REGINA 2015 HOMELESS COUNT

Transcription

1 REGINA 2015 HOMELESS COUNT FINAL REPORT Prepared by Alina Turner (Principal Researcher, Turner Research & Strategy) and Dagan Harding (Local PIT Coordinator, Regina YMCA ), for the Regina YMCA (July 29, 2015).

2 Prepared by Alina Turner (Principal Researcher, Turner Research & Strategy) and Dagan Harding (Local PIT Coordinator, Regina YMCA ), for the Regina YMCA (July 29, 2015). Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services YMCA of Regina

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SPECIAL THANKS TO Dagan Harding who took on the role of Local Coordinator of the PIT Count in Regina. Most of all, thanks to all those who were part of the process as volunteers and survey participants. Additional special thanks to Regina Police Services City of Regina Fire and Protective Services Regina United Way HIFIS PIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP 1. Carmichael Outreach 2. Regina Police Service 3. Regian Qu appelle Health Region 4. The YWCA of Regina PARTICIPATING FACILITIES Facility Agency 1. Isabel Johnson Shelter YWCA of Regina 2. Kikinaw YWCA of Regina 3. My Aunt's Place YWCA of Regina 4. Men's Emergency Shelter Souls Harbour Rescue Mission 5. Women's Emergency Shelter Souls Harbour Rescue Mission 6. Waterston Centre Salvation Army 7. WISH Safehouse TFHQ Safe Shelters Inc. 8. Regina Transition House Regina Transition Women's Society 9. Downtown Browne s Emergency Youth Shelter Street Culture Kidz Project Inc. 10. Men s Residence YMCA of Regina 11. Sofia House Sofia House Inc. 12. Detox Addiction Treatment Centre Graphic Design & Layout by: Patricia Lacroix, Communications Assistant, The Homeless Hub

4 CONTENTS RESULTS AT A GLANCE 4 Snapshot of Homelessness in Regina 4 Key Findings 5 INTRODUCTION 6 Key Limitations 7 CONTEXTUALIZING COUNT RESULTS 8 Population Growth 8 Housing Market Trends 8 Housing Affordability & Homelessness Risk 9 Hidden Homelessness 10 Shelter Utilization 12 METHODS 13 Overview 13 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 21 RESULTS 26 Enumeration 26 Survey Participation 27 Administrative & Observed Data 27 RESULTS ANALYSIS 29 Sleeping Location 30 Gender 31 Age 33 Aboriginal Identity 36 Residential Schooling 39 Child Protection 40 Immigration 41 Migration 42 Homelessness Patterns 46 Age of First Homelessness Experience 48 Service in the Canadian Military & RCMP 49 Children & Families 50 Health Conditions 55 Public System Interactions 57 Reasons for Homelessness 59 IMPROVEMENTS IN FUTURE COUNTS 61 TABLES & FIGURES Survey Responses Location 29 Survey Participants by Sleeping Location 30 Survey Participants' Gender 31 Observed Gender 32 Age of Survey Respondents 33 Observed Age 35 Surveyed Participants Aboriginal Self-Identification 36 Aboriginal Groups among Survey Participants 37 Survey Respondents Residential Schooling Experience 39 Survey Respondents Experience with Child Protection 40 Foreign-Born Survey Respondents 41 Survey Respondents Born In and Outside Regina 42 Time in Regina for Survey Respondents not Born in Regina 43 Migrant Survey Respondents' Prior Residence 44 Survey Respondent s Reason for Migration to Regina 45 Survey Respondents' Homelessness Classification 47 Survey Respondents' Age of First Homelessness Experience 48 Survey Respondents Military & RCMP Experience 49 Survey Respondents Accompanying Family Members 50 Survey Respondents Income Source 52 Survey Respondents Highest Level of Education 54 Survey Respondents Health Conditions 55 Survey Respondents Average Number of Public System Interactions in Past 12 Months 57 Survey Respondents Reasons for Homelessness 60 APPENDIX 1 Pit Advisory Committee Terms Of Reference And Membership 63 APPENDIX 2 Map Zones 67 APPENDIX 3 Survey And Tally Sheet 72 APPENDIX 4 Canadian Definition Of Homelessness 83 APPENDIX 5 HIFIS Data Analysis 84 REFERENCES 85

5 RESULTS AT A GLANCE On May 13, 2015 the YMCA of Regina and community partners came together to conduct the first-ever Point-in-Time Homeless Count. Over 150 volunteers and 34 organizations participated in the count. This effort is part of a broader collaboration with the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness to develop a harmonized approach to homeless counts nationally. Regina is among the first jurisdictions to implement measures towards a more standardized methodology, leading the way in Canada. This count serves two important functions: it provides a current snapshot of our overall homeless population and enables us to examine how this population changes over time. By aligning methods across Canada, we can examine trends using the same definitions. Ultimately, this helps us inform solutions to support the goal of ending homelessness. SNAPSHOT OF HOMELESSNESS IN REGINA A total of 232 people were enumerated on the night of the count. Results show: 54.3% (126) of those counted were in emergency shelter and 26.7% (62) were in a transitional housing facility. A further 12.1% (28) were enumerated during the street count. 6.9% (16) were sheltered in a public system (detox). In total, 8 (3.4%) were either observed or self-reported they were sleeping rough (in parks, on the street, etc.). Population Enumerated (n=232) Total Number Percentage Street Count* % Observed/Surveyed Sleeping Rough 8 3.4% Facilities Count* % Emergency Shelter % Transitional Housing % Detox (Public Systems) % * Conducting a street count is not precise. Many variables will affect whether someone observed outside at the time of the Count will remain outside for the duration of the night or already have alternative shelter plans. Note that there were 9 persons reported to be turned away in the facilities; the timing of the Count was intended to ensure that enumerators would encounter those not accessing facilities, however, this cannot be guaranteed and these individuals may have been missed in the street survey. We also do not know the reason for the persons to be turned away. 4

6 KEY FINDINGS Of the 232 enumerated, 66 or 28.4%, participated in the full facility and street survey. In addition, facility staff reported data on observed demographics. From these sources, the following trends emerged: The gender breakdown was: 34.6% female and 64.4% male using observed facility data and selfreported street survey data. Notably, 42.7% were children and youth up to the age of 24, totaling 73 using data from using observed facility data and self-reported street survey data. Of these, 63 were children under % of the total. 75.0% were Aboriginal using data from using observed facility data and self-reported street survey data. All 100% of those who participated in the street survey were Aboriginal. Of those surveyed, 13.6% reported having a total of 30 accompanying minors with them. Notably, 28.3% of those surveyed reported being new to Regina (under 1 year). Of those surveyed, 4.8% reported being immigrants to Canada. 7.8% reported serving in the Canadian military or RCMP. 45.5% were experiencing chronic or episodic homelessness. 80.3% self-reported a medical condition, and/or addiction, and/or mental health condition. About one third (32.8%) of adult respondents first experienced homelessness as children (under 18). Key Demographic Percent Sample Size Source Female 34.6% 208 Male 64.4% 208 Children (0-18) 36.8% 171 Youth (0 up to 24) 42.7% 171 Seniors (65+) 0.6% 171 Street Survey/ Observed Facility Data Aboriginal 75.0% 180 Immigrant 4.8% 63 New to Community (<1 year) 28.3% 63 Veterans - Canadian Military & RCMP 7.8% 64 Respondents with Accompanying Children 13.6% 64 First experienced homelessness as children (under 18) 32.8% 64 Street & Facility Survey- Self- Reported Experiencing Chronic or Episodic Homelessness 45.5% 66 Self-reported medical condition, and/or addiction, and/or mental health condition 80.3% 64 5

7 INTRODUCTION On May 13, 2015, over 150 volunteers and 34 community partners came together to conduct the firstever Point-in-Time (PIT) Homeless Count in Regina. The Count provides a snapshot of the population experiencing homelessness to help us better understand the extent of the issue in a community, as well as key demographic information and self-reported needs. When undertaken longitudinally, such efforts assist communities in: assessing emerging trends over time, measuring progress, raising community awareness about homelessness, and improving efforts to end homelessness. In its renewal of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS), the Government of Canada has prioritized Housing First as a key strategy to reduce homelessness, particularly amongst chronically and episodically homeless populations. To understand the effectiveness of interventions and community progress in reducing homelessness, it is necessary to establish a baseline count. Counts can significantly increase a community s ability to take action to ending homelessness by supporting: Improved understanding of characteristics of the local population, Capacity to undertake a local needs assessment, System planning and program development, Measurement of progress on ending homelessness over time, and Increased public awareness about homelessness. When methods are also aligned across communities, the value of such efforts increases further. The methods used in the Regina Count align with the rollout of the national homeless count, using standardized methods developed by the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness at York University. This methodology of is fully aligned with Canadian Definition of Homelessness and is the basis for the Homeless Partnering Strategy s directive on standardized homeless counts. Aligning with this approach ensures that Regina s Count leverages work already undertaken to date to develop methods nationally, while leading the way by being among the first communities to implement the new approach. Learnings from the Regina community will inform local planning and strategy development moving forward; further, by forging ahead, Regina s work on can provide the rest of the country with critical implementation learnings as other communities come on board with a national count. Ultimately, these efforts are about making everyone count : the data collected will move the collective agenda to end homelessness forward. 6

8 KEY LIMITATIONS It is important to highlight the limitations of Point-in-Time Counts as well. The priority of the Regina2015 Count was to capture data about homeless persons who are sleeping rough (street homelessness) and staying in emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities. While detox provided some information, we were unable to capture information from those in other key public institutions (hospitals, jails, social assistance hotels, etc.). The Count date was set for the May 13 of 2015; this time was selected by the Advisory Committee as appropriate given that weather was expected to be mild and there was significant community readiness to proceed. The Count was also set during the mid-month, mid-week because we knew from other communities with experience that this aligns well with social assistance payment schedules when homeless persons may be housed in alternative accommodations (hotels, motels, etc.) due to access to payments. We wanted to enumerate as many homeless persons and the date was selected to best accommodate this. It is important to recognize that a Point-in-Time Count is only a snapshot of sheltered and unsheltered homeless people in a community on a single night. It fails to adequately capture the hidden homeless or those at risk. Despite best efforts to align methods, develop rigorous training and analysis, and canvass every area in a community, etc. there is no perfect count. The endeavor is inherently undercounting the number of homeless in a community. Counts also rely on service provider reports and client surveys, which can contain errors and omissions. Further, as a snapshot, it does not provide information on system use throughout the year. We will not know from this Count how homeless persons move through the homeless-serving system, what their needs might be, what impact our interventions are having at the client-level, etc. This is why data from other sources, such as HIFIS, are so critical at the local level. This is why we are also providing additional contextual information to couch the results within broader trends relating to housing affordability, shelter usage, housing markets, income and migration. Despite these limitations, the benefits of conducting the Count far outweigh these drawbacks. We must nevertheless acknowledge these openly and strive for continuous improvement. 7

