Questions with answers for review...

I agree with Cam, I think it definitely would make sense to remove the neutral option for question 4, since it's kind of redundant to answer "neutral" to that specific question. I think answering "neutral" is probably the same as answering "somewhat" responsible. We could add a "don't know" option in place of "neutral" . Also, I have some concerns with question 1:

1. What cause do you attribute most to an individual experiencing extreme poverty and homelessness in Vancouver? Answers: 1. Consequence of poor personal decisions, 2. Victim of uncontrollable circumstances, 3. Failure of social system, 4. Mental illness or disability, 5. Other

The option "consequence of poor personal decisions" may be quite ambiguous. We may need to define what we think are "poor personal decisions" - Should we narrow this down? What do you guys think?

Also, do we all agree that removing the safe injection question altogether site is a good option?

Yes, I think it is fine to remove the safe injection site question. While it is obviously a controversial topic regarding the state of the Downtown East Side, I think it is probably safer to maintain our focus on poverty inequality so not to veer to far toward drug use.

If we are removing "drug use" as an option, I do believe that we need an alternative like "consequence of poor personal decisions." Whether the latter is the best alternative, I'm not sure. But I think it will do the trick.

That being said, I love all of the questions above, but I do believe providing a "don't know" option is necessary for ALL the questions.

Great work everyone! :D