1 in 200 San Franciscans Sleep on the Streets

The city’s homelessness crisis—and its causes—in seven charts.


This article is part of the SF Homeless Project, a collaboration between nearly 70 media organizations to explore the state of homelessness in San Francisco.

On any given night, 1 in 200 San Franciscans sleep on the street. Among the nation’s large urban areas, the city has the highest per capita rate of unsheltered homeless people—people who live outside, in cars, or in abandoned buildings, as opposed to in shelters or transitional housing. Over the past decade, as the city has experienced a tech boom and sky-high housing prices, the number of homeless people living in the open has increased 64 percent, to nearly 4,400 people, according to the most current (though controversial) count.

San Francisco’s growing homeless population

Homelessness isn’t unique to San Francisco, of course: All told, there are nearly 600,000 homeless individuals in the United States. That number has dropped slightly over the years, from 647,000 in 2007 to 575,000 last year. But in several big cities—such as New York, Seattle, Miami, San Francisco, and Washington, DC—the number of homeless people has increased over the same period.

Homelessness in 15 largest US cities, 2015

How’d we get here?

Given San Francisco’s increasingly visible, stubbornly high homelessness rate, it’s easy to forget that homelessness is a relatively recent phenomenon—one that housing experts agree began in earnest in the late ’70s and early ’80s.

To get a better sense of the historical and ongoing causes of homelessness, I spoke with researchers from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the California Housing Partnership Corporation. They pointed to a sequence of policies in the ’80s and ’90s that cut housing and social services for America’s poorest residents, eliminating the safety nets that once kept many people from landing on the streets.

The researchers at all three organizations pointed out a paradox: While homelessness is experienced and witnessed at a local level, the underlying causes are systematic, long term, and largely the results of decisions made at the federal level. These root causes have been well established for decades, says Stacey Murphy, the research director of the California Housing Partnership Corporation: the decline in wages, cuts to welfare and affordable housing, and the lack of mental health services. “It’s the same four things. It’s mystifying to me,” she says. “When people stop thinking about it as one person and think about policy—when you ask, as a nation, why so many people live on the streets and how we can not provide a basic level of services for those people—it raises profound questions about our society.”

Here are some factors that have driven San Francisco’s—and the nation’s—homelessness problem for the past four decades.

 

Affordable housing cuts

Reaganomics brought prosperity for some, but its small-government policies led to massive funding cuts to federal affordable housing programs and social services. “When we look at the affordable housing crisis today, there’s a direct line back to really severe cuts that were made to critical affordable housing programs under the Reagan administration,” says Diane Yentel, the president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. She points out that, unlike other federal safety nets like Social Security and Medicare, affordable housing isn’t automatic even if you qualify for it. “When public housing agencies open up a waiting list, you’ll see long lines of people waiting just to add their name to the waiting list—and they’re waiting literally decades,” she says. Today, there are just three affordable and available housing units for every 10 extremely low-income families, according to the NLIHC.

(The spike in 2009 was the effect of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus package, which included one-time funding for housing.)

 

Sagging incomes, soaring rents

As the chart below shows, family income roughly doubled across all income groups in the two decades after World War II. But starting in the mid-’70s, income disparities widened: Families in the top bracket continued to see their incomes rise while the incomes of middle-class and low-income families stagnated.

While income has flatlined for many Americans, rents are rising—and fast—in many cities. This is partly a matter of supply and demand: In cities like San Francisco, the supply of housing units has not kept up with population growth.

The gap between income and rent is particularly extreme among San Francisco’s low-income residents. Over the past decade, the monthly income of a low-income San Francisco household (one that makes 30 percent of the median, which is currently $107,700 annually) has increased by 14 percent, not adjusting for inflation. Over the same period, the median rent for a modest two-bedroom apartment rose 38 percent. In order to make that rent without spending more than 30 percent of their annual income, a person would need to make $44 an hour, or more than $91,000 per year.

 

Welfare cuts

Until 1996, poor families could count on federal welfare benefits, says Murphy. “It didn’t say you would get a lot, but if you were poor and met requirements, the federal government footed the bill. Welfare reform changed that.” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act signed by President Bill Clinton gave states the power to decide who would receive federal assistance. States imposed stricter eligibility rules, and all families were limited to a total of five years on welfare.

In 1995, three of four families with children in poverty received welfare benefits. By 2014, that number had dropped to one in four. Since welfare benefits are largely spent on rent, the reduction in benefits means fewer families in poverty are able to afford a home. “If you’re not receiving cash assistance at all, [welfare] is not helping you pay for housing,” says Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

Benefits don’t go as far

As the number of poor families on welfare has declined, so has the value of those benefits. In 1980, a family of three living in the Bay Area received a maximum benefit of $473 a month, or $1,361 in 2015 dollars. In 2015, the maximum such a family could receive was $704, an effective cut of nearly 50 percent. “Very few people are on assistance. but those who are say they can’t meet their basic needs like housing by just relying on assistance,” says Ife Floyd, a policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It’s the same story across the country.”

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate