12 ms·

San Francisco spends $241 million a year[1] on the homeless. Perhaps what it says about America is that you can't solve these kinds of problems by throwing more

by Camillo 10y ago

San Francisco spends $241 million a year[1] on the homeless. Perhaps what it says about America is that you can't solve these kinds of problems by throwing more and more money at them, but that won't keep politicians from trying. [1: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...]

yladiz 10y ago
I think it's not necessarily that the money is being spent (in general) but rather the money is being spent in the wrong way. For example, we've spent untold billions of dollars on the "war on drugs" since it started with Nixon, but it's been mostly spent on incarceration rather than rehabilitation; if that money had been spent on safe needle spaces, mental health clinics, and easier access to alternatives for drugs such as heroin like methadone, the problem may not be solved but would be in a better place. Homelessness would also be in a better place if the money was spent better. Better shelters, better services similar to those I mentioned above, and better information about each person like the article mentions would substantially make the issue better. But those things aren't as easy to justify as the alternative. In the case of incarceration, because the effects are effectively immediate, it feels easier to put someone away for 10-20-life rather than giving them a better life.
- usaphp 10y ago
  > safe needle spaces, mental health clinics, and easier access to alternatives for drugs such as heroin like methadone > Better shelters, better services similar to those I mentioned above Every time I hear people say that I just can't understand how do they think that will fix the problem? Most homeless and drug addicts wont go to mental health clinic on their own, most of them enjoy the life they are having and are not willing to change, giving them better shelters, better services will only increase their number. Can you explain me why do you think that giving a drug addict a clean needle or alternative drug will make them want to stop using them?
  - yladiz 10y ago
    Are you sure about that first part or if that just conjecture? The main reason to give drug addicts clean needles is to stop the spread of blood borne diseases like HIV and hepatitis, which reduces stress on the healthcare system. Alternative drugs are useful for weaning people off of a drug that would otherwise give them potentially life threatening withdrawal. I think the argument you're implicitly making is that homeless people won't change so why help them, which is fundamentally flawed because you're looking at those people like they're less than human. Sure, some (or in your argument, most) people won't seek help, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't offer it.
    - usaphp 10y ago
      > the argument you're implicity making is that homeless people won't change so why help them...you are looking at those people like they are less than human. Where did I say that? Interpretations like this is exactly the reason why politicians just throw money at the problem without understanding it, they are just afraid of people making wrong assumptions just like you did. I never implied that they are less human, I just said that offering them better shelters and better services isn't helping them getting away from being homeless, in contrary it's doing the opposite.
      - akiselev 10y ago
        * I just said that offering them better shelters and better services isn't helping them getting away from being homeless, in contrary it's doing the opposite.* You're demonstrably wrong based on the vast majority of our research on homelessness in the developed world. Annonymous needle exchanges not only help reduce blood borne disease transmission rates (we're talking about a reduction of up to 70-90% of HIV infections in some cases like London). They are also most often in rehab buildings, clinics, and hospitals where they have professionals most able to help intervene or assist those who want to quit in an environment of understanding and respect. The idea that free needles increase drug use may sound logical but it's the exact opposite of reality. No one beats addiction just because they're scared of a friend's used needle. Homeless shelters are even more critical because they allow people to get back on their feet, especially for those with families to support or those without a regional support network of friends. If you're homeless and have a job interview, for example, homeless shelters will often help you with grooming, professional clothing, and even transport. Without shelters or friends/family, bootstrapping from homelessness to financial security is almost impossible. Unless you've ever been homeless you can't begin to fathom the positive effect all of these services have on someone who has hit rock bottom.
- Camillo 10y ago
