10 ms·

> The latest official homeless count found 44,000 people living in county streets in a three-day period in January [...] Sounds like most of those 13,000 newly

> The latest official homeless count found 44,000 people living in county streets in a three-day period in January [...] Sounds like most of those 13,000 newly homeless people are the same every month - falling in and out of homelessness periodically. > The group's analysis was based on records for 9 million county residents who received public assistance at any point between 2002 and 2010. How can they have so many poor people when the total population of the county was 9,818,605 in 2010 according to Wikipedia? Do they give "public assistance" to rich people too?

ewzimm 11y ago
L.A. is famous for being a place where people only live temporarily, so it's likely that both the people who fall into homelessness and the people on public assistance don't stay long and get replaced with a new group of people who fall into the same situation.
- sjg007 11y ago
  The New Kid in Town.
civilian 11y ago
This commenter's tone is flippant but he brings up a really good question! Why do 9 mil people get benefits in a city of 10 million? I spent a few minutes googling "la population churn" until I realized that sociologists use the more polite term "turnover". Between 1985 and 1990, the mean migration turnover rate was 35%.[1] And if you look at the map, LA county is shaded the color of 41-65% turnover. Let's guess 50%. So if we guess 50% turnover per 5 years still applies between 2002 and 2010, then it's reasonable that 15million - 20million people have lived in LA county during that time period. Given that 49% of the US population get government benefits [2], this checks out. Especially since LA county has a higher poverty rate than the rest of the country. [3] [1] Migration Turnover Rates in United States Counties [2006] http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=eri http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13... [2] Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-... [3] L.A. County leads California in poverty rate, new analysis shows http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/30/local/la-me-poverty-20131001 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/30/local/la-me-poverty-...
- differentView 11y ago
  >Given that 49% of the US population get government benefits [2], this checks out. >[2] Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-... According to that page, they included Social Security (49.9 million people) and unemployment (5.1 million people) as government benefits.
- aninteger 11y ago
  > Especially since LA county has a higher poverty rate than the rest of the country. [3] Hate to nickpick but this should be "rest of the state." since this is what the article says instead of country.
dsp1234 11y ago
"How can they have so many poor people when the total population of the county was 9,818,605 in 2010 according to Wikipedia?" "The Census Bureau does not produce or publish a total count of the homeless population[0]." So it is very likely the 9.8M you quoted for the total population is off. An additional factor is that this number does not likely include immigrants who may not wish to be counted for social or legal reasons. Whereas the 9M "county residents" probably did include many homeless and/or immigrant residents. FTA, "9 million county residents who received public assistance at any point between 2002 and 2010." That's a total count of distinct residents over 8 years. The 2000 census shows a population of about 9.3M[2]. But that .5M increase isn't just people who moved (or were born) in the county. Due to geographic mobility/migration[1], births, deaths, etc, the people who lived in LA county in 2002 are not necessarily the same people who lived in LA county in 2010. FTA, "who received public assistance at any point ... 2007 to 2010 recession also drove many out of their homes". Just about everyone I knew took government assistance during the recession. Whether it was food stamps, mortgage help, school lunches, unemployment or whatever. So the statistics maybe a little skewed since it contains a period of significant recession. (unemployment isn't technically public assistance, because an employee pays into it, but for people I know, it's still lumped in the same category as the other types of help) [0] - https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/cb12-183.html https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/c... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_mobility#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_mobility#In_the_Uni... [2] - http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/00_SF1/DP1/0500000US06037 http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/00_SF1/DP...
- zyxley 11y ago
  > "The Census Bureau does not produce or publish a total count of the homeless population[0]." > So it is very likely the 9.8M you quoted for the total population is off. Note that the decennial census is supposed to include homeless people, marked as residing in whatever census tract they consider their current home or spend the most time. Cities generally have a pretty strong incentive to try and get as many homeless people assembled and counted on census day as possible (since more population = more federal money), though the slapdash nature of census operations and the lack of any real explicit local power for census management (rather than that implicit quid pro quo) means there are inevitably some who are overlooked. For example, in my city, I was part of the effort during the 2010 census to get homeless shelters, police, hospitals, soup kitchens, churches, etc all through the county stationed with Census employees to try and get a more or less homeless count. On our own we would have missed plenty, but we fortunately had the aid of local homeless advocaccy groups to help with publicity and outreach ahead of time, as well as a copious supply of free food and other services to draw the local homeless in to centralized locations on the census day itself. > this number does not likely include immigrants who may not wish to be counted for social or legal reasons At least when I worked with the Census, this was a bigger worry than accurately counting the homeless population, since at the time there were a number of groups on the local level actively trying to persuade Hispanic individuals to avoid being represented in the census. Some of it seemed like a genuine (if painfully misguided) attempt at protest, but I couldn't shake off the feeling that at least some of it must have been false-flag efforts meant to suppress minority representation.

