If there was a specific location in which sexual abuse was prevalent, and you had to decide whether to go to that place or not, would you?
> Is it even logical to assume that there would be less sexual abuse in the streets than in a shelter?
Is this a serious question? "There is a place with a high percentage of sexual abuse, are you more likely to experience sexual abuse there or not-there?"
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
A specific account of sexual abuse in a shelter here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mayor-orders-probe...
There's plenty of reporting on it. As with all news, it's tough to get realistic accounts of what's going on in shelters because a lot of the people being asked are involved with shelter administration, so obviously there wouldn't be as much emphasis on the bad living conditions. Getting more info from actual homeless people would be helpful, but obviously the entire point is a lot of them are battling substance abuse issues and/or mental health problems, so there are complications on getting decent information out of them.
I don't live in SF, but homeless shelters are oftentimes disgusting and terrible places. I don't blame anyone that doesn't want to stay in them if they can figure out other accommodations. Nonreligious based shelters sometimes provide very little in terms of hygiene/necessities/food, sometimes basically nothing other than a small cot or gym mat (aka no food, no shower, etc).
Religious shelters often require religious involvement. Forced praying as an example.
There is also the issue of frequent abuse/sexual assault in homeless shelters.
> Being homeless or poor is only an excuse for stealing if you cannot reasonably get your basic needs met in a legal way.
I don't really think shoplifting food to survive is an "excuse". Again, they're not stealing CD players.