9 CONTEXTUALIZING COUNT RESULTS POPULATION GROWTH It is important that results of the Count are contextualized in the broader economic trends impacting Regina, who has been experiencing population growth in recent years. According to Statistics Canada (2014), Regina s population increased by 9.2% from 2011 to Of note is the growing Aboriginal population, which is growing at a faster rate than non-aboriginal population.² This growth is in part related to the economic opportunities generated in the resource extraction sector. The recent drop in oil prices is however having an impact on the ground, as indicated by the increasing unemployment rates. Table 1 Population Growth & Unemployment Population Growth ³ Unemployment⁴ Change in Population Timeframe Unemployment Apr Unemployment Apr Change in Unemployment 9.2% % 4.8% 1.1% HOUSING MARKET TRENDS Lower economic prospects mitigate migration pressures, which in turn lessen vacancy rates in the primary and secondary rental markets. The 2014 CMHC Fall Rental Market reported that vacancy rates have increased year-over-year from 1.8% to 3.0% in purpose-built units. Notably, vacancies in the secondary rental market in fact decreased, albeit marginally, to 1.2%. Table 2 Rental Market Vacancies 2013 Rental Vacancy Rate in Private Apartments - Primary Market Rental Vacancy Rate in Private Apartments - Secondary Market Vacancy Rate Oct Vacancy Rate Oct Change Vacancy Rate Vacancy Rate Oct Vacancy Rate Oct Change Vacancy Rate 1.8% 3.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.2% -0.2% 8

10 It is important to also note that though vacancies relaxed somewhat, the average rental costs grew in both primary and secondary rental market s. With rents averaging $1,079 and $1,243 respectively, they are beyond the means of low income tenants. Table 3 Rental Costs Rental Costs Primary Market ⁵ Rental Costs Secondary Market Avg Rental Cost Oct bdrm Avg Rental Cost Oct bdrm Change in Rental Costs avg 2 bdrm Avg Rental Cost Oct 2013 all types Avg Rental Cost Oct 2014 all types Change in Rental Costs avg all types $ 1,018 $ 1,079 $ 61 $ 1,026 $ 1,243 $ 217 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY & HOMELESSNESS RISK The figures presented by the Count represent the very tip of the iceberg for those experiencing housing instability, including homelessness. About 18,900 households are experiencing housing affordability issues primarily due to high housing costs relative to incomes. About one-fifth of Regina households are experiencing housing affordability challenges (Statistics Canada, 2011), impacting their housing stability and risk for homelessness. Further, more than 1 out of 10 people were reported to be in low income. Table 4 Poverty and Housing Affordability in Regina Income & Shelter Costs ⁶ Persons Low Income Low Income Measure After Tax, NHS 2011 Households overspending on shelter, >30% income, NHS % 22.1% We have to look beyond the Count number to understand the broader housing affordability dynamics and other factors contributing to homelessness in our community. When we look deeper at housing affordability and poverty, specifically data on those facing extreme housing affordability challenges with very low income, we found that there were 5,715 households who were earning less than $20,000 per year and paying 50% or more of their income on shelter costs. Of these, 71% were renter households who are earning very low incomes while competing for high cost units in a relatively tight marketplace. 9

11 Table 5 Extreme Core Housing Need in Regina Regina Households in Extreme Core Housing Need (NHS 2011) (50%+ of income on shelter, incomes under $20,000) ⁷ Under $10,000 $10,000 to $19,999 Total 2,910 2,805 5,715 Beyond low income and high shelter costs, research⁸ suggests that homelessness is likelier to occur when a predictable combination of risk factors is present and a number of protective factors are absent. Research findings consistently point to particular risk factors that are present in both at risk populations and those experiencing homelessness. Table 6 Homelessness Risk & Protective Factors Risk Factors These individual and structural factors that can be broadly summarized as: 1. an imbalance in the income and housing costs, 2. chronic health issues, particularly mental health, disabilities/physical health, 3. addictions, Protective Factors Research also points to protective factors that moderate the risk for homelessness, which generally centered on economic, social and human capital: 1. healthy social relationships, 2. education, 3. access to affordable housing, and 4. adequate income. 4. experiences of abuse and trauma, and 5. interaction with public systems, particularly correctional and child intervention services. HIDDEN HOMELESSNESS Nikolina Vracar provides the most recent synthesis on the housing and homelessness situation in Regina in a report from Carmichael Outreach (2013). She notes that beyond those toughing the emergency shelter system, we need to consider the hidden homeless the number of homeless individuals may be two to three times greater than the actual count. ⁹ The State of Homelessness in Canada report (2014) estimates 35,000 Canadians experience homelessness on any given night but about 42% more - as many as 50,000 - make up the hidden homelessness ( couchsurfers or individuals who stay with family, friends, or others because they have nowhere else to go). ¹⁰ 10

12 Thanks to the City of Regina Fire and Protective Services, we were able to obtain data collected by the Housing Standards Enforcement Team (HSET) that proves valuable in identifying the sub-standard housing conditions that place people at risk of homelessness. The properties that are referred to HSET are typically rental units or unsecured vacant buildings with severe deficiencies. ¹¹ From , HSET initiated over 200 actions against property owners for issues related to sub-standard housing. As part of the HSET program, Regina Qu Appelle Health Region placarded over 100 houses deemed unfit for occupation from 2004 to With regards to the issue of homelessness, in the HSET data, a property may be counted as vacant, meaning there is no legal tenant occupying the building. However, there are many cases where an unsecured vacant building has been occupied by squatters. Anecdotally, members of HSET have reported encounters with the same couch surfers multiple times while conducting visits to different properties. There has also been an increase in cases where multiple families are sharing one home, resulting in cramped and unsafe living conditions. By 2013, properties referred to HSET dropped to 54 from 200 in While encouraging, these numbers are driven by a number of factors. Because of housing affordability constraints, some renters are hesitant to come forward with housing standards complaints for fear of eviction. Table 7 Number of properties referred to HSET (Jan June 2014)

13 SHELTER UTILIZATION It is further important to understand the relationship between the PIT (Point-in-Time) Count and shelter utilization patterns. The PIT Count is a snapshot of shelter use on one particular day, while shelter utilization analyses look at patterns of use longitudinally, year over year. A research study used data obtained from seven facilities who participated in the Homeless Individuals and Families Information System database (HIFIS).¹² The study concluded that from 2008 to 2011, about 4,500 different individuals and/or families accessed emergency and/or transitional shelters for at least one day for an average for 56 days. Average occupancy during the period also rose from 187 to 270 (+44.5%); shelters operated at 92.9% capacity regardless of weather conditions. ¹³ The number of individuals who used an emergency shelter bed went up from 907 in 2008 to 1,411 in These individuals stayed for a shorter amount of time but returned more often. The number of individuals who used a transition shelter bed went up from 753 in 2008 to 818 in These individuals stayed longer in a shelter but were less likely to return. ¹⁴ Patterns of shelter and transitional housing facility use are critical indicators that should be considered in conjunction with the Count data and the aforementioned population-level and housing market indicators as measures to address homelessness are being developed. ¹⁵ 12

14 METHODS OVERVIEW The Count included two main components: the street and facility counts. Both used the same survey instrument to collect data directly from participants, however, facilities were asked to provide additional information on basic demographics to correlate with the survey results (Observed Facility Data). Any facility who agreed to administer the survey was asked to fill out a tally sheet to capture additional response rate information. The street count included the same tally sheet for all zones. The survey was administered using smartphones online using a SurveyMonkey platform; paper copies were available as backup. The facility survey was fully done online using SurveyMonkey. All but one participating facility administered the survey themselves using their own staff; in the case of the Waterston emergency shelter, volunteer support was requested to administer the survey on the night of the Count. component 1: street count Component 2: facility count Target Rough sleepers (persons sleeping outside, in parks, on benches, etc.) Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Systems (detox) Timing & Location Administration Known locations identified by community partners. 2 hours: 10PM 12AM PIT Survey - SurveyMonkey/Paper backup Tally sheet of observed characteristics by trained volunteers. Overnight after check-in (by 10PM) across all facilities. Observed Facility Data SurveyMonkey PIT Survey - SurveyMonkey/Paper backup Tally sheet of observed characteristics by trained volunteers. Facilities also report bed capacity and demographic details in Facility Survey. 13

15 u Who was counted? The chart summarizes the typology of the Canadian Definition of Homelessness. This typology helps communities define with great accuracy who they will count and ensures that the same language and categories are used when comparing results with others. Table 8 National Definition of Homelessness Categories operational category living situation regina count 1 Unsheltered 2 Emergency Sheltered 1.1 People living in public or private spaces without consent or contract 1.2 People living in places not intended for permanent human habitation 2.1 Emergency overnight shelters for people who are homeless 2.2 Violence-Against-Women (VAW) shelters 2.3 Emergency shelter for people fleeing a natural disaster or destruction of accommodation due to fires, floods etc. 3.1 Interim Housing for people who are homeless 3.2 People living temporarily with others, but without guarantee of continued residency or immediate prospects for accessing permanent housing. 3 Provisionally Accommodated 3.3 People accessing short term, temporary rental accommodations without security of tenure 3.4 People in institutional care who lack permanent housing arrangements. 3.5 Accommodation / Reception centres for recently arrived immigrants and refugees 4 At-Risk of Homelessness 4.1 People at imminent risk of homelessness 4.2 Individuals and families who are precariously housed. Note that the Count did not aim to capture information about hidden homelessness, such as couch surfing. The methods are not designed to capture this particular population and thus under-report those living in such situations. Future national efforts to develop standard methods to gain reliable information about hidden homelessness are being discussed, though no consistent methodology exists at this time. Future efforts in our community can consider research developments in this area to enhance our understanding of local dynamics specific to hidden homelessness. 14

16 u Survey It is important to clarify that this report provides information on the total enumerated as homeless during the Count, as well as an analysis of the valid surveys obtained during the count. This is an important distinction as the survey provides a sample for analysis from the overall number enumerated. There are nine data elements that are important for participating in the national Count for both street and facility components. Based on Advisory Committee and community consultation input, additional data elements from the supplementary data set were included as well. These are listed below, with more detail available in Appendix 3, which includes the survey questions used. Table 9 Data Set Included minimum data set supplementary data set 1. Screening 10. Family Status 2. Ethics 11. Employment 3. Gender 12. Health 4. Age 13. Systems Interactions 5. Ethnicity 14. Education 6. Migration 15. Service Use 7. Immigration 16. Service Barriers 8. Homelessness History 17. Reasons for Homelessness 9. Veteran Status u Facility count EMERGENCY SHELTERS & TRANSITIONAL HOUSING All emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities were included in the count, however, surveys were not administered across all these facilities. All facilities were however asked to fill out an online form to include observed data about residents. 15

17 Table 10 Facility Count Elements element approach Timing 9pm-11pm May 13 Emergency Shelters Included Accompanying Children Included Transitional Housing Included Accompanying Children in Transitional Housing Included The following definitions from HPS were used to delineate the facilities into emergency shelter or transitional housing.¹⁶ EMERGENCY SHELTERS - Emergency shelters are defined as facilities providing temporary and short-term accommodation for homeless individuals and families, which may include essential services such as food, clothing and counseling. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING - Transitional housing provides temporary shelter, but can be differentiated from emergency shelters by the longer length of stay and greater intensity of support services offered to clients. Transitional housing is an intermediate step between emergency shelter and permanent housing. Support services help clients gain stability and self-sufficiency to maintain permanent housing. Stays may be between three months and three years. Note that these facilities self-classified in the facility survey. This presents an issue for some of the facilities, such as Isabel Johnson which can be considered as transitional housing. In the case of the Waterston, all 99 beds, 52 are considered emergency shelter though they are reported as a whole. Overall, for the next Count, it will be essential to delineate these classifications and ensure agencies and funders are aligned in their interpretations. 16