  Not a cent of those $241 million is spent on incarceration, policing or the like. You can scroll down in the article I linked to see a breakdown. Your response essentially consists of ignoring the facts I have presented and talking about something else (Nixon! Drug war!). Of course, that is a very effective way of dealing with cognitive dissonance, which is why it is currently the highest-voted response to my comment.
  - yladiz 10y ago
    I think you misunderstood what I was going for. My argument wasn't that $241MM is spent on incarceration, it's that it could go for much better services than currently being offered.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  The state cannot compel you to seek shelter, nor accept medication or other mental health care, unless you are a danger to yourself or others. Society moved away from institutionalizing people, so when a patient wants to get off their medication, drink, or get high they leave whatever community based program they are in and hit the streets.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    I don't believe it was society moving away from keeping Pete institutionalized. It was a very deliberate action by the Reader administration to shut down scores of institutions, essentially shoving people out on to the street.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      It was both. Advocates were screaming for community based care. Other advocates were demanding an end to compulsory commitment, vagrancy/drunkenness laws and other reforms. The politicians said "Yes!", over promised, under-delivered and kept everyone happy except for the ones who have little or no voice -- the folks who need help.
WalterSear 10y ago
1 in 5 homeless people were brought here by, or imediately entered the homeless support system. IIRC, the former outnumber the latter 4 to 1. http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc... Why do people exit the homeless services? They exit due to the support providers being unable to handle them, or to make room for more. In former case, they reduce costs and in the latter, they inflate support numbers. Both of these benefit the fiscal health of the service provider, and both dump people on the streets. And the rest of San Francisco get to handle most disturbed, and disturbing, of these poor people. It's hard not to conclude that it's an industry with business model based trafficking in human suffering and abuse of the commons, to the tune of 20% year over year.
quinnchr 10y ago
The average homeless person in the US cost tax payers around $40,000 [1]. In 2015 SF had a homeless population of 7539 [2]. Meaning they're spending on average of about $32000 per homeless person, $8000 less than the national average. From 2013 to 2015 San Francisco experienced a 2% increase in the total number of homeless, while the nation as a whole saw a 5.2% decrease. Sounds like it's a problem you can't underspend your way out of. [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/... [2] https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Fran...
- ok_craig 10y ago
  Maybe SF spends its money more smartly. People complain about the homeless problem in SF but never seem to stop to think that perhaps we have more homeless because there is less incentive to not be homeless in SF. NYC has lower homelessness because the winters are shit and the police are hostile. In SF, the weather is great and police let you shit in the street without much of a confrontation. Is there seriously any question why the rate is higher here? The homeless are treated pretty decently. SF has more homeless because it generally treats them better than the rest of the US, not worse.
  - marcusgarvey 10y ago
    >SF has more homeless because it generally treats them better than the rest of the US, not worse. Thinking of the way Giuliani criminalized homelessness in NYC, you may be right. http://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/11/20/nyregion/in-wake-of-attack-giuliani-cracks-down-on-homeless.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/11/20/nyregion/in-wake-of-att...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    NYC has lower homelessness because it spends a ridiculous amount of money on the problem and has more public housing units than anywhere. People who claim to be homeless get priority for placement. Right now, so much focus is on this problem that backlogs for section 8 and other housing are dropping in the broader region because clients are moving to NYC.
exabrial 10y ago
$241 million would educate a lot of people :(
- goseeastarwar 10y ago
  SF has a $9B budget, we can do both.
killbrad 10y ago
