I have really enjoyed reading your substack. One thing that I think would be really interesting for you to dig into and then see how it informs your volunteering and efforts throughout the year is the understanding of the different populations of unhoused people and then the specific / unique drivers that underlie the issue.
I say this because I remember speaking with a candidate for supervisor here in San Francisco, and she seemed to really understand the breakdown. For example ~7-8K homeless in San Francisco, ~30-40% homeless for at least a year or repeatedly homeless. Of that population, some portion is mental illness, some is drug use, some is a mix of both, some portion is "choice" (though that may be a poor choice of words). And in this group, particularly the mental ill, addicted tend to be the very visible part of the population that is viewed as a blight on society.
The balance (and majority) of the homeless population is transiently homeless (e.g., lost job, domestic violence). The family in the NYT article "A Migrant Family Struggles for a Year in San Francisco - The New York Times" lived in my neighborhood. The school they were living in for over a year is one that I considered sending my oldest child to. The photos of their kids at the park is the park my kids go to all the time. We are in the community with people from all walks of life and while I'm not religious, I do see this and think "where but for the grace of God go I."
Most candidate talking points don't address these factors...the pareto so to speak...because the general population doesn't really care. They just want "a solution" when truly it's hundreds of solutions. I feel like this is the type of data that you and I, as part of our training, rely on to inform action. But also it's a prompt to say - where can we influence policy or get at the root cause issue. Anyway - I love what you're doing. Can't wait to see your next posts.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Joy! I agree it’s critical to understand how the homeless population “breaks down” into different sub-populations because it’s definitely not a monolith.
It’s interesting that you use the term Pareto, because you can look at the problem of homelessness in two ways. On the one hand, most homeless people (the Pareto) do not suffer from severe mental illness. While substance abuse disorders are more common, data suggests these are more often a reaction to the harsh conditions of living on the street than a precipitating cause of homelessness. Which I think is why the liberal ‘answer’ to homelessness is housing first: if you can get people housed and provide optional services, more often than not that’s all the support they need.
On the other hand, the people who DO suffer from severe mental illness and substance use disorders, while a minority, tend to be extremely visible and disruptive. It doesn’t take too many of these individuals in a city before residents begin to feel concerned that they’ll be assaulted while just walking down the street.
So you need at least two solutions: one for the pareto but also one for the disruptive minority. And I think the solution to the latter is quite expensive and less clear, but obviously involves treatment and perhaps even involuntary commitment in some cases.
If you’ll permit me to buy a little time, I’ll plan to go deeper on this (with some supporting data / numbers) with a dedicated post within the next few weeks. Thanks again for your comment!
I have really enjoyed reading your substack. One thing that I think would be really interesting for you to dig into and then see how it informs your volunteering and efforts throughout the year is the understanding of the different populations of unhoused people and then the specific / unique drivers that underlie the issue.
I say this because I remember speaking with a candidate for supervisor here in San Francisco, and she seemed to really understand the breakdown. For example ~7-8K homeless in San Francisco, ~30-40% homeless for at least a year or repeatedly homeless. Of that population, some portion is mental illness, some is drug use, some is a mix of both, some portion is "choice" (though that may be a poor choice of words). And in this group, particularly the mental ill, addicted tend to be the very visible part of the population that is viewed as a blight on society.
The balance (and majority) of the homeless population is transiently homeless (e.g., lost job, domestic violence). The family in the NYT article "A Migrant Family Struggles for a Year in San Francisco - The New York Times" lived in my neighborhood. The school they were living in for over a year is one that I considered sending my oldest child to. The photos of their kids at the park is the park my kids go to all the time. We are in the community with people from all walks of life and while I'm not religious, I do see this and think "where but for the grace of God go I."
Most candidate talking points don't address these factors...the pareto so to speak...because the general population doesn't really care. They just want "a solution" when truly it's hundreds of solutions. I feel like this is the type of data that you and I, as part of our training, rely on to inform action. But also it's a prompt to say - where can we influence policy or get at the root cause issue. Anyway - I love what you're doing. Can't wait to see your next posts.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Joy! I agree it’s critical to understand how the homeless population “breaks down” into different sub-populations because it’s definitely not a monolith.
It’s interesting that you use the term Pareto, because you can look at the problem of homelessness in two ways. On the one hand, most homeless people (the Pareto) do not suffer from severe mental illness. While substance abuse disorders are more common, data suggests these are more often a reaction to the harsh conditions of living on the street than a precipitating cause of homelessness. Which I think is why the liberal ‘answer’ to homelessness is housing first: if you can get people housed and provide optional services, more often than not that’s all the support they need.
On the other hand, the people who DO suffer from severe mental illness and substance use disorders, while a minority, tend to be extremely visible and disruptive. It doesn’t take too many of these individuals in a city before residents begin to feel concerned that they’ll be assaulted while just walking down the street.
So you need at least two solutions: one for the pareto but also one for the disruptive minority. And I think the solution to the latter is quite expensive and less clear, but obviously involves treatment and perhaps even involuntary commitment in some cases.
If you’ll permit me to buy a little time, I’ll plan to go deeper on this (with some supporting data / numbers) with a dedicated post within the next few weeks. Thanks again for your comment!