18 The following facilities participated in either the PIT Survey or provided Observed Facility Data, or both. Table 11 Participating Facilities facility agency classification bed capacity count occupancy pit survey observed facility data 1. Isabel Johnson Shelter YWCA of Regina Emergency Shelter Kikinaw YWCA of Regina 3. My Aunt s Place YWCA of Regina Emergency Shelter Emergency Shelter Men s Emergency Shelter Souls Harbour Rescue Mission Emergency Shelter Women s Emergency Shelter Souls Harbour Rescue Mission Emergency Shelter Waterston Centre Salvation Army Emergency Shelter Regina Transition House Regina Transition Women s Society Transitional Housing Downtown Browne s Emergency Youth Shelter Street Culture Kidz Project Inc. Transitional Housing 15 6 n/a under 18 not surveyed 9. Men s Residence YMCA of Regina Transitional Housing 11 5 n/a no surveys provided 10. Sofia House Sofia House Inc. Transitional Housing n/a no surveys provided 11. WISH Safehouse TFHQ Safe Shelters Inc. Emergency Shelter n/a no surveys provided 12. Detox Addiction Treatment Centre Systems n/a - no surveys provided PUBLIC SYSTEMS Under the Canadian Definition of Homelessness, those in custody or hospital with No Fixed Address are considered only provisionally accommodated and, thus, homeless. Since people s housing status may change while institutionalized, it is impossible to know an exact number, but the Corrections and Health records are the best estimate available. 17

19 Though the following systems were invited to participate in the Count, only detox provided numbers on those who met the definition of being homeless on the night of May 13 using the facility count online survey. Future counts can expand inclusion of other systems moving forward. Table 12 Public System Participation element Health facilities (hospital, detox) Correctional facilities Social assistance hotels Police holding cells approached Detox participation only No participation No participation No participation u Street count Coverage in the street count was sought for downtown core, north central and additional known locations. The map attached at the appendix provides an outline of the zones included. Table 13 Street Count Conditions and Coverage element Timing approach 9pm-11pm May 13 Number of Enumerators 134 Coverage Full Downtown coverage & known areas Number of Zones 16 Approached all encountered u local circumstances Additional factors impacted the count: weather was overall mild yet wet, which may have influenced the likelihood for some to sleep rough. Wet conditions would increase the likelihood for people to seek shelter in facilities. 18

20 Table 14 PIT Weather Conditions element regina, may 13, 2015 Conditions Temperature Degrees Celsius (Government of Canada Historical Climate Data) ¹⁷ Mild; wet May High 4.7 Low The mid-may date was also selected to ensure that the payments from social assistance were not occurring during the same week. Access to funds is understood to increase the likelihood for those otherwise enumerated to stay in hotels or motels, thereby being missed in the count. u data entry and analysis process All the surveys were entered into the online platform, then downloaded into Excel for cleaning and analysis by the Lead Researcher. Unique identifiers were generated by the entry form, allowing for cross-tabulations. The final report was provided to the Advisory Committee and CE for feedback; additional changes were made based on their input prior to the release of the final deliverable. u enumeration vs. survey results We need to make a clear distinction between enumeration and survey results. From an enumeration perspective, all persons who stayed in emergency shelters or transitional housing were included in the final count number, regardless of their participation in the PIT Survey. All those reported to be staying in detox and homeless were included as well. During the street count, if a person noted they did not have a permanent home to go to, regardless of where they were staying on the night of the count, they were still included in the final homeless count number. The aim was to survey as many people as possible. Survey administrators were asked to approach all people in emergency shelter, transitional housing, detox and street count zones to participate, and apply the screening criteria to qualify their inclusion. If they had accompanying minor dependents with them, the survey was only administered to the parent though the minors are included in the breakdown of age as under 18 in the survey analysis. 19

21 For the survey analysis, any surveys were excluded if the respondents: had already participated in the survey; did not provide consent; had a permanent residence that they can return to at the time of the count; reported having their own apartment/house and had a permanent residence that they can return to at the time of the count. To calculate response rates, one needs to have a sense of the total available number of eligible respondents in the sample. Unfortunately, this is not fully possible given the population targeted for this survey. In the case of emergency shelter and transitional housing, we have counts of those who were in the facilities. For those who were surveyed, there were some who were ineligible because they had a permanent residence to return to. There were also interviewees who declined to give consent, which had to be removed from the sample. If we remove minors accompanying parents, who would technically be ineligible from participating in the survey, then the rates of valid surveys as percentage of those enumerated increase. 20

22 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS u Technical Assistance Regina sought the assistance of a technical expert to implement the Count. In their capacity as Community Entity (CE) under HPS, the YMCA of Regina sought proposals to develop the count methodology and data collection tools and procedures. Drs. Alina Turner and Steve Gaetz application was selected to this end by the CE and Community Advisory Board (CAB). Dr. Turner was the lead researcher on the project and worked in close collaboration with the YMCA to implement all aspects of the Count. The YMCA provided support primarily through the secondment of a staff to act as the Local Coordinator leading on-the ground consultation and engagement work. Regina s approach sought to be inclusive in the development of the Count process and its implementation of a range of stakeholders, including: those with lived experience, the homeless support community, government, and public systems (health, corrections, police, etc.). u Advisory Committee An Advisory Committee was struck from the beginning of the process to provide guidance throughout. The make-up of the Advisory included CAB and other key stakeholders such as homeless-support non-profits, Regina Police Services, Government of Saskatchewan, City of Regina, the private sector, Regina s homeless community, and the general public. See Appendix 1 for a list of Advisory Committee members. Tailoring the national methods and data set to best meet local needs was a key task for the Committee. They advised on critical implementation areas, including volunteer deployment, canvassing areas, participating facilities, report content and dissemination. During the planning process, the Lead Researcher, Local Coordinator, Advisory Committee and key partners collaboratively determined the: Scope and objectives of the Count Critical community stakeholders that should be engaged Resources needed, particularly volunteers Process for recruiting and training volunteers Timelines for implementation 21

23 Ethics, confidentiality and safety Process for analyzing and communicating results Participation in the effort to develop a national count The Regina Police Service provided specific safety training and process improvement guidance throughout the process as well. Appendix 1 includes the Terms of Reference for the Committee. u Capacity Building One of the key objectives of this project was to build local capacity to conduct future counts, to reduce future costs, and to help develop a stronger culture where data on homelessness regularly plays a role in planning and implementation. As such, the Lead Researcher worked with the Local Coordinator, the CE, and Advisory Committee to ensure that knowledge about the process, methods, and overall implementation was shared, enhancing community capacity to conduct counts in the future in a way that continues to engage the broader community, and lowers overhead. The Local Coordinator and other staff at the YMCA participated in all aspects of the Count to enhance their capacity to undertake the initiative without extensive external technical expertise in the future. The Local Coordinator was also a key link to the local community on an ongoing basis and a fulltime presence for local stakeholders. The Local Coordinator had experience providing leadership at the community level, understood Regina s community processes, budgeting and community concerns. Their role was to support the Lead Researcher to liaise with the Community Advisory Board (CAB), municipal governments, system partners, homeless organizations etc. to provide information about Counts, build support and understanding of the objectives and work of the project and help communities move towards the development of their own Count. u Community Engagement The success of the Count is dependent on effective engagement, which can inform and educate key stakeholders, including the general public, media, policy makers, the business sector, social services sector and people experiencing homelessness. Being open to cross-sector collaboration in the planning and implementation of the Count can assist with buy-in, but also resources to support the count, including money, volunteers, supplies and expert knowledge. The Count can be a vehicle to catalyze the community to address homelessness differently as well. The process of planning and implementing the Count can generate cross-sectional mobilization that can be leveraged to increase support for community efforts, gain new allies in solutions and build and strengthen partnerships. 22

24 To this end, the Lead Researcher, Local Coordinator and the Advisory Committee sought to engage as many stakeholders as possible to ensure they were aware of the Count ahead of time and are invited to be part of the process. There were a number of key groups whose engagement was sought in the planning and implementation process as outlined below. To launch the Count, a community engagement event was also held in February inviting the aforementioned stakeholder groups to attend. An overview of the Count and methods was presented, and key stakeholder were consulted on the proposed approach, including mapping of zones for the street count, timing, and survey questions. Over 90 people attended this event. Based on their input and that of the Advisory Committee, the final approach was finalized in March Effective engagement between the homeless population in Regina, the respective non-profits and the research team is paramount to a successful PIT Count. This included focus groups to develop relationships with the homeless community and hosting community events to acquire feedback. Preliminary stakeholder consultations provided the community with information about the PIT count in Regina, and offered a platform for community groups to give feedback about the survey and the PIT zones. Another important step in preparation to the count is to liaise with the Regina Police Service and Regina systems providers including RQHR, Detox, 211, United Way and HIFIS administrators to align efforts in making the count go smoothly. Table 15 Key PIT Stakeholders & Roles Key Stakeholders Homeless/formerly homeless persons Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing providers Non-profit service providers Roles in the Planning Process Identify locations that should be canvassed Feedback on question appropriateness and wording Give input on survey process Advise on best way of conducting Count in emergency facilities Input on survey and process overall Input on Count process and survey Recruit and train volunteers Proposed Roles in Count Implementation Act as informal ambassadors on the night of the Count to other homeless persons explaining purpose, process Volunteer for the Count Support Count volunteers in administering survey May administer survey within shelters Provide shelter to those found outside during Count Volunteer for the Count 23

25 Health services Corrections services Researchers Government & Funders Media Business Sector Input on Count process and survey, particularly in detox, hospitals and ER Recruit and train volunteers Input on Count process and survey, particularly in remand, detention centres, jails Recruit and train volunteers Input on survey and methods Training on ethics and confidentiality Recruit and train volunteers Increase awareness of homelessness issue across departments Input on methods and survey Source of volunteers Ensure awareness of the Count to increase coverage of the issue Donating supplies and funds Recruit volunteers Volunteer for the Count Administer survey in detox, hospitals and ER Volunteer for the Count Administer survey in remand, detention centres, jails Volunteer for the Count Assist in analysis of Count data Volunteer for the Count Advance issue within government after the Count Coverage of the Count, facilitated by lead organization Volunteer for the Count u Volunteer Recruitment & Training The Count effort would not have been possible without a tremendous volunteer effort. Not only do volunteers reduce the amount of funds needed to administer the Count, but they bring critical skills to the table as many have a background working with homeless individuals as service providers. The Count was also a key opportunity to engage the public and mainstream systems in a collective effort to address homelessness. It can help raise awareness and gain allies in the broader movement. Volunteers provided important feedback to improve the process for the next Count and can become a resource we can tap on a regular basis, increasing their skills and reducing recruitment costs in the long run. The Local Coordinator and the Advisory Committee launched a call for volunteers in March and sent out invites and an online registration link to their networks. The most effective channels for volunteer recruitment and messaging included social media (Twitter/Facebook), lists and media releases to the general public. There was approximately 100 volunteers registered the night of the count with over 150 showing up to participate the evening of the count. Some volunteers that registered did not show up for their shift while others showed up without registering. Those with experience working with this population were selected act as team leads. They were paired with volunteers without significant experience in teams averaging 4 people. 24

