[jdavis703]

I’ve posted links before, but SF publishes a regular homeless census. It includes information about mental health, substance abuse and what locale the person became homeless in. This data clearly shows that most homeless people in SF are not choosing to engage in extreme anti-social behavior. Rather what’s happening is you’re noticing the worst cases, and extrapolating that to people such as a single mother working as security guard at night living in an RV.

[s1artibartfast]

Doesn't this just reinforce the point of the parent post, that there are two types of homelessness?

They are explicitly separating the worst cases from those like the working mother in the RV?

Looking at the 2019 report[1], the chronically homeless better fit the negative stereotype.

Sixty-three percent 63% of chronically homeless survey respondents reported alcohol or substance use. 53% reported living with a psychiatric or emotional condition, 52% with post-traumatic stress disorder, 48% with a chronic health problem, and 21% suffered from a traumatic brain injury

This is from self reported survey data, so the actual numbers could be more grim (e.g. problems not acknowledged or diagnosed).

https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-PIT-R...

[jdavis703]

If you check page 28 it shows the overall rate at 42% for substance abuse, 39% for mental health and 37% for PTSD. Your summary is from only the chronically homeless. That skews the data towards the people who are by definition the hardest to help.

[s1artibartfast]

Correct, This was my explicit intent. I posit that the chronically homeless are more disruptive, destructive, and harder to treat.

>Doesn't this just reinforce the point of the parent post, that there are two types of homelessness?

>They are explicitly separating the worst cases from those like the working mother in the RV?

>Looking at the 2019 report[1], the chronically homeless better fit the negative stereotype.