1. Investigating a without shelter count in New Zealand
GUY CHISHOLM – HOUSING POLICY
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
This presentation will set the scene for the two afternoon sessions of the workshop, to discuss:
Approaches for a without shelter count
Potential implementation roles for a without shelter count

2. OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF ‘WITHOUT SHELTER’
Without shelter: Living situations that provide no shelter, or makeshift shelter, are considered as without shelter. These include living situations such as living on the street, and inhabiting improvised dwellings, such as living in a garage, shack or car.
For this stream of work, this is the population that we are aiming to capture accurate data on.
Depending on the circumstances of the person living without shelter, collecting data may involve different challenges. For example, counting people living in garages is a significant challenge when conducting a point in time count.
Definition consistency is a challenge – people are often talking about different things or collecting data on different populations. Rough sleepers is a term often used synonymously with without shelter – but rough sleeping is often thought of as sleeping on the street.

3. WHAT APPROACHES ARE WE CONSIDERING TO COUNT THOSE WITHOUT SHELTER?
A point-in-time (PIT) count approach
Each person is counted at a single point in time.
PIT counts are generally anonymous but involve a survey to collect data from people who are without shelter, e.g. demographic data and duration of homelessness
Planned locally by key agencies
Locations are identified and groups of volunteers and/or paid staff go out and survey the population on a single night
A by-name list approach
Key agencies work together to develop a ‘starter list’ of people they know to be without shelter in their area
The list is updated regularly (e.g. monthly) through outreach
The list generally captures name, demographic data and support needs and is used to link people with housing and appropriate support services
Because by-name lists connect unique identifiers, there is the potential for this data to be collated with other data through the Integrated Data Infrastructure. This allows you to measure individual outcomes more widely.

4. FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW
MSD commissioned Allen + Clarke to do a literature review of international methods for counting homelessness
Point-in-time (PIT) counts and by-name lists were the most prevalent methods found in the literature
PIT counts and by-name lists are usually implemented at the local level and may be guided at the national level
The review found that there is no ‘obvious winner’ in terms of an approach – and many jurisdictions use a mixed-method approach
Earlier in the year MSD commissioned Allen + Clarke to do a literature review of international methods for counting homelessness
The literature surveyed was primarily from the US, Canada, Australia and the UK.
The deep dive focused on without shelter counts and how these might be implemented in New Zealand.
Detailed strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches were set out in a table in the literature review – these have been posted on the walls.
Point-in-time (PIT) counts and by-name lists were the most prevalent methods found in the literature
The review noted that Point in time counts could be used to assess need for services at an area or national level, identify trends over time, assess the impact of policy changes, and characterise without shelter populations demographically
By-name lists could also achieve these outcomes, but are more generally used with the more immediate focus of moving homeless individuals and families into housing. They also have the potential to produce rich descriptive data as a secondary outcome.
The lit review also found:
Period prevalence counts (PIT counts undertaken over a longer period)
Capture–recapture – is a statistical method of estimating the size of a homeless population using multiple samples. Capture-recapture appears in the academic literature but does not appear to have been implemented consistently over time in any jurisdiction.
Registration and administrative data – are used in some countries to collate statistics on the number and demographics of homeless people. This is also used in some locations in New Zealand.
PIT counts and by-name lists are usually implemented at the local level and may be guided at the national level
The review found that there is no ‘obvious winner’ in terms of an approach – and many jurisdictions use a mixed-method approach
There is a lot of variation in the way that counts or lists are implemented, which organisations are involved