26 Effective training is absolutely essential to this effort and should be mandatory to participation for volunteers. Not only does it prepare the survey administrators for the task ahead, but it can act as an opportunity to increase awareness regarding homelessness and efforts underway to address it as well. Having volunteers present and willing to engage in the issue is a tremendous opportunity to gain allies in efforts to end homelessness. Training the street count team leads and shelter/transitional housing survey administrators was done separately from the broader group. The team leads and facility representatives needed a more thorough understanding of the survey questions, ethics, safety and overall logistics, particularly those leading other volunteers. Two two-hour sessions were held specifically for these leads the week of the count. The Regina Police Service provided specific safety training during the team lead session. To reduce the time commitment needed from the overall volunteer pool, training for all volunteers was provided on the night of the Count before teams are sent out to their assigned areas. This training was mandatory for all volunteers to ensure a common baseline is in place, particularly when it comes to ethics and safety. The Regina Police Service provided specific safety training during general volunteer training session. u Communications Strategy The Count received considerable media attention. A communications strategy was required to take account of the need to manage information regarding the count (planning and implementation) as well as the release of the final report. Efforts were made to balance the need for confidentiality with engaging the media. Assigned YMCA spokespeople managed media calls throughout the process. The communications strategy for the release of the final report considered both the local and national distribution of results. The launch was coordinated with the Advisory Committee and ensure maximum coverage and impact. The launch of the final report was be supported by the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, leveraging its capacity for knowledge dissemination, particularly through the Homeless Hub (homelesshub.ca). 25

27 RESULTS ENUMERATION To develop the final figure for how many people were enumerated as homeless on the night of the count, all occupancy numbers from participating facilities were added to the number of people surveyed who confirmed they had no permanent address, their accompanying dependents, and those observed sleeping rough. It is not possible to know how many of the 81 people approached who refused to participate were in fact homeless, though there were those who were observed to be sleeping rough who did not participate or were incapable of participating consensually (sleeping, intoxicated). Some did respond to the survey screening questions that they were sleeping outside, but chose not to complete the full survey as well. Feedback from survey administrators also pointed out that some of the zones were not fully covered due to safety issues; one of the zones was too large to be fully covered as well. Some potential participants were also unwilling to participate because of the length of the survey. Future counts should consider implementation revisions to address these shortcomings. Table 16 Street Count Enumeration Street Count Enumeration Numbers Surveyed With No Permanent Address, but not Sleeping Rough 15 Dependents from those Surveyed With No Permanent Address in Street Count 5 Observed (6) or Surveyed Sleeping Rough (2) 8 Total Enumerated in Street Count 28 Table 17 Facility Count Enumeration Facility Count Enumeration Numbers Emergency Shelters 126 Transitional Housing 62 Detox 16 Total Enumerated in Facility Count

28 SURVEY PARTICIPATION In total, 66 valid surveys were obtained, or 28.4% of the 232 people enumerated in the Count. Ideally, this number would be 80% as the community becomes more engaged and comfortable with the survey. The low participation rates in facilities (19.4%-29.4%) points to the need for more outreach with staff and clients prior to the Count. Given this is Regina s first Count, future efforts should improve this figure. Table 18 Survey Participation Facility Type Bed Count Number Enumerated Occupancy Rate Valid Surveys Valid Surveys as % of Total Enumerated Emergency Shelter % % Transitional Housing % % Detox (Systems) n/a 0 n/a Street Count n/a 28 n/a % Total n/a % In the case of the street count, figures cannot be used to deduce a reliable sample size analysis as we do not have accurate information of the total population that could have been included in the enumeration. The figures below come from tally sheets collected during administration, which recorded the numbers of people approached, those who were ineligible, refused to or already participated in the survey. Table 19 Street Count Participation Street Count Total Enumerated in Street Count (Tally Sheet/Survey) Total Individuals Approached (Tally Sheet) Total Valid Surveys from Street Count (Survey) Ineligible (Tally Sheet/Survey) Already Participated (Tally Sheet/Survey) Refused (Tally Sheet) ADMINISTRATIVE & OBSERVED DATA The report includes survey and administrative data provided by the facilities on observed gender, age, and Aboriginal ethnicity for occupants on the night of May 13 to provide a more comprehensive picture of homelessness. The additional administrative HIFIS data from facilities adds more breadth on key data elements. HIFIS administrative data from 5 facilities covers only 51.6% of the emergency shelter and transitional housing population in facilities on the night of the Count. This data was provided to for May 13 to 27

29 complement the count results from the survey. It is important to note however that the survey data is more extensive in scope and includes variables not captured by administrative data (i.e. age first homeless, system interaction patterns). A limitation of the survey method is the reliance on self-reporting however, giving people the chance to self-identify as a particular ethnicity, gender identity, etc. as well as the ability to obtain data that could not be observed - such as time homeless or migration outweighs the limitations of self-reporting. From an ethical perspective, making assumptions about someone s housing status, ethno-cultural identity, gender and age is problematic as well. The administrative data and Facility Survey information about observed demographics is particularly important to capture better information on those under 18, as they were not able to participate in the survey. The analysis using these additional data was completed in a relevant sections throughout the report and discusses the differences in results compared to using the survey data only. This is also done with the data provided by facility staff through the online facility survey. For ease of readability, the HIFIS analysis is included in Appendix 5. Table 20 Facilities Inventory Facility Agency Classification Bed Capacity Count Occupancy HIFIS Count 1. Isabel Johnson Shelter YWCA of Regina Emergency Shelter Kikinaw YWCA of Regina Emergency Shelter 5 3 n/a data quality challenges 3. My Aunt s Place YWCA of Regina Emergency Shelter Men s Emergency Shelter 5. Women s Emergency Shelter Souls Harbour Rescue Mission Souls Harbour Rescue Mission Emergency Shelter n/a Emergency Shelter 12 0 n/a 6. Waterston Centre Salvation Army Emergency Shelter WISH Safehouse TFHQ Safe Shelters Inc. Emergency Shelter n/a 8. Regina Transition House 9. Downtown Browne s Emergency Youth Shelter Regina Transition Women s Society Street Culture Kidz Project Inc. Transitional Housing n/a Transitional Housing Men s Residence YMCA of Regina Transitional Housing 11 5 n/a 11. Sofia House Sofia House Inc. Transitional Housing n/a 12. Detox Addiction Treatment Centre Systems n/a Total

30 RESULTS ANALYSIS There were 125 entries into the online survey platform, of which 66 (52.8%) were valid. To be considered valid, the survey responses were cleaned to ensure no duplicates, consent was provided, and where respondents had a place of their own and reported having a permanent address. The 66 responses were conducted in facilities (49, 74.2%) primarily; as 17 surveys were administered during the street count (25.8%). The report breaks down these two sources of the survey respondents (street and facility) to ensure a more nuanced understanding about those who access supports compared to those encountered on the street. Figure 1 Survey Responses Location Survey Responses (n=66) 26% 74% Facility Survey Street Survey Of the 49 surveys administered in facilities, the following table breaks down which sites these came from. Table 21 Surveys per Participating Facility Facility Number Percent Isabel Johnson Shelter 4 8.2% Kikinaw 2 4.1% My Aunt s Place % Regina Transition House % Sofia House % Souls Harbour Rescue Mission Men s Shelter % Souls Harbour Rescue Mission Women s Shelter 0 0.0% Waterston % Total % 29

31 SLEEPING LOCATION Participants were asked where they we staying the nigh to the count; most of those surveyed were staying in facilities particularly emergency shelter (56.1%) or transitional housing (21.2%). Figure 2 Survey Participants by Sleeping Location Where are you staying tonight? (n=66) 60.0% 56.1% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 21.2% 10.0% 0.0% Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing 7.6% Someone else s place 6.1% Domestic violence shelter 3.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% Detox Hospital Other (please specify): nowhere Public space, such as sidewalks or bus Declined to answer Table 22 Survey Participants by Sleeping Location Where are you staying tonight? (n=66) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Emergency Shelter % % % Transitional Housing % 1 5.9% % Someone else s place 0 0.0% % 5 7.6% Domestic violence shelter 4 8.2% 0 0.0% 4 6.1% Detox 0 0.0% % 2 3.0% Hospital 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.5% Other (please specify): nowhere 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.5% Public space, such as sidewalks or bus shelters 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.5% Declined to answer 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.5% Total % % % 30

32 GENDER Of the 64 responses, 45.3% were female and 53.1% were male; 1.6% declined to answer. Notably, males were over-represented in the street survey (76.5%) compared to females (23.5%). In the facilities, female respondents are slightly over-represented (53.2%). Figure 3 Survey Participants Gender Gender (n=64) 1.6% 53.1% 45.3% Female Male Declined to Answer Table 23 Survey Participants Gender Gender (n=64) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Female % % % Male % % % Declined to Answer 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Total % % % OBSERVED GENDER The Observed Facility Data provided by facility staff provides data on 191 individuals in facilities. Compared to the survey self-reported data, the observed gender data suggests a lower female proportion (35.6% vs. 63.4%). Combined with the self-reported street count data, it suggests 64.4% male, 34.6% female and 1.0% other gender categories. The figure using observed data and street survey responses was used in the overall summary of the Count, as it captures the largest proportion of enumerated persons. 31

33 Table 24 Observed Gender Observed Facility Data Gender (n=208) Street Survey Self-Reported Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Female % % % Male % % % Other 2 1.0% 0 0.0% 2 1.0% Total % % % Figure 4 Observed Gender Gender-Observed Facility Data & Street Survey Self-Reported 1.0% 35.6% 63.4% Female Male Transgender/Transsexual 32

34 AGE Of the 63 respondents who provided information about their age, the largest group was made up of working age adults: 46.0% were in the year range and 36.5% were in the year range.older adults were present to a lesser extent: only 1.6% were seniors 65 years or older. Youth years old comprised 12.7% of the respondent group; note that youth under 18 were not eligible to participate in the survey as the researchers could not obtain permission from guardians at the time of the survey. However, further information was provided directly by shelter agencies to complement the survey. Looking at facilities and street survey responses, the breakdowns are fairly consistent with the exception of a higher proportions of year olds in the street survey compared to facility survey. A higher percent of years olds is also notable in the facilities survey compared to the street survey. Figure 5 Age of Survey Respondents Respondent Age (n=63) 50.0% 46.0% 40.0% 36.5% 30.0% 20.0% 12.7% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 years or younger 3.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6 to to to to to Don t know 33

