A total of 44 survey interviews were completed.  The results are compared and contrasted with the profile of the South Okanagan context and the results of the other studies reviewed.  The limitations of the methodology are discussed in section 6.8.

The majority of respondents were between the ages of 20 and 40 years.  The age profile is similar to that found in the Kelowna, West Kootenays and Kamloops studies.  However, It is somewhat different than the age profile of the population of the South Okanagan as a whole, which is much older on average.  Approximately two thirds of those surveyed were male, which is similar to the results in Kelowna and Kamloops and different from the West Kootenays study.  The majority of those surveyed were single or divorced/separated and had a high school education or less.  The vast majority of respondents described themselves as being English speaking Canadians (approximately 70%), with French speaking Canadians being the second most common (8%).  The culture/language split is similar to that found in the Kelowna study.  It is interesting to note that while French speaking persons were well represented in both studies (8 and 12%), persons who identified French as their first language make up less than 2% of the overall population of the South Okanagan/Similkameen region (Statistics Canada, 2001).  This may provide some evidence that a certain portion of migrant agricultural workers from Quebec are remaining in the Okanagan region year round.  It is also worth noting that while immigrants from South Asia make up the largest group of visible minorities in the region, they are not represented in this sample.  Three of the respondents (7%) were migrant workers from Mexico, an indication that Mexico may be becoming a source of labour for the agricultural sector.  Persons of aboriginal descent were represented in this study at a rate similar to their representation in the broader population of the South Okanagan.

Respondents indicated that they had been living in the South Okanagan for an average of 14 years, with half living in the region for five years or less.

The living situation of those surveyed varied.  Many of the respondents were renting at the time of the survey (41%).  These individuals identified themselves as at-risk due to the condition of the housing or the imminent potential of eviction.  According to the definitions of homelessness utilized for the study, a total of 17 persons (39%) were considered to be absolutely homeless (living on the street, in a car or vehicle and “couch surfing”).  The remaining 27 persons (61%) were considered to be at-risk.  Of those surveyed, 61% indicated that they had been homeless at least once in the past two years.  The number of absolute homeless persons identified in this study was comparable to the results found in Kelowna, a substantially larger urban centre, and approximately half that found in the largely rural West Kootenays.  Although the methodology used for this survey limits the reliability of such comparisons, there seems to be support for the assertion that there is a significant homelessness problem in the South Okanagan.

On average, respondents had been living in the situation they identified for 20 months, with 80% of them living in the situation for 12 months or less.  Slightly more than half of those surveyed described their current living situation as unsafe or sub-standard.  The most common problem with housing reported by respondents was difficulty with the landlord (27%).  However, problems with appliances, utilities and maintenance were also common.

The reasons respondents gave for not being able to find housing varied greatly.  The most common reason given was low or no income (84%).  An inability to afford rent or a damage deposit was also commonly cited (40% and 56% respectively).  A lack of knowledge of places to stay was the second most common reason given (72%).  A lack of affordable housing and a lack of supports or assistance were also commonly identified by respondents (40% and 56% respectively).  These results are highly consistent with the results of the other studies reviewed.  However, they do not provide any insight into trends with respect to the availability of affordable housing.

It is interesting to note that smoking was cited by 60% of those surveyed as a reason for not being able to find stable housing.  Although the number of smokers versus non-smokers was not measured in the survey, the Outreach Worker noted that smoking seemed to be a very common addiction among respondents.  This would suggest that smoking or nicotine addiction should be considered when planning services for this population.

The vast majority of those surveyed had a valid health care card or health care number (79%).  Approximately one quarter were receiving treatment for a physical or mental health concern.  While only 35% of those surveyed had a prescription for some kind of medication, 53% of those with a prescription were not to able to access or pay for it regularly.

The vast majority of respondents (78%) rated their health as average or better.  This is similar to the findings in Kelowna.  Of those surveyed, 61% were accessing health services through a walk-in clinic or the emergency ward while the remaining 39% indicated that they had a regular family physician.

More than half of those surveyed (61%) indicated that they were engaged in some paid work (part time, casual, seasonal or self-employed).  The tenure of that employment was 6 months on average.  Those who were part time or casually employed worked an average of 18 hours per week.  One person was retired and the remainder were unemployed.  None of those surveyed had full time employment.

The reasons given for not being able to find stable employment varied.  A lack of available jobs was cited by half of those surveyed.  A lack of appropriate documentation or credentials, a lack of skills and a lack of experience were the next most common reasons given (44%, 40% and 37% respectively).  A lack of experience or skills were also cited in the Kelowna study as primary reasons for not being able to find employment.  Just under one third of those surveyed (28%) indicated that a lack of transportation was a barrier to finding stable employment.  A lack of proper equipment/tools (30%) was also a barrier to finding stable employment.  Substance abuse problems, poor health, mental health problems and a lack of job search skills were not commonly cited as barriers to finding employment (12%, 11%, 2% and 14% respectively).  The finding that substance abuse was not a major barrier to finding employment is in contrast to the findings in Kelowna where substance abuse emerged as a major issue.  The lack of substance abuse treatment facilities in the South Okanagan may contribute to a migration of seriously addicted persons to centres where more treatment options are available, such as Kelowna.

