The inventory also indicates whethe: : municipality has its regional share of licensed facilides
and beds (see Tabie 4). This is c2:2rmined by comparing a municipality's copulation as a
percentage of GVRD population 47~ its to:al number of facilities and beds as 2 percentage of
the GVRD'’s total number of licensed facilities and beds.

TABLE 4

“REGIONAL SHARE OF LICENSED FACILITIES AND BEDS

29.23%
13.11%
13.93%
ichmond . 8.47%
elta - $.19%
(Coquidam - 4.10%
orth Vancouver 2 10.38%
(District)

gley Township . 4.10%

ew Westminster ; 3.28%

{West Vancouver ‘ : 0.82%
orth Vancouver : 2.46%
City)
Port Coquitlam 38 2.73%
pley City wa 2.19%

Of the GVRD municipalities included in the inventory, Bumaby, Richmond, District of North
Vancouver, New Westminster, Por Cocuidam, and Langley City have more than their regional
share of licensed facilities. Wancouver, District of North Vancouver, New Westminster, and
Langley City have more than their regional share of beds. Only the District of North
Vancouver, New Westminster and Lzngley City have more than their regional share of both
facilities and beds. _

3. Community Education Program

Most of the GVRD member municizztities/cities/districts have experienced strong community
opposition to the development o: licensed group homes at one time or another.’ The
deinsttutionalization process has 72d, and continues to have, a major impact on local
communities. It is not uncommon for several group homes to be established at the same time
in a single community, by diffeze-: sponsoring groups, funded through different provincial
ministries. It is the collective impzc: of all of these different group home programs which is felt
in local communities by residents.

\TEM | PAGE
5 t