35 Table 25 Age of Survey Respondents Age (n=63) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 5 years or younger 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 to % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 to % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 to % % % 25 to % % % 45 to % % % % 0 0.0% 2 3.2% Don t Know 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.6% Total % % % OBSERVED AGE The Observed Facility Data proved by facility staff provides data on 155 individuals in facilities. Compared to the survey self-reported data, the observed age data suggests a notably higher percentage of youth. This is again due to those under 18 being ineligible to participate. The figure using observed data and street survey responses was used in the overall summary of the Count, as it captures the largest proportion of enumerated persons. Table 26 Observed Age Observed Facility Data Age (n=171) 34 Street Survey Self-Reported Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 5 years or younger % 0 0.0% % 6 to % 0 0.0% % 13 to % 0 0.0% % 18 to % % % 25 to % % % 45 to % % % % 0 0.0% 1 0.6% Total % % %

36 Figure 6 Observed Age Age-Observed Facility Data & Street Survey Self-Reported 30.0% 29.2% 27.5% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 14.6% 15.8% 10.0% 5.0% 6.4% 5.8% 0.0% 5 years or younger 0.6% 6 to to to to to

37 ABORIGINAL IDENTITY Of 61 respondents, 77.0% answered that they identify as being Aboriginal, including First Nations, Métis, and/or Inuit. Notably, all respondents to this question in the street survey self-identified as Aboriginal compared to 70.2% in the facilities survey. Figure 7 Surveyed Participants Aboriginal Self-Identification Would you identify as being Aboriginal, including First Nations, Métis, and/or Inuit? (n=61) Total 77.0% Street Survey 100.0% Facilities Survey 70.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Table 27 Surveyed Participants Aboriginal Self-Identification Would you identify as being Aboriginal, including First Nations, Métis, and/or Inuit? (n=61) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes % % % No % 0 0.0% % Total % % % Of the 47 who self-identified as Aboriginal, the majority were First Nations Status (78.7%, followed by Metis (14.9%), and First Nations Non-Status (4.3%). Notably, there were more First Nations Status in facilities compared to the street survey (81.8% vs. 71.4%) as well as Metis (18.2% vs. 7.1%). While there were no First Nations Non-Status respondents in the facilities survey, there were 14.3% in the street survey. 36

38 Figure 8 Aboriginal Groups among Survey Participants If you self-identify as Aboriginal, which group do you belong to? (n=47) 14.9% 2.1% 4.3% 78.7% First Nations (Status) First Nations (Non-Status) Métis Other Table 28 Aboriginal Groups among Survey Participants If you self-identify as Aboriginal, which group do you belong to? (n=47) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent First Nations (Status) % % % First Nations (Non-Status) 0 0.0% % 2 4.3% Métis % 1 7.1% % Other 0 0.0% 1 7.1% 1 2.1% Total % % % OBSERVED ETHNICITY The Observed Facility Dataprovided by facility staff on 166 individuals in facilities was available. Compared to the survey self-reported data, the observed data suggests a somewhat higher percentage of Aboriginal people in facilities (72.9% vs 70.2%). Visible minorities are also reported at 7.2% of the total observed in facilities. 37

39 Table 29 Observed Ethnicity Ethnicity (n=166) Number Percent Aboriginal % Caucasian % Other Visible Minority % Unknown 1 0.6% Total % No Data % When the figure using observed data is combined with the street survey responses to capture the largest possible proportion of enumerated persons, data suggests three quarters (75.0%) are Aboriginal. Table 30 Observed Aboriginal Identity Aboriginal Ethnicity (n=180) Observed Facility Data Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes % % % 38

40 RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLING Of the 60 respondents to this question, 38.3% reported they had been in residential schools. A higher proportion of street survey respondents reported they had been in residential schools. Notably, all respondents who reported they had been in residential schools also self-identified as Aboriginal. Figure 9 Survey Respondents Residential Schooling Experience Have you ever been in residential schools? (n=60) 50.0% 46.7% 40.0% 38.3% 35.6% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Table 31 Survey Respondents Residential Schooling Experience Have you ever been in residential schools? (n=60) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes % % % No % % % Declined to Answer 4 8.9% 0 0.0% 4 6.7% Total % % % 39

41 CHILD PROTECTION Of 64 responses, 46.9% reported having had involvement with child protection. About a quarter reported having involvement as a parent, another 14.1% as a child and 7.8% as both. More respondents in the facilities survey reported child protection involvement compared to the street survey (51.1% vs. 35.3%). Figure 10 Survey Respondents Experience with Child Protection Have you ever been involved with child protection? (n=64) Total 46.9% Street Survey 35.3% Facilities Survey 51.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Table 32 Survey Respondents Experience with Child Protection Have you ever been involved with child protection? (n=64) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes - child/youth % % % Yes - as parent as a child/ youth 4 8.5% 1 5.9% 5 7.8% Yes - as parent % % % No % % % Don t know 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Declined to answer 1 2.1% 1 5.9% 2 3.1% Total % % % 40

42 IMMIGRATION Only 4.8% of respondents reported being born outside Canada; the majority (93.7%) were born in Canada. Notably, all 4 foreign-born respondents were in the facilities survey; none were in the street survey. Figure 11 Foreign-Born Survey Respondents Born in Canada & Foreign-Born (n=63) 4.8% 1.6% 93.7% Born in Canada Foreign Born Declined to Answer Table 33 Foreign-Born Survey Respondents How long have you been in Canada? (n=66) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Born in Canada % % % Foreign-Born 3 6.3% 0 0.0% 3 4.8% Declined to Answer 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Total % % % The 4 respondents born outside Canada had been here for an average of about 22 years. Table 34 Average Years in Canada for Foreign-Born Survey Respondents Average years in Canada for those Foreign-Born (n=4) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Average Years in Canada Respondents

43 MIGRATION The majority of respondents (84.1%) were born outside Regina; 14.3% were born in Regina. Figure 12 Survey Respondents Born In and Outside Regina Regina Residence (n=63) 100.0% 84.1% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 14.3% 0.0% Born in Regina Not Born in Regina 1.6% Declined to Answer Table 35 Survey Respondents Born In and Outside Regina How long have you been in Regina? (n=63) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Born in Regina % 1 5.9% % Not Born in Regina % % % Declined to Answer 1 2.2% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Total % % % Looking closer at those not born in Regina, about 28.3% had been here for less than 1 year; 9.4% between 1 and 3 years, and 20.8% for 4-10 years; 41.5% had been in Regina for longer than 11 years. Notably, there were significantly more migrants who had been in Regina years in the facility survey compared to the street survey, but also significantly more migrants who had been in Regina longer than 21 years in the street survey compared to the facilities survey. 42

44 More street survey respondents had been in Regina less than 1 year compared to facilities survey respondents. Vice versa, more facilities respondents had been here 1-3 years and 4-10 years compared to street survey respondents. Figure 13 Time in Regina for Survey Respondents not Born in Regina Time in Regina (n=53) 24.5% 28.3% 17.0% 9.4% Under 1 year 1-3 years 4-10 years years 21+ years 20.8% Table 36 Time in Regina for Survey Respondents not Born in Regina Time in Regina (n=53) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under 1 year % % % 1-3 years % 1 6.3% 5 9.4% 4-10 years % % % years % 1 6.3% % 21+ years % % % Total % % % When asked where they were living prior to migrating to Regina, of 49 respondents, 42.9% reported coming from communities in Saskatchewan, followed by 8.2% from Alberta and Manitoba respectively, British Columbia (6.1%), Ontario (6.1%), New Brunswick (2.0%), Quebec (2.0%), and United States (2.0%). 43

45 Figure 14 Migrant Survey Respondents Prior Residence If you are new to the community, where were you living prior to coming here? (n=49) 50.0% 42.9% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.4% 10.0% 8.2% 8.2% 6.1% 6.1% 0.0% SK 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% AB MB BC ON NB QC U.S.A Don t know Declined to Answer Table 37 Migrant Survey Respondents Prior Residence If you are new to the community, where were you living prior to coming here? (n=49) Province Number Percent Saskatchewan % Alberta 4 8.2% Manitoba 4 8.2% British Columbia 3 6.1% Ontario 3 6.1% New Brunswick 1 2.0% Quebec 1 2.0% USA 1 2.0% Don t Know 1 2.0% Declined to Answer % Total % Eleven (22.4%) respondents reported coming from First Nations communities all of which were in Saskatchewan. 44

46 Table 38 Migrant Survey Respondents from First Nations Communities First Nations Community Number Percent Cowessess 1 9.1% Kawacatoose 1 9.1% Muskowekwan First Nations 1 9.1% Ochapowace 1 9.1% Onion Lake 1 9.1% Peepeekisis 1 9.1% Piapot 1 9.1% Moskwangan 1 9.1% Standing Buffalo First Nation 1 9.1% Whitebear First Nation % Total % Respondents were also asked why they came to Regina. Most commonly, they reported coming for employment or family/friends, followed by safety, services and education. Figure 15 Survey Respondent s Reason for Migration to Regina If new to Regina, why did you come? (n=48) Declined to answer 18.8% Other 4.2% Education, School 6.3% Safety 12.5% Services 12.5% Family/Friends 25.0% Employment, jobs 25.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 45

47 Table 39 Survey Respondent s Reason for Migration to Regina If new to Regina, why did you come? (n=48) Reason Number Percent Employment, jobs % Family/friends % Services (health care, social services, treatment) % Safety % Education, school 3 6.3% Other 2 4.2% Declined to Answer % HOMELESSNESS PATTERNS Data was available to assess the pattern of homelessness. The data on homelessness duration and episodes was analyzed using the following conditions to define chronic, episodic and transitional homelessness using available responses. Table 40 Response Categories to Determine Homelessness Pattern Condition Category Anyone over 1 year current Anyone more than 4 episodes For estimated count - anything over 1 to 3 category More than 2 episodes For estimated count -1 to 3 is episodic (with or without duration data) Chronic Chronic Chronic Episodic Episodic 1 or 2 instances of homelessness (actual # not estimated) Transitional 1 month or less homeless Transitional First time homeless, 2 months duration or less If they do not know duration - unknown if there is not enough instances data to categorize Declined to answer duration - unknown if there is not enough instances data to categorize Transitional Unknown Unknown Based on this breakdown, the following could be deduced: 39.4% were experiencing chronic homelessness, 6.1% were experiencing episodic homelessness, and 51.5% were experiencing transitional homelessness. There were more street survey respondents who were experiencing chronic and episodic homelessness compared to respondents in facilities; there were significantly more survey respondents experiencing transitional homelessness in facilities compared to the street survey respondents. 46

48 Figure 16 Survey Respondents Homelessness Classification Homelessness Typology (n=66) Facilities Survey 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 58.8% 61.2% 51.5% Street Survey Total 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 32.7% Chronic 39.4% 4.1% 11.8% 6.1% 23.5% 2.0% 5.9% 3.0% Episodic Transitional Unknown Table 41 Survey Respondents Homelessness Classification Homelessness Typology (n=66) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Chronic % % % Episodic 2 4.1% % 4 6.1% Transitional % % % Unknown 1 2.0% 1 5.9% 2 3.0% Total % % % 47

