Maybe start with stating what data it would 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.