Solving the homeless "problem" with money to allow the homeless to live more comfortably is the wrong approach in my opinion regardless of city. The mentally ill need psych support and help. They are they group most in need (and deserving IMHO) of aid, along with displaced youth (whether due to security, sexuality, or other factors). But they get lumped into the greater group of homeless, that also includes a sizeable number of "unwilling" (in that they simply don't want to work, and expect to be cared for), as well as the "supported", which includes people with marketable skills and/or family or friends that are willing to help that are abusing the system. This also includes the "capable abusers" that choose drugs or drink outside of the mental health caveat listed above. Only exacerbating the problem are local activists that provide the homeless with tents, 3x meals daily, and free med/dent/etc services that further incentive the homeless, to be homeless. The two or three groups should be prioritized differently, and treated uniquely, with the goal to be reintegrated successfully. Not "well we owe it to all of the homeless to house, bathe, feed, care for, and fund their experience". I'd love to hear opinions on either side.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  See Utah's Housing First program. Dallas is starting to implement similar things. It turns out that if you give people a place to live first without making them jump through a bunch of degrading hoops a much larger percentage of them will become functioning members of society again. Yes some people will end up back on the streets. Yes some people have mental illnesses. Doesn't change the statistics that giving homeless people free housing leads to many more of them getting off the streets permanently, getting jobs, and becoming self-sufficient. The idea that you can punish people to successfulness is the Victorian-age meme that just won't die.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Remember that $241 million figure is not spend entirely on homeless. $122 million of it is spent on supportive housing which is not for the homeless. Granted those people, without supportive housing, may become homeless but that's simply not how they're counted. Also remember the rest of that money is split among a ton of groups and organizations within San Francisco all of which have an inability to track their own results or even collaborate effectively. If that money was spent more effectively and could prove what it tried that worked and what didn't work I bet it would make a huge impact.
- 0max 10y ago
  If only there was a way to effectively measure the impact a charitable program has on it's service audience/region.
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  FWIW, $241M is about 2.7% of the $9 billion budget.
holri 10y ago
The city of Vienna / Europe spends 632 Mio € alone on social housing. Another 3366 Mio € goes to other social and health services. [1] Vienna has no relevant homeless problem. https://wien1x1.at/site/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/06/14_Aufteilung_Einnahmen_Bereiche_0616.jpg https://wien1x1.at/site/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/06...
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  But also Austria spends a lot of efforts and. Oney to better distribute wealth. This has a positive impact overall because it reduces the extreme cases that can cost a lot of money and impact society. Social housing in Vienna is completely different than social housing in the US as an example. I just bought a flat in a building where the first three floors are social housing. That is not something you do in the us.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "The city of Vienna / Europe spends 632 Mio € alone on social housing." You've never been to Vienna or Austria if you are comparing San Francisco to Austria. Austria has a relatively homogenous culture, very conservative society (culturally, not politically). Relatively low rates of labour mobility meaning that you 'know your neighbours' - generally a communitarian attitude, (as opposed to fairly libertarian attitude in SF and US in general) and they don't have industries that generate tons more $ than others, which means no housing bubbles. You can rent flats not too far outside of Vienna very inexpensively. Just some things come to mind. Money matters, but it matters less than social conventions and culture. My hometown (in Canada) spends $0 on social housing (however, there is welfare and healthcare) and there is no homelessness. That said, housing is extremely inexpensive, and nobody really has a lot of money or opportunity either.
  - holri 10y ago
    Vienna has no homogeneous culture. It is a cultural melting pot comparable to New York City. This roots back to the multicultural Habsburg state. At the moment Vienna grows by approx. 20000 people from all over the world by year. [1] The last years flat rent raised by 16%. If the city of Vienna would not build 13000 new cheap social flats every year, it would have problems like American cities. [1] https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/bevoelkerung/images/bev-entwicklung-61-44.jpg https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/bevoelkerung/images/bev-ent...
whack 10y ago
According to the article, there are about 8000 homeless people in SF. With a funding of $241 million, that comes out to $30,000 per homeless person. How the heck is SF spending that much money and still failing so badly!?
- arjie 10y ago
  Something's wrong with your maths there. If you spend a million dollars fixing a million potholes and there's one left, you didn't spend a million dollars per pothole.