49 AGE OF FIRST HOMELESSNESS EXPERIENCE Participants were asked what age they were when they first experienced homelessness: 32.8% were under the age of 18 and a further 14.1% were years old. Collectively, 46.9% had first experienced homelessness as youth. Note, that given youth under 18 could not be interviewed in the survey, this figure would be notably higher as well. On average, respondents were first homeless at about 27 years old; facilities respondents average age was higher at 28.5 years old compared to 22.5 for the street survey. Figure 17 Survey Respondents Age of First Homelessness Experience How old were you when you first became homeless in your life? (n=64) 30.0% 28.1% 25.0% 23.4% 20.0% 15.0% 14.1% 10.0% 10.9% 7.8% 5.0% 4.7% 3.1% 3.1% 4.7% 0.0% Under % 12 to to to to to to Don t know Declined to answer Table 42 Survey Respondents Age of First Homelessness Experience How old were you when you first became homeless in your life? (n=64) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under % 0 0.0% 3 4.7% 12 to % % % 19 to % 1 5.9% % 25 to % % % 36 to % % % 46 to % 0 0.0% 5 7.8% 55 to % 0 0.0% 2 3.1% % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Don t Know 1 2.1% 1 5.9% 2 3.1% Declined to Answer 2 4.3% 1 5.9% 3 4.7% % % % Average Age

50 SERVICE IN THE CANADIAN MILITARY & RCMP About 6.3% of the surveyed population reported that they had served in the Canadian military: a total of 4 of those surveyed. This suggests an over-representation compared to the 1.7% veteran rate reported for the general population. A further 1.6% reported having served in the RCMP. Figure 18 Survey Respondents Military & RCMP Experience Have you ever had any service in the Canadian military of the RCMP? (n=64) Yes - RCMP 1.6% Yes - Military 6.3% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% Table 43 Survey Respondents Military & RCMP Experience Have you ever had any service in the Canadian military or the RCMP (includes army, navy, air force)? (n=64) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes - Military 3 6.4% 1 5.9% 4 6.3% Yes - RCMP 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.6% No % % % Declined to Answer 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% % % % 49

51 CHILDREN & FAMILIES Survey respondents were asked about accompanying family members on the night of the count specifically. Most (72.7%) were on their own; 13.6% reported having children with them, followed by spouses/partners (3.0%), parents (1.5%), siblings (1.5%) or other family members (4.5%). There were more respondents on their own and with accompanying children in the facility survey compared to the street survey. There were more respondents with accompanying spouses or other family members in the street survey. Figure 19 Survey Respondents Accompanying Family Members What family memebers are with you today? (n=66) 80.0% 70.0% 72.7% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 13.6% 10.0% 3.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% None Child(ren) Spouse/ partner Parent(s) Sibling(s) Other Declined to answer 50

52 Table 44 Survey Respondents Accompanying Family Members What family members are with you today? (n=66) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent None % % % Child(ren) % % % Spouse/partner 0 0.0% % 2 3.0% Parent(s) 1 2.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% Sibling(s) 1 2.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% Other 1 2.0% % 3 4.5% Declined to answer 2 4.1% 0 0.0% 2 3.0% Total % % % Accompanying dependents under the age of 18 were reported by 20.0% of survey respondents. There were more dependents reported in the facilities survey compared to the street survey. In total, the 9 respondents reported having a total of 30 accompanying children with them: 25 children in facilities and 5 in the street survey. Table 45 Survey Respondents with Accompanying Minors Do you have dependents (children under 18) who are staying in the same place as you tonight? (n=64) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes % % % No % % % Declined to answer 2 4.3% 0 0.0% 2 3.1% Total % % % Number of Accompanying Children % % % 51

53 INCOME The most common source of income reported by survey participants were income assistance (65.5%), followed by part-time/casual employment (7.8%), disability benefits (7.8%), full time employment (6.3%), and panhandling (6.3%). Informal sources of income, such as panhandling, binning, crafting, family/friend, under the table jobs and no income were more commonly reported in the street survey compared to the facilities survey. Figure 20 Survey Respondents Income Source Where do you get your money from? (Check all that apply) (n=64) 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Welfare/income assistance Part time or casual employment Disability benefiit Full time employment Panhandling Under the table jobs Binning/bottle collecting Employment Insurance OAS/GIS/CPP No Income Reserve fiinding Child support Pension Money from family/friends Crafting/Painting Informal income Declined to answer 52

54 Table 46 Survey Respondents Income Source Where do you get your money from? (Check all that apply) (n=64) Facilities Survey (n=47) Street Survey (n=17) Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Welfare/income assistance % % % Part time or casual employment 4 8.5% 1 5.9% 5 7.8% Disability benefit % 0 0.0% 5 7.8% Full time employment 3 6.4% 1 5.9% 4 6.3% Panhandling 1 2.1% % 4 6.3% Under the table jobs 2 4.3% 1 5.9% 3 4.7% Binning/bottle collecting 0 0.0% % 2 3.1% Employment Insurance 1 2.1% 1 5.9% 2 3.1% OAS/GIS/CPP 2 4.3% 0 0.0% 2 3.1% No income 0 0.0% % 2 3.1% Reserve funding 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Child support 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Pension 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Money from family/friends 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.6% Crafting/Painting 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.6% Informal income (sex trade, dealing, etc.) 0 0.0% 1 5.9% 1 1.6% Declined to answer 1 2.1% 1 5.9% 2 3.1% 53

55 EDUCATION The highest level of education completed most commonly by survey respondents was secondary school (37.5%). There were 20.5% who completed high school and 17.2% whose highest level of education was primary school. Almost one quarter (23.4%) completed some postsecondary education. There were more street survey participants who reported secondary school and graduating high school to be their highest level of completed education compared to the facility survey. Figure 21 Survey Respondents Highest Level of Education What is the highest level of education you completed? (n=64) 1.6% 23.4% 17.2% 20.3% 37.5% Primary School Secondary School High school graduate Postsecondary Don t know Table 47 Survey Respondents Highest Level of Education What is the highest level of education you completed?(n=64) Facilities Survey Street Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Primary school % % % Secondary school % % % High school graduate % % % Postsecondary % % % Don t know 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 1.6% Total % % % 54

56 HEALTH CONDITIONS Participants self-reported having a medical condition (57.8%), addiction (42.9%) and mental health condition (42.9%). More street survey participants reported a medical condition, addiction, and mental health condition compared to the facilities survey. Figure 22 Survey Respondents Health Conditions Reported Conditions 60.0% 57.8% 50.0% 42.9% 42.9% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Medical Condition (n=64) Addiction (n=63) Mental Health Condition (n=63) 55

57 Table 48 Survey Respondents Health Conditions Self-Reported Conditions FACILITIES SURVEY Yes No Don t know Declined to answer Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Medical Condition % % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% % Addiction % % 1 2.1% 1 2.1% % Mental Health Condition % % 2 4.3% 1 2.1% % STREET SURVEY Yes No Don t know Declined to answer Total Medical Condition % % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% % Addiction % % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% % Mental Health Condition % % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% % ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS Yes No Don t know Declined to answer Total Medical Condition (n=64) % % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% % Addiction (n=63) % % 1 1.6% 1 1.6% % Mental Health Condition (n=63) % % 2 3.2% 1 1.6% % 56

58 PUBLIC SYSTEM INTERACTIONS Participants were asked about their number and types of public system interactions over the 12 months prior to the Count. Note that the response rates for this question varied and ranged from 65.2% to 87.9%. The low response rate for the street survey regarding days in jail and prison is of particular note limited the reliability of the data. On average, over the 12 months prior to the Count, those who responded reported an average of: Times hospitalized: 1.9 Days hospitalized: 12.7 Times used Emergency Medical Services (ambulance): 2.0 Times in hospital emergency room: 2.8 Times interactions with child protection services: 1.6 Time interactions with police: 3.5 Times in jail: 0.9 Days in jail: 25.6 Times in prison: 0.3 Days in prison: Figure 23 Survey Respondents Average Number of Public System Interactions in Past 12 Months Public System Interactions over past 12 mo. ~ (Average per respondent) Times hospitalized Days hospitalized Times used EMS Times in hospital ER Times interacted with CPS Times interacted with police 57 Times in jail Days in jail Times to prison Days in prison

59 Table 49 Survey Respondents Average Number of Public System Interactions in Past 12 Months Public System Interactions over past 12 mo. Times Days hospitalized hospitalized Times used Emergency Medical Services (ambulance) Times in hospital emergency room Times interactions with child protection services Time interactions with police Times in jail Days in jail Times to prison Days in prison FACILITIES SURVEY Total No Answer Sample Size Average per Respondent Response Rate 83.7% 75.5% 85.7% 83.7% 85.7% 83.7% 85.7% 79.6% 85.7% 71.4% STREET SURVEY Total No Answer Sample Size Average per Respondent Response Rate 100.0% 76.5% 64.7% 58.8% 70.6% 64.7% 76.5% 64.7% 58.8% 47.1% ALL SURVEYS Total No Answer Sample Size Average per Respondent Response Rate 87.9% 75.8% 80.3% 77.3% 81.8% 78.8% 83.3% 75.8% 78.8% 65.2% 58

60 REASONS FOR HOMELESSNESS When asked about the reasons they thought were keeping them from finding and keeping a place of their own, respondents noted the following: Top 5 reasons preventing respondents from keeping a place Rents too high (43.9%) Low income (25.8%) Other reasons (22.7%) Family breakdown (15.2%) Poor housing conditions (15.2%) Examples in the Other category include: credit, safety, no jobs, and identification. Top 5 reasons keeping respondents from finding a place Rents too high (56.1%) Low income (42.4%) Family breakdown (21.2%) Poor housing conditions (21.2%) Health/disability issues (19.7%) Examples in the Other category include: finding the right place, irresponsibility, scared- asked for help not helped; felt betrayed by social services, never had own place, outside influences. 59

61 Figure 24 Survey Respondents Reasons for Homelessness Reasons for Homelessness (n=66) Other 13.6% 22.7% Declined to answer Don t know 1.5% 3.0% 1.5% 6.1% Blacklisted by landlord Don t want housing Discrimination 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 9.1% 9.1% 10.6% What do you think is preventing you from keeping a place of your own? What do you think is keeping you from finding a place of your own? Children Pets 0.0% 4 4.5% 1.5% 1.5% Criminal History Addiction 7.6% 10.6% 12.1% 18.2% Child apprehended by children s services 3.0% 7.6% Mental health issues 10.6% 15.2% Health/disability issues Domestic violence Familt breakdown/ conflict Poor housing conditions 12.1% 10.6% 13.6% 15.2% 15.2% 19.7% 21.2% 21.2% Rents too high 43.9% 56.1% Letter of guarantee for landlord from social assistance No income assistance 6.1% 6.1% 10.6% 13.6% Low income 25.8% 42.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 60

