Doubt that?<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t; the evidence is clear and overwhelming.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
How many shelters has Vancouver opened over the last decade?<\/p>\n
During that same decade as Vancouver was adding shelters what happened to the homeless population?<\/p>\n
Lookouts executive director Shayne Williams said \u201cLookouts nine Lower Mainland Shelters have a strong track record for connecting their clients with permanent housing \u2013 and he expects a good half of those coming to the Abbotsford facility will be placed in a more stable living arrangement before shutdown in the spring.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mayor Braun said \u2018…. given Lookout\u2019s record of in finding its clients housing he hopes many of them won\u2019t need to return to a shelter at all.\u201d<\/p>\n
I will not dispute the 50% for housing clients Mr. Williams spoke of because placing 50% or slightly better of those access a shelter is usual for any competently run shelter.<\/p>\n
In Maple Ridge last year the Salvation Army \u2013 the organization Maple Ridge blamed for the growing homeless population in Maple Ridge \u2013 placed 55% of those who accessed the shelter in permanent housing or treatment.<\/p>\n
So,<\/p>\n
Given<\/u>: Lookout has nine other shelters in the Lower Mainland and they place 50% of those who access their facilities in more stable permanent housing.<\/p>\n
Given: <\/u>The other competently run shelters in the Lower Mainland also place 50% plus of those who access their shelters.<\/p>\n
Then:<\/u> Why is the homeless population going up instead of plummeting?<\/p>\n
If shelters place 50% or more of those accessing the shelters in permanent housing, shouldn\u2019t we be closing some of the existing shelters, not opening new shelter spaces?<\/p>\n
Unless the homeless population is increasing at a rate of 50% a year \u2013 in which case we have a much more serious problem.<\/p>\n
Last year the homeless count showed a homeless population of 84 in Maple Ridge AND Pitt Meadows. Let us say they were all in Maple Ridge and as the methodology of homeless counts under report the number of homeless let us increase the number of homeless in Maple Ridge by 108% – giving Maple Ridge a homeless population 175.<\/p>\n
The Maple Ridge shelter placed 205 people in permanent housing or treatment.<\/p>\n
So according to the numbers, Maple Ridge has negative 30 homeless and the Maple Ridge shelter placed more homeless in housing [205] than there were homeless in Maple Ridge [175]. .<\/p>\n
If you do the math using the numbers reported by service providers to BC Housing, *most [if not all] municipalities in the Lower Mainland have negative homeless populations.<\/p>\n
If, as the numbers and statistics show, we have negative homeless people in the Lower Mainland then there is no homeless problem, the shelters are empty – except for those with an emergency [e.g. a fire] \u2013 and all but a few emergency shelters can be closed.<\/p>\n
A blatantly absurd notion.<\/p>\n
?????<\/p>\n
The permanent in the \u2018permanent housing\u2019 that politicians and service providers speak of refers to the housing, not the person being housed. The outcomes experienced [reality] and studies make it clear that nearly 100% of those placed will be homeless again within three months.<\/p>\n
Politicians want to be able to say \u2018look what we are doing, aren\u2019t we good.\u2019 Unfortunately for the homeless and taxpayers whether what is being done is effective does not seem to matter. Doing something, especially something that generates nifty stats like 50% housed every year is apparently more important than an actual reduction in the homeless population.<\/p>\n
For the service providers recycling the homeless is a great business to be in. You place people in housing, report good \u2018success\u2019 with placing people ……. and then when those people fall out of housing you can recycle them; once again \u2018successfully\u2019 [for your bottom line] placing them into \u2018permanent housing.<\/p>\n
Recycling maintains both your \u2018success\u2019 housing p\u2019.ople accessing the shelter and the number of homeless that need your services.<\/p>\n
With a little luck and the right timing you can \u2018successfully\u2019 house an individual 6 times in a year; which does wonders for your \u2018success\u2019 rate AND does not reduce the number of homeless who need your services.<\/p>\n
In fact, since recycling does not materially reduce the number of existing homeless on the street, the newly homeless cause the number of homeless on the street to increase – creating the need for more services and more shelters.<\/p>\n
Opening shelters is simple and seems like a good idea \u2013 until you look at the outcomes and consider what the numbers actually tell you.<\/p>\n
More shelters = more homeless because you spend your money recycling people through the system while the newly homeless increase the total homeless population.<\/p>\n
More shelters = more homeless because you do not spend your money on the supports and services needed to enable the homeless to achieve the personal stability needed to maintain stable housing.<\/p>\n
It is a state of affairs that means that unless there are substantial increases in government revenues every year, or unlimited resources, you will reach the maximum you can spend on addressing homelessness; while the homeless population is continuing to rise.<\/p>\n
When you reach the point were budget realities mean the funds the government has to spend on the issue of the homeless will buy fewer resources that the prior year……..<\/p>\n
Remember that an increase in the funds being spent does not mean you are providing more resources UNLESS the increase in spending is greater than the increase [inflation] in costs, any increase in the money spent that is smaller than the increase in costs will buy fewer resources this year than the prior year. <\/em><\/p>\n ……. do you start reducing the number of shelter beds, do you transfer funds from healthcare or education [the only budget items large enough to provided the needed\u00a0 level of funding increase] or do you raise taxes?<\/p>\n What will you do next fiscal year [2016\/17]? In 2017\/18? In 2018\/19? In …….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Doubt that? Don\u2019t; the evidence is clear and overwhelming.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,20,62,64],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-homeless","category-municipal","category-politics-the-issues","category-the-james-commentary"],"yoast_head":"\n