2014 Metro Vancouver [homeless] count on March 12 were released Wednesday, showing 84 homeless in the area [Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows].”

In August of 2015 Patricia Cuff, speaking for the Salvation Army, stated that “in 2014, the Maple Ridge shelter served 373 people 205 [54%] of them went on to long-term housing or addictions treatment.”

If you had 84 homeless in March of 2014 and during that year [2014] 205 homeless were housed or sent to treatment then at the end of 2014 Apply basic subtraction to the Maple Ridge should have had a homeless population of around -121.

You would think that rather than whining Mayor Read and Maple Ridge would be overjoyed to have -121 [negative 121] homeless in Maple Ridge.

After all, with a large negative negative [121] of homeless, not only does Maple Ridge Map not currently have any homeless but should not have any homeless for several years to come.

Or the result showing a homeless population of -121, a negative number of homeless in Maple Ridge indicates a flaw in the underlying assumptions..

Urbandictionary.com defines assume as: makes an ass out of u and me for a good reason.

First let’s address 1) using the results of the 2014 homeless count as the number of homeless in Maple Ridge and 2) accepting the number cited by the Salvation Army for the number of people sent to treatment and placed in long-term housing.

Homeless counts are not about accurately establishing the actual number of homeless, but are about the methodology used; about ensuring that comparing counts from different years will have statistical significance [have meaning].

Given the range of what ‘84’ can be [1 – 204]  before the result [-121] fails to indicate the need to re-evaluate the outcomes obtained from shelters and the effect shelters have on homelessness, the use of ‘84’ is not problematic.

As to the Salvation Army numbers:  1) the numbers are those reported to BC Housing under the shelter contract and 2) the numbers are in line with the outcomes and experiences at other shelters.

“…….went on to long-term housing…….” assumes that after being housed the homeless remain housed.

“…….went on to long-term ……. addictions treatment.” assumes that after treatment the homeless are able to remain sober and therefore remained housed.

The term long-term housing refers to the nature of the housing itself [an apartment as opposed to a shelter], not about the person being housed there being there long-term. An extremely important distinction in coming to understand the challenges faced and the services and supports needed to enable the chronically homeless to maintain housing on a long term basis.

If the individual placed in housing had recently become homeless as a result of the increasing direct [rent, utilities] and indirect [food, insurance] costs, then that individual will remain housed.

CAVEAT;

Rent subsidies are 12 months in duration and individuals can only get a subsidy once. During the period of the subsidy the individual is expected to find income to replace the subsidy. A task that sounds quite achievable but, as the writer can attest, ranges from difficult to impossible    

Where individuals are rehoused through the use of a rent subsidy to make their housing affordable [bureaucratic speak – the housing does not become affordable; rather the subsidy covers the portion of the rent the individual cannot afford] the individuals will remain housed only for the term of the subsidy. Without the subsidy to cover the portion of their housing they cannot afford, the individuals again become homeless when their subsidies expires after a year.

Individuals whose mental health, substance use, brain injury, behavioural and other challenges contributed, and continue to contribute, to homelessness will return to being homelessness within three months.

Of the individuals who went to treatment, 97% will return to using substances in less than a year.

The near total failure of the ‘help’ provided the homeless fails to accomplish anything but filling the bank accounts of those providing the ‘help’/services, to cover the backsides of politicians and protect the public from the need to think and make tough choices – is not a recent development.

These outcomes – zip, nada, zilch – have been occurring, and repeated, for decades. It was the total failure – year after year – of the actions and behaviours used – year after year – that allowed homelessness to grow – year after year – that forced the development of the Housing First philosophy and approach in order to effect a reduction of the number of homeless on our streets.

A philosophy and approach that has demonstrated – year after year – that it effectively addresses [reduces] homelessness. A philosophy and approach that has been ignored – year after year – in favour of the use of the actions and behaviours that – year after year – have proven futile.
A choice that has – year after year – wasted resources, increased homelessness and prevented the use of the one approach, the one philosophy, that is effective.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.     Albert Einstein

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.     Albert Einstein