3 ms·

You have provided no evidence either and your claims are vague and not derived from any named study. In any case, PIT as operated by SF HSH can be found here, w

You have provided no evidence either and your claims are vague and not derived from any named study. In any case, PIT as operated by SF HSH can be found here, which certainly you could have reached with a simple Google search of the terms I used: https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/pit-hic/ https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/pit-hic/. In addition, people who are not legible to PIT methodology are certainly not rolled up into state level statistics upon which this claim of failure and the article rest, so in many ways their existence is not relevant to my point or this discussion.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
There is plenty of literature describing why this methodology isn’t great: Here you go from my region: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2857/Point-In-Time https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2857/Point-In-Time https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/the-problem-with-hud-s-point-in-time-homeless-count https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/the-probl... > In addition, people who are not legible to PIT methodology are certainly not rolled up into state level statistics upon which this claim of failure and the article rest, so in many ways their existence is not relevant to my point or this discussion. OK, I agree that PIT just counts what it counts. But then that means any homeless that aren’t counted by PIT aren’t relevant. It’s just bad data that we can’t really work with.
- shuckles 3y ago
  I’m going to be honest: I can’t find a single way the criticisms of PIT you’ve linked relate to the conversation at all. We are discussing why the $5k/mo SF spent on tent villages is incommensurable to studio rents. Even if it were the case that PIT overrepresented people with mental health or drug abuse issues, it’s still true that the 10k or so homeless individuals counted by it had a 70% rate of reporting those problems. Which means housing them is not a matter of simply paying rent.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

There is plenty of literature describing why this methodology isn’t great: Here you go from my region: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2857/Point-In-Time https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2857/Point-In-Time https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/the-problem-with-hud-s-point-in-time-homeless-count https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/the-probl... > In addition, people who are not legible to PIT methodology are certainly not rolled up into state level statistics upon which this claim of failure and the article rest, so in many ways their existence is not relevant to my point or this discussion. OK, I agree that PIT just counts what it counts. But then that means any homeless that aren’t counted by PIT aren’t relevant. It’s just bad data that we can’t really work with.

shuckles 3y ago
I’m going to be honest: I can’t find a single way the criticisms of PIT you’ve linked relate to the conversation at all. We are discussing why the $5k/mo SF spent on tent villages is incommensurable to studio rents. Even if it were the case that PIT overrepresented people with mental health or drug abuse issues, it’s still true that the 10k or so homeless individuals counted by it had a 70% rate of reporting those problems. Which means housing them is not a matter of simply paying rent.