5. DATA COLLECTION IN NEW ZEALAND
There have been counts undertaken across New Zealand
These have been conducted both regularly and on one-off bases, and using varying methods
The Auckland PIT count on 17 September 2018 will be the largest scale count undertaken in New Zealand
The Minister of Housing and Urban Development wants to investigate options for collecting data at the national level
There have been counts undertaken across New Zealand
Our knowledge of data collection is limited, and comes from the survey responses, providers, academics, and media.
We suspect that most councils have a reasonable idea of how many rough sleepers there are in the community – but where this information comes from and how it is collected varies a lot.
The map shows that in New Zealand there have been:
PIT counts (with and without a survey)
Collection of provider data
By-name lists
Other methods – such as housing surveys
Data collection has been conducted both regularly and on one-off bases, and using varying methods.
Some locations have used several methods for collecting data.
The responses to the survey identify several challenges to collecting data, including:
Difficulty ensuring accuracy
Lack of housing to respond
Funding to undertake counts
Varying circumstances for homeless people
Homeless definitions
Gaining trust with homeless people
Many of you will be aware of the Auckland PIT count on 17 September 2018, which will be the largest scale count undertaken in New Zealand.
This will be a PIT count with a survey, with the help of over 840 volunteers going out onto the streets in teams. Provider data will also be collected to capture those who might otherwise be without shelter – such as people staying in temporary accommodation.
To inform prevention and intervention measures, the Minister of Housing and Urban Development wants to investigate options for collecting data at the national level, so we can get a more accurate picture of those living without shelter in New Zealand.

6. APPROACHES FOR A WITHOUT SHELTER COUNT
When discussing options, you may wish to also consider:
Coverage (in which locations is the approach feasible/needed?)
Frequency (e.g. on-going, annually, between & alongside censuses)
Ethics and privacy issues
Coverage
National
Major centres
Areas that want to participate
Ethics and privacy
The need to have a clear purpose for collecting the data
Privacy issues, particularly in the case of collecting people’s names and personal information
How to engage with homeless people when conducting the count.

7. POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION ROLES FOR A WITHOUT SHELTER COUNT
Councils and providers could play a central role in implementing a without shelter count
Implementation roles do not necessarily need to be uniform across New Zealand – organisations may have different roles based on area or the method used
There is experience in many locations in collecting homelessness data
Local knowledge from councils, providers, community organisations, and people with lived experience is invaluable to collecting data
Councils and providers could play a central role in implementing a without shelter count
PIT counts of WS populations have typically been organised at the local level, while the need to compare data across areas suggests a role for central government in providing guidance on counts.
By-name databases are typically maintained at a city level by a single NGO or local government organisation, while central government may provide a central data infrastructure (such as in Canada, where federal government can collect anonymised data from locally held by-name lists).
The responses to our survey showed that most councils have been involved in data collection, with a variety of methods used. We are keen to use the first of these afternoon sessions to discuss what councils’ roles might be in an NZ count and what the role of other organisations might be.
It’s important to note that implementation roles do not necessarily need to be uniform across New Zealand – organisations may have different roles based on area or the method used
As I discussed earlier, there is experience in many locations and most of your councils in collecting data on the without shelter homeless population.
Drawing on the experience of previous counts, but also recognising the value of that experience for future counts
We are very interested in discussing the research stage of counts that have taken place and who the key people were in the planning of a count.
Local knowledge from councils, providers, community organisations, and people with lived experience is invaluable to collecting data
It’s important to remember that there are many different organisations who could contribute to a successful count.

8. AFTERNOON SESSION 1 Point-in-time count and by-name list approaches
What are the strengths and limitations of the main approaches?
What level of flexibility would be needed to carry out a count best suited to different locations?
What would be needed to achieve consistency?
People with
lived
experience
Govt.
Departments
Point-in-time (PIT) counts
By-name lists
Each person is counted at a single point in time.
Key agencies work together to develop a ‘starter list’ of people they know to be without shelter in their area
PIT counts are generally anonymous but involve a survey to collect data from people who are without shelter
Planned locally by key agencies
The list is updated regularly (e.g. monthly) through outreach
Locations are identified and the population is surveyed on a single night
The list generally captures name, demographic data and support needs and is used to link people with housing and appropriate support services

9. AFTERNOON SESSION 2
Potential implementation roles for a without shelter count
What options are there for the role that councils could play in carrying out a count?
What other organisations could/would need to be involved?
What role could central government agencies have?