by Camillo 10y ago

yladiz 10y ago

I think it's not necessarily that the money is being spent (in general) but rather the money is being spent in the wrong way. For example, we've spent untold billions of dollars on the "war on drugs" since it started with Nixon, but it's been mostly spent on incarceration rather than rehabilitation; if that money had been spent on safe needle spaces, mental health clinics, and easier access to alternatives for drugs such as heroin like methadone, the problem may not be solved but would be in a better place. Homelessness would also be in a better place if the money was spent better. Better shelters, better services similar to those I mentioned above, and better information about each person like the article mentions would substantially make the issue better. But those things aren't as easy to justify as the alternative. In the case of incarceration, because the effects are effectively immediate, it feels easier to put someone away for 10-20-life rather than giving them a better life.

usaphp 10y ago
> safe needle spaces, mental health clinics, and easier access to alternatives for drugs such as heroin like methadone > Better shelters, better services similar to those I mentioned above Every time I hear people say that I just can't understand how do they think that will fix the problem? Most homeless and drug addicts wont go to mental health clinic on their own, most of them enjoy the life they are having and are not willing to change, giving them better shelters, better services will only increase their number. Can you explain me why do you think that giving a drug addict a clean needle or alternative drug will make them want to stop using them?
- yladiz 10y ago
  Are you sure about that first part or if that just conjecture? The main reason to give drug addicts clean needles is to stop the spread of blood borne diseases like HIV and hepatitis, which reduces stress on the healthcare system. Alternative drugs are useful for weaning people off of a drug that would otherwise give them potentially life threatening withdrawal. I think the argument you're implicitly making is that homeless people won't change so why help them, which is fundamentally flawed because you're looking at those people like they're less than human. Sure, some (or in your argument, most) people won't seek help, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't offer it.
  - usaphp 10y ago
    > the argument you're implicity making is that homeless people won't change so why help them...you are looking at those people like they are less than human. Where did I say that? Interpretations like this is exactly the reason why politicians just throw money at the problem without understanding it, they are just afraid of people making wrong assumptions just like you did. I never implied that they are less human, I just said that offering them better shelters and better services isn't helping them getting away from being homeless, in contrary it's doing the opposite.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      * I just said that offering them better shelters and better services isn't helping them getting away from being homeless, in contrary it's doing the opposite.* You're demonstrably wrong based on the vast majority of our research on homelessness in the developed world. Annonymous needle exchanges not only help reduce blood borne disease transmission rates (we're talking about a reduction of up to 70-90% of HIV infections in some cases like London). They are also most often in rehab buildings, clinics, and hospitals where they have professionals most able to help intervene or assist those who want to quit in an environment of understanding and respect. The idea that free needles increase drug use may sound logical but it's the exact opposite of reality. No one beats addiction just because they're scared of a friend's used needle. Homeless shelters are even more critical because they allow people to get back on their feet, especially for those with families to support or those without a regional support network of friends. If you're homeless and have a job interview, for example, homeless shelters will often help you with grooming, professional clothing, and even transport. Without shelters or friends/family, bootstrapping from homelessness to financial security is almost impossible. Unless you've ever been homeless you can't begin to fathom the positive effect all of these services have on someone who has hit rock bottom.
Camillo 10y ago
Not a cent of those $241 million is spent on incarceration, policing or the like. You can scroll down in the article I linked to see a breakdown. Your response essentially consists of ignoring the facts I have presented and talking about something else (Nixon! Drug war!). Of course, that is a very effective way of dealing with cognitive dissonance, which is why it is currently the highest-voted response to my comment.
- yladiz 10y ago
  I think you misunderstood what I was going for. My argument wasn't that $241MM is spent on incarceration, it's that it could go for much better services than currently being offered.
Spooky23 10y ago
The state cannot compel you to seek shelter, nor accept medication or other mental health care, unless you are a danger to yourself or others. Society moved away from institutionalizing people, so when a patient wants to get off their medication, drink, or get high they leave whatever community based program they are in and hit the streets.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  I don't believe it was society moving away from keeping Pete institutionalized. It was a very deliberate action by the Reader administration to shut down scores of institutions, essentially shoving people out on to the street.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    It was both. Advocates were screaming for community based care. Other advocates were demanding an end to compulsory commitment, vagrancy/drunkenness laws and other reforms. The politicians said "Yes!", over promised, under-delivered and kept everyone happy except for the ones who have little or no voice -- the folks who need help.

WalterSear 10y ago

1 in 5 homeless people were brought here by, or imediately entered the homeless support system. IIRC, the former outnumber the latter 4 to 1. http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report.pdf http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc... Why do people exit the homeless services? They exit due to the support providers being unable to handle them, or to make room for more. In former case, they reduce costs and in the latter, they inflate support numbers. Both of these benefit the fiscal health of the service provider, and both dump people on the streets. And the rest of San Francisco get to handle most disturbed, and disturbing, of these poor people. It's hard not to conclude that it's an industry with business model based trafficking in human suffering and abuse of the commons, to the tune of 20% year over year.

quinnchr 10y ago

The average homeless person in the US cost tax payers around $40,000 [1]. In 2015 SF had a homeless population of 7539 [2]. Meaning they're spending on average of about $32000 per homeless person, $8000 less than the national average. From 2013 to 2015 San Francisco experienced a 2% increase in the total number of homeless, while the nation as a whole saw a 5.2% decrease. Sounds like it's a problem you can't underspend your way out of. [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/... [2] https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Francisco%20Homeless%20Count%20%20Report_0.pdf https://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Fran...

ok_craig 10y ago
Maybe SF spends its money more smartly. People complain about the homeless problem in SF but never seem to stop to think that perhaps we have more homeless because there is less incentive to not be homeless in SF. NYC has lower homelessness because the winters are shit and the police are hostile. In SF, the weather is great and police let you shit in the street without much of a confrontation. Is there seriously any question why the rate is higher here? The homeless are treated pretty decently. SF has more homeless because it generally treats them better than the rest of the US, not worse.
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  >SF has more homeless because it generally treats them better than the rest of the US, not worse. Thinking of the way Giuliani criminalized homelessness in NYC, you may be right. http://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/11/20/nyregion/in-wake-of-attack-giuliani-cracks-down-on-homeless.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/11/20/nyregion/in-wake-of-att...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 10y ago
  NYC has lower homelessness because it spends a ridiculous amount of money on the problem and has more public housing units than anywhere. People who claim to be homeless get priority for placement. Right now, so much focus is on this problem that backlogs for section 8 and other housing are dropping in the broader region because clients are moving to NYC.

