5 ms·

This is a popular myth. https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/ https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-

This is a popular myth. https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-problem-in-san-francisco/ https://www.sftu.org/2018/06/five-myths-about-the-homeless-p... According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed, and aren’t on the streets due to drugs.

bluGill 8y ago
Great article, but their bias needs to be seen through.
rsync 8y ago
This, and other statistics like it, are really disingenuous and framed for a very specific interpretation. Here is the actual quote from the article (strikethrough is in the original - not sure why - maybe a bad stat ?): "The vast majority of the people who are homeless today used to be housed – in San Francisco. According to the city’s 2015 homeless count, 71 percent of the people on the streets were living in San Francisco when they lost their housing. That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic. " So the presentation here is that average-joe-normal-churchgoer was minding his own business as a lifelong SF resident and was then evicted by an evil landlord, so his apartment could go to a techie, which sent him into a downward spiral to homelessness. I have not done independent research into this myself, but I have a suspicion that the actual narrative is something like: "borderline mentally healthy individual moves to San Francisco because it's interesting and fun and romantic (and warm) and, while still on their meds, manages to rent a room or an SRO or something, lives there for a month or two or six, runs out of either money or meds or familial support (or all three) and suffers their financial/emotional/mental breakdown here, on our streets, far from any support or family they have, if they had any at all." If this suspicion is correct, it doesn't imply we shouldn't be compassionate or helpful or progressive in our responses, but it does suggest that we are importing problems and should consider how we might limit that tendency. It also does not place some kind of moralistic "maybe they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place" judgement on people - at the end of the day it is indeed a mental health issue. Just maybe it doesn't need to be our mental health problem.
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  yeah, not sure what happened with that link on their site. SF Gov seems to have moved the report. Here's a breakdown by St. Anthony's: https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-count-survey/ https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-cou... (to be clear this is from 2015, so nearing 4 years out of date)
  - rsync 8y ago
    Thank you for posting the actual link - that is helpful. From that link: "Survey results show that 71% of respondents were living in San Francisco when they became homeless, and of those, 49% had been living in San Francisco for 10 years or more." This sheds very little additional information. This statistic is often presented as if 71% of the homeless had their own apartment before they became homeless, but for all I know (and what I suspect) is that many of these people were "housed" in very tenuous, precarious situations that I might, personally, find indistinguishable from homelessness. We really need to know the specific definition of "housed" used in this survey. That 49% of those 71% were physically present in SF for 10 years or more also tells us very little. I am led to believe that homelessness and the mental illness(es) that lead to it are cycles and that people fall in and out of ... the statistic, however, is presented as if individuals were happily housed in a plain old apartment for 10+ years before lightning struck and they were suddenly strung out on the street...
    - shalmanese 8y ago
      Seriously, get off the internet and go volunteer at St Anthony's for an hour. You'll get to meet some representative sample of the homeless in San Francisco and gain a much more high resolution picture on what all the various causes of homelessness are. The picture is complicated but it's not at all what you're positing. I guarantee if you spend a week working with the homeless in San Francisco, you'll meet at least some people more intelligent than you, people who at one point earned more money than you, people who are more mentally composed and happy than you. You won't meet all of them in the same person but you'll meet at least one example of someone who can disprove every single simplistic pet theory about homelessness ever proposed.
masonic 8y ago
According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed The data does not say that. It says that survey responses claim they used to be homed there; there was no verification done whatsoever. Of course vagrants are going to claim they belong there.

bluGill 8y ago

Great article, but their bias needs to be seen through.

rsync 8y ago

This, and other statistics like it, are really disingenuous and framed for a very specific interpretation. Here is the actual quote from the article (strikethrough is in the original - not sure why - maybe a bad stat ?): "The vast majority of the people who are homeless today used to be housed – in San Francisco. According to the city’s 2015 homeless count, 71 percent of the people on the streets were living in San Francisco when they lost their housing. That means seven out of ten homeless people used to be your neighbors – before the tech boom and the eviction epidemic. " So the presentation here is that average-joe-normal-churchgoer was minding his own business as a lifelong SF resident and was then evicted by an evil landlord, so his apartment could go to a techie, which sent him into a downward spiral to homelessness. I have not done independent research into this myself, but I have a suspicion that the actual narrative is something like: "borderline mentally healthy individual moves to San Francisco because it's interesting and fun and romantic (and warm) and, while still on their meds, manages to rent a room or an SRO or something, lives there for a month or two or six, runs out of either money or meds or familial support (or all three) and suffers their financial/emotional/mental breakdown here, on our streets, far from any support or family they have, if they had any at all." If this suspicion is correct, it doesn't imply we shouldn't be compassionate or helpful or progressive in our responses, but it does suggest that we are importing problems and should consider how we might limit that tendency. It also does not place some kind of moralistic "maybe they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place" judgement on people - at the end of the day it is indeed a mental health issue. Just maybe it doesn't need to be our mental health problem.

bluejekyll 8y ago
yeah, not sure what happened with that link on their site. SF Gov seems to have moved the report. Here's a breakdown by St. Anthony's: https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-count-survey/ https://www.stanthonysf.org/san-franciscos-2015-homeless-cou... (to be clear this is from 2015, so nearing 4 years out of date)
- rsync 8y ago
  Thank you for posting the actual link - that is helpful. From that link: "Survey results show that 71% of respondents were living in San Francisco when they became homeless, and of those, 49% had been living in San Francisco for 10 years or more." This sheds very little additional information. This statistic is often presented as if 71% of the homeless had their own apartment before they became homeless, but for all I know (and what I suspect) is that many of these people were "housed" in very tenuous, precarious situations that I might, personally, find indistinguishable from homelessness. We really need to know the specific definition of "housed" used in this survey. That 49% of those 71% were physically present in SF for 10 years or more also tells us very little. I am led to believe that homelessness and the mental illness(es) that lead to it are cycles and that people fall in and out of ... the statistic, however, is presented as if individuals were happily housed in a plain old apartment for 10+ years before lightning struck and they were suddenly strung out on the street...
  - shalmanese 8y ago
    Seriously, get off the internet and go volunteer at St Anthony's for an hour. You'll get to meet some representative sample of the homeless in San Francisco and gain a much more high resolution picture on what all the various causes of homelessness are. The picture is complicated but it's not at all what you're positing. I guarantee if you spend a week working with the homeless in San Francisco, you'll meet at least some people more intelligent than you, people who at one point earned more money than you, people who are more mentally composed and happy than you. You won't meet all of them in the same person but you'll meet at least one example of someone who can disprove every single simplistic pet theory about homelessness ever proposed.

masonic 8y ago

According to that, 71% of people on the streets of SF used to be homed The data does not say that. It says that survey responses claim they used to be homed there; there was no verification done whatsoever. Of course vagrants are going to claim they belong there.