BRIDGING RURAL HOMELESSNESS AND WELL-BEING

2024 Well-being Insights:
Community Perceptions of Homelessness
& Related Service Provision
SURVEY SUMMARY

2025 West Kootenay Homelessness Response Summit

Purpose
This summary provides a selection of results from a survey conducted as part of the
Selkirk College applied research project, Bridging Rural Homelessness and Well-Being:
A Sustainable and Collaborative Regional Response. Detailed results will be available
in a full report on the project website.

OBJECTIVE
To understand community perceptions of homelessness in order to inform
better decisions, address stereotypes, support effective, evidence-based
solutions, and help create a safe and inclusive community for all.

Methodology
Community members from Nelson, Castlegar,
and Trail were invited to participate in a
voluntary online survey that was open from

RESPONDENTS BY
COMMUNITY

July 1–August 19, 2024.
The survey included open-ended questions to
hear people’s thoughts in their own words
(qualitative), along with rating and ranking
questions to gather measurable responses

Castlegar
21%
(n=174)

(quantitative).
These results were analyzed using thematic
coding and descriptive statistics.

Total
Responses

Nelson
40%
(n=338)

Trail
39%
(n=323)

835
n = number of respondents

2

Community Perceptions Survey Summary 2025

89% of respondents
indicate homelessness
is an important issue

Results
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF HOMELESSNESS

Respondents were asked to share if they have experienced homelessness.
I have lived in my vehicle

12%

I have experienced homelessness

14%

I have stayed with friends for an extended
period of time out of necessity

26%
32%

I have experienced unstable or temporary housing
I have a close friend or family member who
has experienced homelessness

42%

PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF HOMELESSNESS
(n=571)

63% of respondents have noticed a
substantial increase in the unhoused
population over the last five years

PERCEIVED CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS
Respondents were asked to indicate what they perceive as the
top three causes of homelessness in their community. They
could choose from a provided list or specify their own response.
Addiction or substance use

63%
55%

Mental health concerns
Housing affordability

45%

TOP THREE PERCEIVED CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS

The lack of housing supply,
the market cost of housing,
the lack of land trusts, co-op
and other housing
alternatives is impacting
ever more people as income
gaps increase, and the cost
of living gets higher. “
– Trail resident

(n=747)

selkirk.ca

3

IMPACT OF HOMELESSNESS
Respondents were asked to rate the impact of homelessness in their community from
1 to 7, with 1 being “no impact” and 7 being "a big impact.” Across all communities,
87% of respondents provided a rating of 5 or higher, indicating that homelessness
is seen as having a moderate to big impact.

AVERAGE SCORE: 6.1/7
(n=743)
Respondents were also asked to describe what the impact of homelessness looks like in
their communities. Of the 633 responses, comments were mostly divided between
community impacts and the impacts the unhoused population experience.

IMPACT ON THE COMMMUNITY
Social Impacts
Safety is an important theme shaping community perceptions of homelessness, with
concerns about unpredictable or threatening behaviour, crime, and risks to vulnerable
groups, property, and public spaces.
Respondents also express worries about housed residents’ quality of life, the mental
health and substance use crises, and other public health concerns.
Environmental Impacts
The visibility of homelessness in public spaces contributes to perceptions of the
community environment.
Respondents indicate concerns about environmental health (e.g., garbage), the sense
that homelessness is increasing or worsening, and the overall experience and
aesthetics of shared spaces.
(n=401)
Economic impacts
Respondents mention concerns about strain
on commercial areas (i.e., downtown core)
and increased pressure on public services
(e.g., emergency responders, healthcare).
“The impact of homelessness in my community
makes it look and feel like an unsafe place to live.”
– Nelson resident
4

Community Perceptions Survey Summary 2025

Economic
Impacts
12%

Environmental
Impacts
35%

Social
Impacts
54%

IMPACT ON THE UNHOUSED
Health & Well-being Impacts
Respondents express concern for people experiencing homelessness, with comments
about issues including:
Unsafe living conditions (e.g., sleeping in cars, tents, or overcrowded
accommodations).
Reduced quality of life marked by despair, stress, and being in survival mode.
Limited access to basic needs (i.e., food, water, toilet and shower facilities).
Mental health and substance use challenges.
Physical health concerns (e.g., exposure to extreme weather, inadequate sanitation,
lack of medical care).
A lack of belonging or social connection.