62 IMPROVEMENTS IN FUTURE COUNTS Volunteer feedback was provided by 55 survey respondents within one week of the Count. While overall the experience was rated favorably and the vast majority indicated they would participate again, there were key improvements noted: Decreasing the length of the survey. Reconsidering the time of the day and year for the survey: most suggested administering earlier in the evening and during warmer months. Streamlining the registration process, ensuring appropriate team assignments and contact information is confirmed prior to the night of the Count. Providing additional training on referrals to agencies for those requesting assistance on the street. In addition to volunteer feedback, the Count team (researchers, the CE, and Advisory Committee) brought the following are recommendations for consideration to improve future counts: Work with the Government of Saskatchewan to develop research protocols that allow for the survey to be undertaken by those under the age of 18 on the street, in facilities and public systems. Increase participation in the Count survey. Only 28.4% of those enumerated in the Count participated in the survey. Efforts to increase this to 80% should be made through targeted outreach and education with service providers and those with lived experience prior to the Count. Consider paring down the survey given concerns about length expressed by enumerators and participants. Cultivate volunteer group core for future counts with ongoing engagement in Count planning and implementation (thank you event, feedback opportunities). Ensure the local organizing team remains flexible and prepared for an influx of volunteers the night of the count by preparing numerous volunteer turnout scenarios for the evening. Continue to build capacity in a community-based agency to manage all aspects of the Count moving forward. Undertake the count on a regular basis going forward: every 2 years is recommended. Ensure consistent methods are implemented moving forward for comparability with the 2015 Count, as well as national standards. Enhance use of HIFIS data in future reports to incorporate shelter utilization trends in relation to Count findings and align more PIT Count and HIFIS data elements. 61

63 Work with facilities and funders to ensure bed classification is consistent across stakeholders and aligned with Count definitions for emergency shelters and transitional housing. Engage province-wide systems partners (i.e. health, justice) to utilize centralized existing data sources to access public systems use data for the count, ensuring alignment in methodologies. Explore means of increasing coverage and number of enumerators for the street count. Improvements to the mapping consultation process could include the consideration of slight revision of the zones, particularly in North Central, and how to best find hot spots outside of the zones the night of the count. Work with government (provincial and federal) to assess data from Housing First and other interventions (demographics and presenting needs) in relation to the results of the Count in the future to help inform future directions. This will require an alignment of data definitions to ensure comparability. 62

64 APPENDIX 1 PIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP REGINA POINT-IN-TIME HOMELESS COUNT SUB-COMMITTEE Terms of reference u Purpose The Sub-Committee will offer support and make recommendations to Turner Research & Strategy Inc. (TRS) and the YMCA of Regina on selected issues pertaining to the development and implementation of the Regina Point-in-Time Homeless Count on May 13, The Sub-Committee will review and provide feedback on elements pertaining to the Counted, including: assist with knowledge regarding local context to adapt the methodology of Count; provide input on the engagement processes developed for the Count; facilitate connections with key partners in the Count process where appropriate, particularly with emergency shelters, transitional housing providers and key public systems (corrections, health); help mobilize resources, particularly in the recruitment of Count volunteers and securing of needed supplies (maps, homebase location, office supplies); provide ongoing communications regarding the Count to Community Advisory Board; provide input on key communication materials, including training presentations, Count analysis report, and key messages to media/public. help spread awareness and educate the public about the Count u Composition The Sub-Committee comprises of Regina community-based leaders and service providers, all of whom play an important role in the provision of homelessness and housing services. At the recommendation of the Community Advisory Board, the following organization have been invited to participate due to the skill set they contribute to the count and survey project. 63

65 1. City of Regina 2. Sask Housing 3. Social Services 4. Youth Representative/ Street Culture 5. United Way 6. North Central Representative 7. Heritage Community Representative 8. Bylaw/Fire 9. Police 10. RQHR 11. Corrections 12. Aboriginal Representative x2 13. Women s Shelter u Meetings The Sub-Committee will meet both in person and online. At minimum, monthly calls of approximately 1.5 hours shall occur until March and after that every 2 weeks until the date of the Count. Monthly meetings shall resume through to July, at the time of the release of the final report based on the Count. In-person meeting will be determined with Sub-Committee on a go-forward basis. Additional meetings may be required at critical junctures and will be determined with the group. Alina Turner (TRS) will chair the meetings; Dagan Harding (YMCA) will coordinate meetings (call-in information, time, invitations) and share any necessary pre-reading materials with the group. Alina and Dagan will develop the agenda for meetings together. u Roles and Responsibilities The following table delineates key activities, timelines, and roles of the three partners involved (YMCA, Turner Research & Strategy and the Sub-Committee. 64

66 Phase 1: Research and Development: November, 2014-May, 2015 Key Activities Timelines Lead Role Support Role Status Committee recruitment Jan-Feb YMCA TRS Terms of Reference development Feb TRS YMCA Local Coordinator hiring Jan YMCA TRS Local Coordinator training Jan TRS YMCA Tailoring national methodology for Regina context: data set, street and facility count approach Develop participating agencies/stakeholders list Invitation to participating agencies (shelters, transitional housing, systems health/ corrections) Feb TRS YMCA Feb YMCA TRS Feb YMCA TRS Draft mapping areas for street count Feb YMCA TRS Develop proposed survey (data set) Feb TRS YMCA Consultations with lived experience, public systems, outreach services, shelters, transitional housing, government, etc. to gain input on proposed approach Feb-Mar YMCA TRS Community event to launch Count approach & gather input Finalize methods based on input, including mapping of street survey areas. Mar 3-5 Mar YMCA/TRS YMCA/TRS Engage shelters &transitional housing facilities, system, in determining best approach to conducting survey on the night of the Count. Mar YMCA TRS Launch call for team leads/volunteers. Mar-Apr YMCA TRS Develop training materials based on methods for team leads and volunteers. Develop key forms needed for data collection, including ethics consent and surveys, volunteer registration materials. Secure a homebase volunteer stationing area for the night of the count. Develop volunteer teams based on registration information provided. Liaise with police and EMS regarding safety protocols for the count. Purchase/acquire supplies (donations/ purchase) of engagement gifts ($5 coffee gift card, granola bars, backpacks, etc.) Mar TRS YMCA Mar TRS YMCA Mar YMCA TRS Apr YMCA TRS Apr YMCA TRS Apr YMCA TRS 65

67 Phase 2: Implementation of Count: May, 2015 Acquire final supplies needed for the Count. May 1-7 YMCA TRS Deliver training to team leads prior to the Count. Facilitate training and deployment of volunteers for the night of the count. Ensure all volunteer registration forms are completed and stored appropriately. Coordinate volunteers on the night of the Count, including data forms collection and debriefing. May 11 TRS YMCA May 13 TRS YMCA May 13 TRS YMCA May 13 YMCA/TRS Phase 3: Data analysis: May-June, 2015 Develop database for surveys May TRS YMCA Enter surveys in database May YMCA TRS Follow up with any shelter or transitional housing facility who has not submitted forms or data errors/missing data. May YMCA TRS Clean data for errors May TRS YMCA Analyse submitted data and develop a draft report. Obtain feedback on draft report from the Sub- Committee and key stakeholders. Engage in active dissemination of the report results with appropriate stakeholders. Jun TRS YMCA Jul TRS YMCA Jul YMCA TRS 66

68 APPENDIX 2 MAP ZONES Walking Zone 1 - Elphinstone St to Pasqua St, 4th Ave to tracks Walking Zone 2 - Elphinstone St to Albert St, 3rd Ave to tracks Walking Zone 3 - Dewdney Ave to 4th Ave, Pasqua St to Elphinstone St. Walking Zone 4 - Elphinstone St to Albert St, Dewdney Ave to 3rd Ave 67

69 Walking Zone 5 - Lewvan St to Elphinstone St, Dewdney Ave to tracks Walking Zone 6 - Elphinstone St to Albert St, Dewdney Ave to tracks Walking Zone 7 - Elphinstone St to Albert St, Victoria Ave to Saskatchewan Dr Walking Zone 8 - Albert St to Broad St, Victoria Ave to Saskatchewan Dr 68

70 Walking Zone 9 - Broad St to Winnipeg St, 11th Ave to S Railway St Walking Zone 10 - Broad St to Winnipeg St, Victoria Ave to 11th Ave Walking Zone 11 - Albert St to Cornwall St, College Ave to Victoria Ave 69

71 Walking Zone 12 - Cornwall St to Broad St, College Ave to Victoria Ave Walking Zone 13 - Broad St to Halifax, College Ave to Victoria Ave Walking Zone 14 - Halifax St to Toronto St, College Ave to Victoria Ave 70

72 Walking Zone 15 - Toronto St to Winnipeg St, College Ave to Winnipeg Ave Walking Zone 16 - Winnipeg St to Arcola Ave to Victoria Ave 71

73 APPENDIX 3 SURVEY AND TALLY SHEET 2015 REGINA PIT COUNT TALLY SHEET INSTRUCTIONS: For all participating emergency shelter, transitional housing facilities and street count. Fill this out for every person you approach. Team Number: Zone #/Facility Name: Enumerator Name: Number Approached Already participated in Count Ineligible to participate Agreed to Participate Refused to Participate Observed to be sleeping rough: Not Awake/ Survey Completed

74 2015 REGINA PIT COUNT screening questions INSTRUCTIONS: To be asked of everyone you approach on the street/in emergency shelter/transitional housing facilities to determine eligibility/consent for the full survey. 1. Enumeration Zone Number 2. Enumerator Name 3. Have you answered this survey with a person wearing a blue shirt today? Yes (end survey and record in tally sheet) No (continue with Script and survey) Declined to Answer Read script to participant: My name is (first name only) and I am a volunteer working on the 2015 Homeless Count. We are counting and surveying people in the region who don t have their own place. The survey is being done to improve housing and support for people who have no housing. May I ask you a few questions? 4. Do you have a permanent residence that you can return to tonight? Yes No Declined to Answer 5. Where are you staying tonight? Own apartment/house Someone else s place Motel/Hotel Public space, such as sidewalks or bus shelters Vacant buildings Cars or other vehicles 73

75 Garages, attics, closets or buildings not designed for habitation Makeshift shelter or tent in a park, parkland, forest or other public land Makeshift shelter or tent on private property Emergency Shelter Domestic violence shelter Transitional Housing Hospital Detox Jail/prison Cell (police) Declined to answer Other (Specify) 6. Do you have a permanent residence that you can return to tonight AND your own apartment/ house? Yes (end survey and record in tally sheet) No (go to next question) Declined to Answer 7. Do you give consent to participate in this survey? Yes (go to next question) No (end survey and record in tally sheet) Declined to Answer (end survey and record in tally sheet) 74

76 2015 REGINA PIT COUNT SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS: To be completed by participants who have been SCREENED IN only. Ensure every question is answered! Gender 8. Which of the following do you identify with? (select all that apply) Female Male Transgender/Transsexual Other (specify) No answer Age 9. How old are you/what is your year of birth? years (age) Age OR Birth Year Don t know Declined to answer Aboriginal 10. Would you identify as being Aboriginal, including First Nations, Métis, and/or Inuit? Yes No Don t know Declined to answer 75

77 11. If you self-identify as Aboriginal, which group do you belong to? First Nations (Status) First Nations (Non-Status) Métis Inuit Other (specify) Don t know Declined to answer 12. Have you ever been in residential schools? Yes No Don t know Declined to answer 13. Have you ever been involved with child protection? Yes as parent Yes as a child No Don t know Declined to answer Migration 14. How long have you been in Canada? Born in Canada # years OR # months Don t know Declined to answer 76

