Playing the Numbers Game, Part I
You’ve probably heard something about the recent census taken of the City’s homeless population. In fact, there’s been a lot of hard news lately on the homelessness front-a spate of “one-year-later” follow-ups to Newsom’s assumption of the mayoral duties and the actual implementation of his long-in-the-works Care Not Cash policy. These news stories profess to eschew subjectivity and bias in favor of quantifiable facts as represented by statistics such as those produced by the census and those compiled by various City services, chief among them being that primary player in the Care Not Cash game: General Assistance (GA).
The problem is that, depending on where you go for your news, the “something” you’ve heard could vary from “Good News”… “San Francisco’s homeless population plummeted by more than a quarter in the past two years” … “dramatic change Mayor Gavin Newsom says is a credit to his policies of cutting cash assistance…” to “The 2,392 Disappeared Homeless in San Francisco,” “Leading Newspaper Fails to Challenge Mayor’s Homeless Count,” and “Outrageous Undercount of Homeless People in San Francisco.”
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
Of course, the fact that statistics can perpetrate falsehoods and perpetuate myths is well-known, hence the widespread familiarity of the above Mark Twain quote. Yet somehow, despite the fact that we’re all supposed to know better-to be more media savvy, if not necessarily more “street smart”-we continue to be taken in by the force wielded by news based on numbers… dispassionate, impartial numbers… quantifiable, not qualifiable news.
But when we step into the numbers game, is what we’re dealing with “the facts”? Or is it just the same players, with the same messages supporting the same agendas-except that they are, metaphorically speaking, “dressed to impress”?
Let’s try a little experiment: What follows is a series of numbers-related recent news and views excerpts regarding homelessness in San Francisco. (Longtime SF Chronicle readers, think L.M. Boyd’s “Grab Bag” column.)
Take a look at the figures; check out the figures of speech. Look for what’s missing; look at what’s there; think about bias in both cases. Remember, the goal of this game is increased understanding-at the very least.
On the Homeless Count
San Francisco’s homeless street population, as always, was the most difficult to assess. We relied on the coordinated efforts of nearly 300 volunteers and staff persons to complete a point-in-time canvassing of the entire city. (City and County of San Francisco Report, Willie Brown, Mayor, 2002)
Over 250 volunteers, including city employees, homeless services providers and regular citizens, conducted the bi-annual count of the city’s homeless population this evening. (Mayoral Press Office. Gavin Newsom, Mayor, January 25, 2005)
Since the City last counted its homeless population in 2002, the number of street people has dropped by 28 percent, to 6,248 from 8, 640. (SF Chronicle, Editorial, February 16, 2005).
According to the Administration, over the course of one year, the number of homeless living on San Francisco street s apparently fell by 41 percent… Two years ago, the City’s count identified 4,535 homeless people living on the streets. This year’s count yielded a total of 2,655. (San Francisco Bay View, Matt Gonzalez, February 23, 2005)
Now what’s wrong with this picture so far? And OK, apologies: the concept was definitely “You look; you judge.” But there’s just so much going on here; it’s almost impossible not to weigh in with a few comments. Like, for example, the count apparently relies on a sampling from numerous volunteers: 300 in 2002 and 250 this year, to be precise. Might not that simple fact alone skew the outcome a little? (More samplers; more samples; bigger numbers in 2002 than 2005?)
Then there’s the question of how it’s worded. There’s obviously some confusion going around as to the term “living in the streets.” Some reporting treats it as synonymous with “homeless”; others [rightly] call it out as a subset, leading to very different numbers (and statistics) being treated as unassailable facts.
Remember, this is not to point fingers and assess intent. [Is so-and-so willfully misinterpreting results to advance this-or-that personal or political agenda?] The goal is simply to illustrate the extent to which the numbers are not somehow “the real story.”
And just look: We’ve got different numbers of people, counting different things, in different places. (For example, there’s some confusion as to which additional homeless populations these “snapshot in time” counts include, such as the homeless people in jail, hospitals, or mental or substance abuse-related programs, and shelters and “transitional housing”; people in parks and parked cars, fair game or no?; particular districts included or excluded?; relatively benign weather vs. rainy day?) You get the drift.
[Note to the reader: Don’t worry, the next examples will be shorter and go without editorial intervention.]
On Care Not Cash
Wince San Francisco first began implementation of Care Not Cash in May [2004], 554 clients have been placed in permanent supportive housing; the homeless caseload has decreased by 61% (from 2,497 to 981), resulting in almost $2 million dollars [sic] in additional savings that will be used to expand housing and treatment options. (First Annual State of the Homeless Address, Press Release, Office of the Mayor)
During the first 10 months of Care Not Cash, the homeless CAAP caseload decreased by 1,868 persons (75%). In April (before Care Not Cash was implemented), there were 2,497 homeless CAAP clients and in February there were 629 homeless CAAP clients. Approximately 97% of the active homeless CAAP clients have been converted to Care Not Cash. (Care Not Cash Monthly Update, February 2005)
Doing simple math, there are a total of 12,000 to 16,000 people homeless in San Francisco. The Care Not Cash program applies to only 2,600 to 3,000 people, with 600 to 800 [of these] reportedly housed in SROs and 550 in shelters with a total of 1,150 to 1,350 unaccounted for. (Carol Harvey, “The Truth About Care Not Cash,”Street Spirit, March 2005).