“I think any community with unhoused folks translates to an impact of inequity
in resources, supports, and housing.” – Castlegar resident
Service Access & Gaps
Respondents point to gaps in services, including:
Insufficient shelter options.
Limited access to social and supportive housing, medical care, and mental health and
substance use services.
A lack of public facilities (i.e., toilets, showers) and life skills or job training
opportunities.

Safety &
Security
21%

Service Access
& Gaps
24%

Health &
Well-being
55%

Safety & Security Impacts
Impacts to the safety and security of people who
are unhoused are reflected in comments about:
Experiences of stigma and discrimination.
A lack of safe places to live or sleep, with
vulnerability to the elements and other
potential harms.
Experiences of victimization and crime.

(n=221)

“People who are homeless get abused for a
problem that is too big for them to solve
alone.” – Trail resident
selkirk.ca

5

SUPPORT FOR SERVICES WITHIN CITY LIMITS
Respondents were presented with a list of services and asked to rate their level of
agreement with having each of the services within the limits of their community.

Respondents indicate strong support for outreach services, a coordinated access hub,
and food programs. There are more polarized views on outdoor city-sanctioned shelter
sites and supervised consumption services.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCACY FOR FUNDING
On a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 7 being “strongly agree,”
respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following statement:
“I think my local government should source funds to increase supports for the unhoused
population in my community.” Across all three communities, 14% of respondents indicate
that they strongly disagree, while 49% strongly agree.

AVERAGE SCORE: 5.2/7
(n=641)
“The province needs to do much more to fund, coordinate
and deliver affordable housing, mental health/substance
use resources, including easily accessible treatment/rehab,
accessible healthcare, support and social services.”
– Trail resident
6

Community Perceptions Survey Summary 2025

SHELTERS AND SOCIAL HOUSING
“We absolutely, without question, need increased shelter capacity and social housing
capacity. In order to implement the housing first principle - that people need to be housed
first, then can be supported in addressing mental health, addiction, employment, etc. - we
need to have the literal structures in place to house people.”
– Nelson resident
Respondents were asked to share their thoughts on having a shelter and/or social housing
(i.e., subsidized housing operated by the government or non-profits) in their community,
with 513 responses received.
45% of respondents
are conditionally
supportive
SUPPORT DEPENDS ON:
Access to mental health
and substance use
supports
Safe, well-located sites
with adequate staffing
Community consultation
in decision-making

27% of
respondents offer
recommendations

79% of respondents
express support
for shelters and
social housing

13% of respondents
express opposition,
while 12%
voice concerns
CONCERNS INCLUDE:
Safety and crime
Attracting people from
other areas
Dependency on services
Inappropriate behaviours
A lack of adequate
services

RECOMMENDATIONS
Government Action: More funding, oversight, and accountability
Support Delivery: Detox, complex care, prevention programs,
community kitchens
Housing Management: Smaller developments, transparency,
lived experience input
Funding Ideas: Pay-for-service, crowdfunding, public ownership
Vacant Spaces: Repurpose hotels, churches, and other buildings

“Something that is missing from all three towns of focus are youth shelters.
Youth who for whatever reason cannot/will not be with caregivers and are not
able to be provided with homes (i.e., foster care, out-of-care arrangements, youth
agreements) end up couch surfing and often in highly unsafe, risky environments.
This then increases their risks in multiple areas and perpetuates harmful cycles.
Each town should have staffed 24/hr youth shelters.” – Nelson resident
selkirk.ca

7

ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE UNHOUSED

58% of respondents agree to
some extent that they have
witnessed discrimination
towards people who are
unhoused in their community

64% of respondents agree to
some extent that negative
attitudes are impacting the
well-being of people who are
unhoused in their community

REDUCING NEGATIVE ATTITUDES
Respondents were asked their opinion on the best way to reduce negative attitudes about
the unhoused population in their community, with 300 responses received.
Theme

What Respondents Think Can Help

Service Provision (77%)

Providing access to detox and treatment, mental health care, housing,
job supports, education, and more responsive services

Public Education (75%)

Raising awareness, sharing real stories, highlighting systemic causes of
homelessness, and running anti-stigma campaigns

Personal & Community Building connections through kindness, volunteering, and creating a
Interactions (61%)
sense of belonging
Location (36%)

Opening drop-in spaces and building housing to help reduce visibility
and promote stability. A few suggest options outside city limits.