78 15. How long have you been in Regina? Born here # years OR # months Don t know Declined to answer 16. If you are new to the community, where were you living prior to coming here? Community name, province/territory or country/ reserve name Don t know Declined to answer 17. If new to Regina, why did you come? Employment, jobs Education, school Services (health care, social services, treatment) Family/friends Safety Other (specify) Don t know Declined to answer Homelessness History 18. How long have you been homeless most recently? # years OR # of months OR # of days Don t know Declined to answer 77

79 19. How many different times have you been homeless in the 12 months (i.e. in and out of homelessness)? First time homeless If more than one, how many times? # of times Don t know Declined to answer 20. If more than one time homeless, but can t recall probe for: 1-3 times 4-10 times 10+ times Don t know Declined to answer 21. How old were you when you first became homeless in your life? (number of years old) Don t know Declined to answer Veteran Status 22. Have you ever had any service in the Canadian military or the RCMP? (includes army, navy, air force)? Yes Military Yes RCMP Yes Military & RCMP No Don t know Declined to answer 78

80 Family 23. What family members are with you today? None Parent(s) Spouse/partner Sibling(s) Child(ren) Other (Specify) Don t know Declined to answer 24. Do you have dependents (children under 18) who are staying in the same place as you tonight? Yes No Don t know Declined to answer 25. If yes, how many are under 18? (# of children under 18) Don t know Declined to answer 26. If dependents have been indicated, have these dependents been counted in this survey already? Yes No Don t know Declined to answer 79

81 Income 27. Where do you get your money from? (Check all that apply) Full time employment Part time or casual employment Under the table jobs Welfare/income assistance Disability benefit Employment Insurance OAS/GIS Panhandling Binning/bottle collecting Money from family/friends Crafting/Painting Informal income (sex trade, dealing, etc.) Other (specify) No income Declined to answer Education 28. What is the highest level of education you completed? Primary school Secondary school High school graduate Postsecondary Don t know Declined to answer 80

82 Health Conditions 29. Do you have any of the following? A) Medical condition Yes No Don t know Declined to answer B) Addiction Yes No Don t know Declined to answer C) Mental illness Yes No Don t know Declined to answer System Interactions 30. In the past year (12 months), how many: times have you been hospitalized days in total have you spent hospitalized times have you utilized Emergency Medical Service times have you been to a hospital Emergency Room times have you had interactions with child protection services times have you had interactions with the police times have you been to jail days in total have you spent in jail times have you been to prison days in total have you spent in prison 81

83 Barriers 31. What do you think is keeping you from finding a place of your own? Low income No income assistance Letter of guarantee for landlord from social assistance Rents too high Poor housing conditions Family breakdown/conflict Domestic violence Health/disability issues Mental health issues Child apprehended by children s services Addiction Criminal history Pets Children Discrimination Don t want housing Blacklisted by landlord Other (specify) Don t know Declined to answer 32. What do you think is keeping you from keeping place of your own? Low income No income assistance Letter of guarantee for landlord from social assistance Rents too high Poor housing conditions Family breakdown/conflict Domestic violence Health/disability issues Mental health issues Child apprehended by children s services Addiction Criminal history Pets Children Discrimination Don t want housing Blacklisted by landlord Other (specify) Don t know Declined to answer 33. Do you have any comments or concerns you want to share with us? 82

84 APPENDIX 4 CANADIAN DEFINITION OF HOMELESSNESS Operational category living situation generic definition 4 AT-RISK OF HOMELESSNESS 3 PROVISIONALLY ACCOMMODATED 2 EMERGENCY SHELTERED 1 UNSHELTERED This includes people who lack housing and are not accessing emergency shelters or accommodation, except during extreme weather conditions. In most cases, people are staying in places that are not designed for or fit for human habitation. This refers to people who, because they cannot secure permanent housing, are accessing emergency shelter and system supports, generally provided at no cost or minimal cost to the user. Such accommodation represents a stop-gap institutional response to homelessness provided by government, non-profit, faith based organizations and / or volunteers. This describes situations in which people, who are technically homeless and without permanent shelter, access accommodation that offers no prospect of permanence. Those who are provisionally accommodated may be accessing temporary housing provided by government or the non-profit sector, or may have independently made arrangements for short-term accommodation. Although not technically homeless, this includes individuals or families whose current housing situations are dangerously lacking security or stability, and so are considered to be at risk of homelessness. They are living in housing that is intended for permanent human habitation, and could potentially be permanent. However, as a result of external hardship, poverty, personal crisis, discrimination, a lack of other available and affordable housing, insecurity of tenure and / or the inappropriateness of their current housing (which may be overcrowded or does not meet public health and safety standards) residents may be at risk of homelessness People living in public or private spaces without consent or contract People living in places not intended for permanent human habitation Emergency overnight shelters for people who are homeless Shelters for individuals/families impacted by family violence Emergency shelter for people fleeing a natural disaster or destruction of acc ommodation due to fires, floods, etc. Interim Housing for people who are homeless People living temporarily with others, but without guarantee of continued residency or immediate prospects for accessing permanent housing People accessing short term, temporary rental accommodations without security of tenure People in institutional care who lack permanent housing arrangements Accommodation/reception centers for recently arrived immigrants and refugees People at imminent risk of homelessness Individuals and families who are Precariously Housed Public space, such as sidewalks, squares, parks, forests, etc. Private space and vacant buildings (squatting) Living in cars or other vehicles Living in garages, attics, closets or buildings not designed for habitation People in makeshift shelters, shacks or tents These facilities are designed to meet the immediate needs of people who are homeless. Such short-term emergency shelters may target specific sub-populations, including women, families, youth or Aboriginal persons, for instance. These shelters typically have minimal eligibility criteria, offer shared sleeping facilities and amenities, and often expect clients to leave in the morning. They may or may not offer food, clothing or other services. Some emergency shelters allow people to stay on an ongoing basis while others are short term and are set up to respond to special circumstances, such as extreme weather. Interim housing is a systems-supported form of housing that is meant to bridge the gap between unsheltered homelessness or emergency accommodation and permanent housing. Often referred to as couch surfers or the hidden homeless, this describes people who stay with friends, family, or even strangers. In some cases people who are homeless make temporary rental arrangements, such as staying in motels, hostels, rooming houses, etc. Individuals are considered to be provisionally accommodated and at risk of homelessness if there are no arrangements in place to ensure they move into safe, permanent housing upon release from institutional care. Prior to securing their own housing, recently arrived immigrants and refugees may be temporarily housed while receiving settlement support and orientation to life in Canada. Those whose employment is precarious Those experienceing sudden unemployment Households faving eviction Housing with transitional supports about to be discontinued People with severe and persistent mental illness, active addictions, substance use, and/or behavioural issues Breakdown in family relations People facing, or living in direct fear, of violence/abuse Those who face challenges that may or may not leave them homeless in the immediate or near future. CMHC defines a household as being in core housing need if its housing: falls below at least one of the adequacy, affordability or suitability standards and would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax income to pay the median rent of alternative local housing that is acceptable (meets all three housing standards). For a more detailed typology of the Canadian Definition of Homelessness, go to:

85 APPENDIX 5 HIFIS DATA ANALYSIS The HIFIS data from 5 facilities suggests a higher representation of males than what we see in the survey sample, though there seems to be consistency overall with the survey responses. HIFIS Administrative Data Gender Number Percent Female % Male % Total % The HIFIS data shows a notably higher representation of children, which was expected given the survey was not filled out by those under 18. It confirms the bulk of the population being working age adults, with a low percent of seniors. HIFIS Administrative Data Age (n=171) Number Percent 5 years or younger 5 4.8% 6 to % 13 to % 18 to % 25 to % 45 to % % Total % A lower percent of Aboriginal people is seen in the HIFIS data at about 51.6% versus 70.2% for surveys done in facilities and 72.9% reported by staff as observed. Notably, the HIFIS data is limited to only a portion of the facilities included in the Count. A much lower proportion of Metis people is also notable in the HFIS data compared to the facility survey (2.3% vs. 18.2%). HIFIS Administrative Data Ethnicity Number Percent Aboriginal % Metis 3 2.3% Non-Aboriginal % Unknown % Total % No Data % Total

86 REFERENCES 1. See Appendix 3 for the Canadian Definition of Homelessness. 2. Statistics Canada (2014) Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: First Nations People, Métis and Inuit Retrieved from: x eng.cfm#bx2 3. Statistics Canada (2014) Population of census metropolitan areas. Retrieved from: 4. Statistics Canada (2014) Labour force characteristics, unadjusted, by economic region (3 month moving average). Retrieved from: 5. CMHC CMHC Rental Market Statistics Fall Retrieved from: 6. Statistics Canada National Household Survey: Data Tables X for Regina. Retrieved from: cfm?lang=e&apath=3&detail=0&dim=0&fl=a&free=0&gc=0&gid=0&gk=0&grp=0&pi D=106661&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=9 8&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF= 7. Statistics Canada NHS Focus on Geography Series Regina, CMA. Retrieved from: cfm?lang=e&level=3&geocode= Tutty, L., Bradshaw, C., Worthington, C., MacLaurin, B., Waegemakers Schiff, J., Hewson, J., Dooley, D., Kean, S., McLeod, H Risks and Assets for Homelessness Prevention: A Literature Review for the Calgary Homeless Foundation. Retrieved from: 9. Vracar, Nikolina (2013) Homelessness in Regina Current Situation and Solutions From Other Communities. Report prepared for Carmichael Outreach. Retrieved fromhttp://carmichaeloutreach.org/cmsuploads/page_downloads/carmichael%20 -%20CRU%20Research%20Report.pdf 10. Gaetz, Stephen, Donaldson, Jesse, Richter, Tim, Gulliver, Tanya. 2013a. The State of Homelessness in Canada Homeless Hub. Retrieved from: City of Regina First and Protective Services Housing Standards enforcement Team Review. 85

87 12. Greenberg, Hirsch, Rebecca Schiff, Alaina Harrison, and Mark Nelson Homelessness in Regina 2010 Report: Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS). Retrieved from: REPORT.pdf 13. Ibid. pages Ibid. pages Ibid. pages Homelessness Partnering Strategy Shelter Capacity Report Retrieved from: Historical climate data available from: &Y ear=2015&month=5&day= Estimated Veteran Population as of March 2014 was 599,200 available from Government of Canada, Veterans Affairs online at: Statistics Canada, 2014: Canada s population was estimated at 35,675,800 on October 1, 2014, up 135,400 (+0.4%) from July 1, 2014, according to preliminary population estimates, which are now available for the third quarter by province and territory. 86

88 On May 13, 2015 the YMCA of Regina and community partners came together to conduct the first-ever Point-in-Time Homeless Count. Over 150 volunteers and 34 organizations participated in the count. This effort is part of a broader collaboration with the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness to develop a harmonized approach to homeless counts nationally. Regina is among the first jurisdictions to implement measures towards a more standardized methodology, leading the way in Canada. This count serves two important functions: it provides a current snapshot of our overall homeless population and enables us to examine how this population changes over time. By aligning methods across Canada, we can examine trends using the same definitions. Ultimately, this helps us inform solutions to support the goal of ending homelessness. ISBN