Hacker News Reader

Comment by EatingWithForks | Hacker News Reader

"Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California.

Of those with a prior residence in the city, 17% said they had lived in San Francisco for less than one year, while 35% said they had been in the city for 10 or more years. The remaining 52% of those respondents said they lived in the city between one and 10 years before becoming homeless."

At least in san francisco it seems its people who lived in SF before becoming homeless that are in the majority.

https://sfstandard.com/public-health/san-francisco-homeless-...

View on HN

Thank you for the link.

But I'm skeptical of those data, because:

1. The data are from folks with an agenda:

- The folks at the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, which commissioned the survey, depend on those numbers being high in order to justify their budgets and salaries.

- The people actually collecting the information mostly work for city-funded non-profits, who also depend on those numbers being high for their income. (see page 56 of the report, under "Enumeration Team Recruitment and Training".)

2. The numbers are self-reported, and we know there are $ incentives to never admit you're not from here.

Maybe start with stating what data it would take to outweigh the accents you may have overheard one time?

Do you have any data that is based on some combination of things that are good indications of someone making San Francisco their permanent home, e.g.

- tax filings/returns (W-2 and 1040)

- utility bill payments

- high school graduation (or even enrollment) records

- rent receipts or rental contracts

I'm not saying all of those are required. But if the data come from a biased source (like one whose existence or funding is threatened if the data say these folks are all from out of town), then it's hard to accept it when absolutely no historical records are used to back it up.

> Can you point me to any of that research? If I'm wrong I'd like to update my belief

I'm curious why you feel the need to update your beliefs if you're wrong if this is your standard for evidence. Shouldn't you not have a belief in the first place?

> - The folks at the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, which commissioned the survey, depend on those numbers being high in order to justify their budgets and salaries.

I'm not sure I understand this argument. If, say, it came out that 100% of the local homeless population became homeless elsewhere and were bussed to California, how would that reduce the demand for a department tasked with addressing the problem of homelessness?

  If, say, it came out that 100% of the local homeless population became homeless elsewhere and were bussed to California

If this were the case, I suspect proposed solutions would shift away from building and maintaining shelters and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), and more toward helping people return home. The latter would require much less than the $600MM+ the DPHSH spends each year.

> At least in san francisco it seems its people who lived in SF before becoming homeless that are in the majority.

This is bog-standard mis-reporting of statistics, and I would encourage you to download and read the original homeless census report.

A person who had home in SF for 1 month and then lived unhoused in SF for 10 years is counted among those "long term" SF residents who became homeless. They're not really from SF, even if they technically become homeless while living in SF.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com