Responsibility (22%)

Encouraging personal accountability, shared expectations, and informed
governance to reduce harm, improve policy, and support lasting
solutions.

“I believe that people absolutely have the right to safe secure housing and the choice what
they do with their bodies. That being said, with rights come responsibilities and people in
our communities feel unsafe, from improperly disposed drug paraphernalia in public
spaces, to unsafe fires, increase in theft, trespassing, violence and encampments
overflowing with trash. These things need to be addressed - there will be no decrease in
stigma without a significant shift in the visibility of these things.”– Nelson resident
8

Community Perceptions Survey Summary 2025

EFFECTIVE MEANS OF SUPPORT
Respondents were asked to rank the most effective means of support for the unhoused
population by sorting a list of 12 options.
1

Overnight shelter or low-barrier housing

2

Food banks/lunch programs

3

Hygiene facilities

TOP THREE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF SUPPORT
(n=633)

IDEAS TO IMPROVE THE WELL-BEING OF THE UNHOUSED
Respondents were asked what ideas they have for improving the well-being of the
unhoused population in their community, with 472 responses received.
Theme

Respondents’ Ideas

Addressing Basic
Needs (77%)

Building safe and appropriate housing across the housing continuum for
diverse populations. Providing access to food and hygiene facilities.

Health & Wellness
(61%)

Providing wrap-around, timely, responsive, and integrated mental and
physical health services. Increasing access to detox, treatment, and harm
reduction.

Service Provision
(61%)

Increasing services and supports (e.g., financial). Increasing access to
resources, drop-in centres, and employment training. Paying careful
attention to safety and security for all. Consulting with people with lived
experience.

Systemic Change
(27%)

Mobilizing more government resources for homelessness prevention and
response. Designing services with a trauma-informed lens.

Community
Involvement (22%)

Creating more inclusive spaces. Providing anti-stigma education.
Encouraging more community volunteers, donations, acts of kindness,
and interactions with people who are unhoused.

Opposition (11%)

Opposing services for fear of attracting people to the area or enabling
them. Opposing safe supply and promoting abstinence-based soutions.
Hiding services from the public.
selkirk.ca

9

INFORMATION SOURCES
49% of respondents
agree to some extent
that they are able to
access information
about services and
programs for the
unhoused population

51% of respondents
agree to some extent
that they trust the
information they find

COMMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

56% of respondents
are likely to take action
to improve the wellbeing of those
experiencing
homelessness in their
community

46% of respondents
disagree to some
extent that they have
opportunities to share
their perspectives on
services and supports
for the unhoused
population

64% of respondents
disagree to some
extent that their
perspective is
considered by local
decision-makers

“Homelessness appears as a community problem, but it's much bigger than that.
The federal government has to initiate a ‘housing first’ policy and mandate to provincial
and municipal governments that at least 25% of all housing must be affordable social
housing. Until we can house people, it will be futile to do anything else.”
– Castlegar resident
10

Community Perceptions Survey Summary 2025

PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Respondents were asked how they felt they could personally contribute to improving the
well-being of the unhoused population in their communities, with 414 responses received.
Theme

Personal Contributions

Support (39%)

Providing donations (e.g., food and water, supplies, money), supporting
local service providers, working in fields that support people experiencing
homelessness.

Attitudes &
Behaviours (25%)

Engaging with people experiencing homelessness and establishing
communication, being kind and friendly, showing compassion and
empathy, being respectful, and treating them with dignity.

Opposition (19%)

Refusing to contribute.

Advocate (16%)

Speaking up for people experiencing homelessness and advocating on
their behalf with local decision-makers and other levels of government.

Volunteer (13%)

Donating personal time to local programs and services (e.g., food banks,
shelters, warming/cooling centres, outreach).

Education (12%)

Continuing to learn and work on self-improvement, increasing public
education, and challenging assumptions, stereotypes, and
misinformation.

“Participating in community-building activities that
bring together the housed and unhoused, such as
communal gardens or shared meal events, could
help foster a sense of belonging and connection.”
– Nelson resident
“Continue to speak out
about lack of mental health
resources within the
community, including how
established systems are
overwhelmed.”
– Trail resident

“Kindness and supporting political
leaders who understand the issue.”
– Castlegar resident
“I am willing to contribute
time to advocating on their
behalf publicly, for example at
city council or door to door
discussions, as well as helping
to produce media that can
communicate their needs,
programs available, etc.”
– Nelson resident
selkirk.ca

11