The fact that a lack of jobs, job experience, skills and credentials were the most significant barriers to finding full time stable work and the fact that most participants exhibited a willingness to work by having some form of paid employment would suggest that labour market conditions in the South Okanagan have a significant impact on homelessness.  Many jobs, especially those not requiring specific training, are seasonal or part time.  Much of the agricultural work is casual and often paid in cash.

Employment income from self, part time, casual or seasonal work and ‘cash work’ (underground economy) were the most common sources of income.  Less than 30% of those surveyed were receiving a form of government benefit (EI, income assistance, pension and disability benefits).  This figure is consistent with statistics for the broader population of the South Okanagan.  However, it contrasts sharply with the results of the 2001 study in the West Kootenays where more than 80% of respondents received government benefits.  The difference may be the result of changes in social policy since 2001 which tightened eligibility requirements for BC benefits and disability.  Many of those who would have been eligible for benefits at the time of the West Kootenays study are likely no longer eligible.

Just over one third (36%) of those surveyed indicated that their income supported two adults.  Approximately 30% of those surveyed indicated that they were supporting children with their income, with an average of 2.4 children per household where children were present.

Those surveyed indicated that they had accessed a number of community resources in the past six months.  Not surprisingly, more than 50% of respondents were accessing food banks, free meals and free clothing.  Many were also utilizing job counseling (47%).  Supports such as mental health counseling and drug/alcohol counseling were accessed relatively infrequently.  The Public Library was one of the most frequently utilized services (47%).  The usefulness of library resources for job finding, accessing community services, and affordable entertainment may explain some of its popularity.

The kinds of services or supports that those surveyed indicated would help them most were consistent with the findings and recommendations from other studies.  Access to better and/or more affordable housing and access to jobs or training were the most commonly identified needs (34% and 25% respectively).  Having more money was also commonly identified (16%), though addressing housing and employment needs would likely result in more disposable income for those surveyed.  Interestingly, many respondents indicated that fixing problems in the system should be a priority.  Having a sense of caring or concern expressed by those who provide services was also cited as a need by many respondents.

The comments made in response to an open ended question at the end of the survey and the stories told to the Outreach Worker by responents helped to provide insight into the challenges experienced by homeless persons in the South Okanagan.  They also put a more human face on the problem.

Those who participated in the survey and spent time with the Outreach Worker were often very willing to share their personal stories.  One of those who participated had been living in region for more than 50 years.  Even though she had made many contributions to the community through her work and family life over the years, she had also been homeless many times.  Other shared stories of personal and family tragedy as well as unexpected events that changed their circumstances for the worst.

The Outreach Worker noted that many of those surveyed felt that they were invisible, that their opinions and concerns were not valued.  It became apparent that being acknowledged and being treated with respect and dignity, or perhaps being given the benefit of the doubt, was very important for those experiencing homelessness. 

A few of the respondents commented on the treatment they receive from those who are supposed to help.  The comments included;

• “Job counselors talk down to you”
• “It would be nice to have helpers who know what it is like to not have enough money for coffee”.
• “I get anxious when I have to go talk to my workers about me.  I feel that they don’t care, that I am lazy and should go to work.”

The difficulties experienced in navigating the social support system intended to help those in need was also frequently identified.   One respondent said;

·        “I hit all the hoops you have to jump through only to get a negative response… you can’t get into this program unless you see this person and then is one.” 

The frustration is apparent in comments like;

·        “How much red tape can a person endure!” 

A very poignant comment offered by one respondent summed up the feelings of many of those surveyed:

·        “This isn’t how I pictured my life would be when I grew up.”

The methodology utilized for the needs assessment poses some limitations on the use of the data.  While the results of the survey were compared and contrasted to general statistics from the South Okanagan and the results of similar studies, the methodology does not support making broad generalizations or drawing firm conclusions based on these comparisons.

“Snowball Sampling” is useful for surveying persons who can be difficult to access or find.  However, it does not result in a sample that can be considered a valid representation of the group being studied.  Beginning with a different set of key informants might have resulted in a completely different sample of the group (Gabor, P., & Grinnell, R., 1994).  While the fact that the Outreach Worker had been working with this group for several months prior to doing the survey increased confidence that the results were reliable, the relationships formed by survey respondents with the Outreach Worker over that period likely introduced some bias.  The small size of the sample also poses some difficulties.  Some questions had many response categories and those categories with low rates of response would be subject to greater error.

While it is important to acknowledge these limitations, it is still our firm belief that the results remain valid and that the recommendations that follow are worth acting on.