Under Care Not Cash (CNC), the county may reduce the individual’s check by up to $348 simply by offering them a shelter bed. That bed is reserved for them up to 45 days whether they show up to sleep there or not. Most Care Not Cash recipients are offered shelter, not housing as promised in campaign literature…. In another survey conducted by the Coalition on Homelessness, 70% of immigrants felt they had been displaced from shelter due to Care not Cash. (CNC Fact Sheet, Coalition on Homelessness, October 2004)
This system results in 60 to 80 empty shelter beds a night (Shelter Directors Meeting 9-20-04)
Under Care Not Cash, GA has gone from a hardly princely $350 per month to a pitiful $59. Still, to quality, recipients must do a job search of 20 contacts per month. If you prorate the GA check over the time required to earn it, what CNC effectively does is employ a very specific and limited subset of the much larger overall homeless population at a rate that’s less than a quarter of the City’s minimum wage. The up-side? The promise of a shelter bed for an uncertain duration, leading to “permanent “ placement in an SRO somewhere down the line: I mean, how many flaming hoops would YOU jump through for $59 a month?” (Civil Rights Project Streetwatch notes, November 2004)
On Homelessness and Jail
As much as 40 percent of San Francisco’s inmate population is homeless, (SF Chronicle, June 2004)
What’s the cost of homelessness? In Atlanta, it’s $11 a day at a shelter, $53 a day in jail or $335 in a mental hospital. In San Francisco, make that $28 for the shelter, $94 for the jail and $1,278 for the hospital stay. What these raw numbers, compiled for the nonprofit Corporation for Supportive Housing, illustrate is that the societal costs of homelessness depend on the options we leave ourselves. (SF Examiner, Associated Press story, February 2005)
On Homeless Deaths
A record-high 157 homeless people died in San Francisco over the last 12 months according to a report released by city authorities December 15. The annual Homeless Death Review showed a sharp increase in such deaths since 1997 when 104 homeless people were reported dead, and just above the 154 dead counted in 1996.
The average age of the deceased was 42 years old. According to officials, drug overdoses accounted for 62 deaths, seven were suicides and four of the homeless died of severe infections. One hundred thirty-four of the homeless dead were male, twenty-two female. One was listed as transgender. (wsws.org, “San Francisco’s homeless dying at record rate,” December 1998)
While a great deal of fanfare surrounds the annual count of homeless people, there is. another count, an even more solemn count, which remains buried in a paupers grave along with thousands who have died without a place to call home. The annual homeless deaths review ceased to exist in 1999 in the Department of Public Health. Community members have been mourning the loss ever since. (STREET SHEET, “Dead People Don’t Count,” January 2003)
Citing budget constraints and repetitive results, the Department of Public Health issued its last report on who died and why in 1999. That was the year when health officials reported 169 deaths — the highest number ever recorded by the city in its 13 years of tracking homeless deaths. (SF Chronicle, “Protest Honors the Dying Homeless,” January 2003)
Hours before 250 volunteers fanned out across San Francisco to count the number of people living on the streets and in shelters, the Board of Supervisors passed measures urging officials to resume their annual tally of the number of homeless people who died in the city.
Forty percent fewer homeless people died on The City’s streets for the fiscal year ending last summer than the previous 12-month period, a decrease from 169 to 101… though Mayor Gavin Newsom began implementing his voter-backed Care Not Cash to cut welfare checks in favor of housing and other services in May, the drop in homeless deaths occurred mostly before the new policies took effect. The numbers compare those who have died from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, against the previous 12 months. (SF Examiner, “Citywide homeless deaths drop by 40%,” February 2005)
Relativity Theory Revisited
As I hope that the foregoing made abundantly clear, the numbers game is just that: a game.. Just as “no army ever went to war without god on its side,” no cause (or politician or ideology) ever went to press without the support of statistics.
The real problem comes when the numbers game wins out over human values.
It’s all relative… and that’s the point. Take the number One. One person missing in a thousands-plus census, not a blip on most readers’ radar. One soldier fails to return to camp after a dangerous scouting mission, “presumed missing in action.” One journalist disappears on assignment in disputed territory, “occupational hazard.”
But what happens when one of those “ones” is your [pick one: a) father, b) mother, c) brother, d) sister, e) beloved other relative, f) beloved?
Like I said, “It’s all relative”—which is to say that when it’s your relative, suddenly it becomes relevant… significant… important… vital… impossible to ignore… imperative to do something about.
So here’s my personal theory of relativity: The numbers game can only be won when it’s all relevant.
Editor’s note: If this article has gotten you interested in finding the most accurate statistics available, figuring out how to factor in bias when assimilating statistics from news stories, or-it is devoutly to be hoped!-doing both simultaneously, the best way to get started is by defining your topic and time frame carefully and then doing a web search on any computer with Internet access. No computer?…no electricity?!? Try the public library.
Anne
