Note that "at the time they most recently became homeless" is often a potentially misleading statistic. Commenters in the past have pointed out that metrics like this often count people being released from prison or jail and ending up on the streets as becoming homeless after being housed in the State. So if a homeless person gets bussed in from out of state, gets imprisoned, and subsequently gets released they're counted as having been living in California at the time they became homeless.

Excellent report, thanks for the link. It is quite readable and easy to understand. Can also see recent 3-year trends on most graphs.

I found the section on primary cause of homelessness interesting:

---

22% of respondents reported job loss as the primary cause of their homelessness.

15% reported drugs or alcohol.

13% reported an argument with a friend or family member who asked them to leave

12% reported eviction

10% reported divorce or separation

7% reported an illness or medical problem.

---

I suspect mental health is something that is very pertinent. I used to volunteer with the homeless and drug addiction seemed like was used for self-medication. Quite a few people were suffering from anxiety, schizophrenia and other issues that prevented them to forming meaningful relationships, holding a job, staying in touch with their family (who often have disowned them).

Further under the section of "Health" I found:

---

41% drug or alcohol abuse

39% psychiatric or emotional condition

31% chronic health problem

Then

29% reported Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

23% a physical disability

12% a traumatic brain injury

11% reported having an AIDS or HIV related illness

---

> Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents reported they were living in San Francisco at the time they most recently became homeless.

I am so tired of reading this bullshit "statistic". It is a self-reported number. If a homeless person thinks it benefits him to say so, he will. And homeless people will say anything to survive, as they are barely surviving.

If you came where from Podunk, MN and crashed on your buddy's couch last year before he kicked you out? Congratulations, you were "living in SF before you became homeless".

If you came here from somewhere else and stayed in a shelter for a day before you got evicted? Congratulations, you were "living in SF before you became homeless".

If the question was, "were you a rent-paying resident of SF before you became homeless", the answer would be totally different.

There are 76 non-profits that feed from the trough of homelessness[1]. Don't they have admin overhead? How much money is wasted on this overhead?

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor...

To be fair, "Of those, over half (55%) had lived in San Francisco for 10 or more years" is much harder to game, though just as easy to lie about.

I'm more worried about this thought in the article:

> While cities report inconsistently, San Francisco currently spends around $430 per city resident per year on services and programs for the homeless, compared to $260 in New York and $110 in Los Angeles. Yet the problem in our city is worse, and despite increases in spending, has continued to worsen.

It's not a surprise that the city with more spending on services for the homeless has more homeless. That's exactly what you'd expect under pretty much any model.

Do you believe that subsidizing the homeless means you'll get more homeless? Then higher spending will directly cause more homelessness.

Do you believe that places with bigger problems will try harder to do something about them? Then higher spending will reflect more homelessness.

I wonder what the numbers look like per _homeless_ person in the city.

In a country with open borders between states and extremely cheap transportation, homelessness really should be thought of as, at least partially, a federal problem. And funded accordingly.

> [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-recor...

i laughed when I read that title. "Tracking results" is definitely a form of overhead, so the article is literally complaining that charities are ineffective because they don't have enough overhead.

In general, "minimize overhead" isn't equal to "maximize impact per dollar". The obvious software industry exemplar is the oft-repeated complaint about companies hiring expensive engineers and then refusing to buy a $200 monitor.

Applying the Commerce Clause to vagrancy is darkly funny.

The commerce cause is mostly orthogonal (not irrelevant, but orthogonal) to no-strings-attached social services funding, even under very literal/originalist interpretations.