11 ms·

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.o

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 (to be clear this is from 2015, so nearing 4 years out of date)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.
  - rsync 8y ago
    You're talking past me to a prototypical "person who (you) disagree with". To wit: - I made no comments about homeless people being uninteresting or unintelligent or how much money they do, or did earn, etc. - I have presented no pet theories about the causes of homelessness or the demerits of the homeless. I have simply pointed out that a very, very commonly published and cited statistic is, in my opinion, very ill defined and probably misused. I also suggested a possible alternative narrative that I suspect is more correct. Please don't put all of the things you hate into a box and then shove me in there with it. "Seriously, get off the internet and go volunteer at St Anthony's for an hour." I have done that all over the world. Cheers!
    - shalmanese 8y ago
      If you suspect it's more correct, go out and verify it (hint: It's not).

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.
- rsync 8y ago
  You're talking past me to a prototypical "person who (you) disagree with". To wit: - I made no comments about homeless people being uninteresting or unintelligent or how much money they do, or did earn, etc. - I have presented no pet theories about the causes of homelessness or the demerits of the homeless. I have simply pointed out that a very, very commonly published and cited statistic is, in my opinion, very ill defined and probably misused. I also suggested a possible alternative narrative that I suspect is more correct. Please don't put all of the things you hate into a box and then shove me in there with it. "Seriously, get off the internet and go volunteer at St Anthony's for an hour." I have done that all over the world. Cheers!
  - shalmanese 8y ago
    If you suspect it's more correct, go out and verify it (hint: It's not).