exabrial 10y ago

$241 million would educate a lot of people :(

goseeastarwar 10y ago
SF has a $9B budget, we can do both.

killbrad 10y ago

Solving the homeless "problem" with money to allow the homeless to live more comfortably is the wrong approach in my opinion regardless of city. The mentally ill need psych support and help. They are they group most in need (and deserving IMHO) of aid, along with displaced youth (whether due to security, sexuality, or other factors). But they get lumped into the greater group of homeless, that also includes a sizeable number of "unwilling" (in that they simply don't want to work, and expect to be cared for), as well as the "supported", which includes people with marketable skills and/or family or friends that are willing to help that are abusing the system. This also includes the "capable abusers" that choose drugs or drink outside of the mental health caveat listed above. Only exacerbating the problem are local activists that provide the homeless with tents, 3x meals daily, and free med/dent/etc services that further incentive the homeless, to be homeless. The two or three groups should be prioritized differently, and treated uniquely, with the goal to be reintegrated successfully. Not "well we owe it to all of the homeless to house, bathe, feed, care for, and fund their experience". I'd love to hear opinions on either side.

xenadu02 10y ago
See Utah's Housing First program. Dallas is starting to implement similar things. It turns out that if you give people a place to live first without making them jump through a bunch of degrading hoops a much larger percentage of them will become functioning members of society again. Yes some people will end up back on the streets. Yes some people have mental illnesses. Doesn't change the statistics that giving homeless people free housing leads to many more of them getting off the streets permanently, getting jobs, and becoming self-sufficient. The idea that you can punish people to successfulness is the Victorian-age meme that just won't die.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

Remember that $241 million figure is not spend entirely on homeless. $122 million of it is spent on supportive housing which is not for the homeless. Granted those people, without supportive housing, may become homeless but that's simply not how they're counted. Also remember the rest of that money is split among a ton of groups and organizations within San Francisco all of which have an inability to track their own results or even collaborate effectively. If that money was spent more effectively and could prove what it tried that worked and what didn't work I bet it would make a huge impact.

0max 10y ago
If only there was a way to effectively measure the impact a charitable program has on it's service audience/region.
Tempest1981 10y ago
FWIW, $241M is about 2.7% of the $9 billion budget.

holri 10y ago

The city of Vienna / Europe spends 632 Mio € alone on social housing. Another 3366 Mio € goes to other social and health services. [1] Vienna has no relevant homeless problem. https://wien1x1.at/site/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/06/14_Aufteilung_Einnahmen_Bereiche_0616.jpg https://wien1x1.at/site/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/06...

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
But also Austria spends a lot of efforts and. Oney to better distribute wealth. This has a positive impact overall because it reduces the extreme cases that can cost a lot of money and impact society. Social housing in Vienna is completely different than social housing in the US as an example. I just bought a flat in a building where the first three floors are social housing. That is not something you do in the us.
jomamaxx 10y ago
"The city of Vienna / Europe spends 632 Mio € alone on social housing." You've never been to Vienna or Austria if you are comparing San Francisco to Austria. Austria has a relatively homogenous culture, very conservative society (culturally, not politically). Relatively low rates of labour mobility meaning that you 'know your neighbours' - generally a communitarian attitude, (as opposed to fairly libertarian attitude in SF and US in general) and they don't have industries that generate tons more $ than others, which means no housing bubbles. You can rent flats not too far outside of Vienna very inexpensively. Just some things come to mind. Money matters, but it matters less than social conventions and culture. My hometown (in Canada) spends $0 on social housing (however, there is welfare and healthcare) and there is no homelessness. That said, housing is extremely inexpensive, and nobody really has a lot of money or opportunity either.
- holri 10y ago
  Vienna has no homogeneous culture. It is a cultural melting pot comparable to New York City. This roots back to the multicultural Habsburg state. At the moment Vienna grows by approx. 20000 people from all over the world by year. [1] The last years flat rent raised by 16%. If the city of Vienna would not build 13000 new cheap social flats every year, it would have problems like American cities. [1] https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/bevoelkerung/images/bev-entwicklung-61-44.jpg https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/bevoelkerung/images/bev-ent...

whack 10y ago

According to the article, there are about 8000 homeless people in SF. With a funding of $241 million, that comes out to $30,000 per homeless person. How the heck is SF spending that much money and still failing so badly!?

arjie 10y ago
Something's wrong with your maths there. If you spend a million dollars fixing a million potholes and there's one left, you didn't spend a million dollars per pothole.