Read on Twitter
“The preliminary report is expected to be released the first week of April.”
But it wasn’t. Today I asked the executive director of @CSPC_Victoria why the delay happened?
She denied there was a delay.
But there was a delay.
Why?
#yyj https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/victoria-homeless-survey-attempts-to-identify-needs-of-people-living-on-street-1.4850913
But it wasn’t. Today I asked the executive director of @CSPC_Victoria why the delay happened?
She denied there was a delay.
But there was a delay.
Why?
#yyj https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/victoria-homeless-survey-attempts-to-identify-needs-of-people-living-on-street-1.4850913
Something is not right here. Things do not add up with this report. The preliminary version never came out, and everybody’s acting strangely with respect to the final version.
The @CSPC_Victoria #factcheck of my tweet contained a material error. Page 12 of the PiT report
The @CSPC_Victoria #factcheck of my tweet contained a material error. Page 12 of the PiT report
This supposed #FactCheck by @CSPC_Victoria implies me using the survey results of the 854 as being a reliable indicator of the larger population of *at least* 1523 an error.
They argue the number is 101.
It’s not. 12% of 1523 = 183.
Why are they wrong? https://twitter.com/cspc_victoria/status/1293570854014472193?s=21 https://twitter.com/cspc_victoria/status/1293570854014472193
They argue the number is 101.
It’s not. 12% of 1523 = 183.
Why are they wrong? https://twitter.com/cspc_victoria/status/1293570854014472193?s=21 https://twitter.com/cspc_victoria/status/1293570854014472193
They rely on substantial amounts of public money to produce these findings.
This is very, very concerning...
What else have they gotten wrong that nobody caught?
This is very, very concerning...
What else have they gotten wrong that nobody caught?
Furthermore, the @CSPC_Victoria erroneous #factcheck treats 101 as a reliable indicator that new arrivals are a small number.
But *all findings* of PiT count are and “underestimate” or “gross underestimate.”
See pages 4, 11.
Not 101. Not even 183.
The real number is larger..
But *all findings* of PiT count are and “underestimate” or “gross underestimate.”
See pages 4, 11.
Not 101. Not even 183.
The real number is larger..
It’s true I drew an adverse inference with respect to 4% of survey respondents who refused to answer whether they’d been here less than a year or claimed they couldn’t remember (who does that? New arrivals do that).
I’ll accept that critique.
But the rest?
It’s nonsense #yyj
I’ll accept that critique.
But the rest?
It’s nonsense #yyj
The more I look at this @CSPC_Victoria Point in Time Count, the less reliable it seems.
Why merge “seeking and secured” with respect to employment? Those are two totally different reasons and merging them conceals the number who move here with no job. #yyj
Why merge “seeking and secured” with respect to employment? Those are two totally different reasons and merging them conceals the number who move here with no job. #yyj
See, almost nothing in the @CSPC_Victoria #factcheck tweet is what it appears.
They say “for employment” in the graphic, but the real report reveals that means both people who have secured jobs or are looking for jobs.
Isn’t everybody looking for a job if they need money? #yyj
They say “for employment” in the graphic, but the real report reveals that means both people who have secured jobs or are looking for jobs.
Isn’t everybody looking for a job if they need money? #yyj
Why was I of all people targeted by a supposed #factcheck that was riddled with easily disprovable falsehoods and errors?
This is really, really weird.
This is really, really weird.
