Homelessness statistics
Radio NZ reported an estimate by the charity Orange Sky “One in six kiwis have been homeless and tonight about 41,000 of us will bed down without adequate access to housing”. I saw some skepticism of these figures on Twitter, so let’s take a look.
Based on the 2018 Census, researchers at the University of Otago estimated
- 3,624 people who were considered to be living without shelter (on the streets, in improvised dwellings – including cars – and in mobile dwellings).
- 7,929 people who were living in temporary accommodation (night shelters, women’s refuges, transitional housing, camping grounds, boarding houses, hotels, motels, vessels, and marae).
- 30,171 people who were sharing accommodation, staying with others in a severely crowded dwelling.
- 60,399 people who were living in uninhabitable housing that was lacking one of six basic amenities: tap water that is safe to drink; electricity; cooking facilities; a kitchen sink; a bath or shower; a toilet.
So, the figure of 41,000 is a surprisingly close match to the Census data for those first three groups — if you’d only count the first group or the first two, you would obviously get a smaller number. Because it would be hard to estimate current homelessness from a YouGov survey panel, I suspect the number did come from the Census, and the ‘new study’ the story mentions is responsible for the ‘one in six’, though Orange Sky actually gives the number as ‘more than one in five (21%)’.
Do the two figures match? Well, if about a million people had ever been homeless (in the broad sense) and 41,000 currently are, that’s a ratio of 25. The median age of adults (YouGov interviews adults) is probably in the 40s, so if the typical person who was ever homeless spent less than a couple of years homeless the figures would match. The People’s Project NZ say that homelessness in NZ is mostly short-term — in the sense that most people who are ever homeless are only that way for a relatively short time (which isn’t the same as saying most people who are currently homeless will be that way for a short time).
So, the figures aren’t obviously implausible, and given that they’re presented as the result of research that should be able to get reasonable estimates, they may well be reasonably accurate.
Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »
This is a useful dissection and clarification of the issue (that of course almost nobody will pay any attention to unfortunately!), but it is a relief that the conclusions seem valid when so often media lead with questionable survey results.
One thing I have also been a bit concerned about is the definition of homelessness. On this definition, NZ has almost the greatest number of homeless people in OECD. But I have seen argument that the definition NZ uses, and that is lodged internationally, may be too broad, and that this what makes us the country with the highest number of homeless.
Intuitively I would have thought being homeless is being without shelter, the first two categories in your scale of four. Living in crowded accommodation is, well, living in crowded accommodation, but it is not necessarily being homeless?
As a footnote, it would be great if all surveys and data reports used by media outlets were properly sourced so that one could check on their bona fides. For example there was recently a scathing report from a medical women’s group, but no information on the survey, what the sampling frame was, how representative, what the questions were etc etc. When I approached the journalist I got no reply. This information seems kind of pretty basic for the credibility of the data, and it does not require much extra work other than providing a link to a source.
2 years ago
I you want a response from a journalist on dodgy data or assumptions just check the Media Council principles on reporting and formulate a complaint. ‘Foundation of fact ‘is a core principle. You will get an editors response if you dispute factual basis and a correction ( unlikely) if theres blatant misreporting
2 years ago