ewzimm 11y ago

L.A. is famous for being a place where people only live temporarily, so it's likely that both the people who fall into homelessness and the people on public assistance don't stay long and get replaced with a new group of people who fall into the same situation.

sjg007 11y ago
The New Kid in Town.

civilian 11y ago

This commenter's tone is flippant but he brings up a really good question! Why do 9 mil people get benefits in a city of 10 million? I spent a few minutes googling "la population churn" until I realized that sociologists use the more polite term "turnover". Between 1985 and 1990, the mean migration turnover rate was 35%.[1] And if you look at the map, LA county is shaded the color of 41-65% turnover. Let's guess 50%. So if we guess 50% turnover per 5 years still applies between 2002 and 2010, then it's reasonable that 15million - 20million people have lived in LA county during that time period. Given that 49% of the US population get government benefits [2], this checks out. Especially since LA county has a higher poverty rate than the rest of the country. [3] [1] Migration Turnover Rates in United States Counties [2006] http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=eri http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13... [2] Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-... [3] L.A. County leads California in poverty rate, new analysis shows http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/30/local/la-me-poverty-20131001 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/30/local/la-me-poverty-...

differentView 11y ago
>Given that 49% of the US population get government benefits [2], this checks out. >[2] Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-... According to that page, they included Social Security (49.9 million people) and unemployment (5.1 million people) as government benefits.
aninteger 11y ago
> Especially since LA county has a higher poverty rate than the rest of the country. [3] Hate to nickpick but this should be "rest of the state." since this is what the article says instead of country.

dsp1234 11y ago

"How can they have so many poor people when the total population of the county was 9,818,605 in 2010 according to Wikipedia?" "The Census Bureau does not produce or publish a total count of the homeless population[0]." So it is very likely the 9.8M you quoted for the total population is off. An additional factor is that this number does not likely include immigrants who may not wish to be counted for social or legal reasons. Whereas the 9M "county residents" probably did include many homeless and/or immigrant residents. FTA, "9 million county residents who received public assistance at any point between 2002 and 2010." That's a total count of distinct residents over 8 years. The 2000 census shows a population of about 9.3M[2]. But that .5M increase isn't just people who moved (or were born) in the county. Due to geographic mobility/migration[1], births, deaths, etc, the people who lived in LA county in 2002 are not necessarily the same people who lived in LA county in 2010. FTA, "who received public assistance at any point ... 2007 to 2010 recession also drove many out of their homes". Just about everyone I knew took government assistance during the recession. Whether it was food stamps, mortgage help, school lunches, unemployment or whatever. So the statistics maybe a little skewed since it contains a period of significant recession. (unemployment isn't technically public assistance, because an employee pays into it, but for people I know, it's still lumped in the same category as the other types of help) [0] - https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/cb12-183.html https://www.census.gov/2010census/news/releases/operations/c... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_mobility#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_mobility#In_the_Uni... [2] - http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/00_SF1/DP1/0500000US06037 http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/DEC/00_SF1/DP...

zyxley 11y ago
> "The Census Bureau does not produce or publish a total count of the homeless population[0]." > So it is very likely the 9.8M you quoted for the total population is off. Note that the decennial census is supposed to include homeless people, marked as residing in whatever census tract they consider their current home or spend the most time. Cities generally have a pretty strong incentive to try and get as many homeless people assembled and counted on census day as possible (since more population = more federal money), though the slapdash nature of census operations and the lack of any real explicit local power for census management (rather than that implicit quid pro quo) means there are inevitably some who are overlooked. For example, in my city, I was part of the effort during the 2010 census to get homeless shelters, police, hospitals, soup kitchens, churches, etc all through the county stationed with Census employees to try and get a more or less homeless count. On our own we would have missed plenty, but we fortunately had the aid of local homeless advocaccy groups to help with publicity and outreach ahead of time, as well as a copious supply of free food and other services to draw the local homeless in to centralized locations on the census day itself. > this number does not likely include immigrants who may not wish to be counted for social or legal reasons At least when I worked with the Census, this was a bigger worry than accurately counting the homeless population, since at the time there were a number of groups on the local level actively trying to persuade Hispanic individuals to avoid being represented in the census. Some of it seemed like a genuine (if painfully misguided) attempt at protest, but I couldn't shake off the feeling that at least some of it must have been false-flag efforts meant to suppress minority representation.