southeast part of the city, [speaker not understood], that's where the services are. we really need to do a better job of getting services that are more culturally competent. linguistickly competent to the folks who need them so they're not traversing across the city accessing services because there aren't any in their neighborhood. i think we're getting better. [speaker not understood] will testify, we have right now just providence church which is in the southeast part of the city. >> but i know we're fortunate with a lot of grassroots and community based in the neighborhood. can i share one thing that helped me as a policy maker on food and access, taking the snap challenge and putting myself in the soft shoes. i definitely understood issues of homelessness or of hunger and food clearly. i know there is a group called

faithful street group ministries and others who try to take policy makers into the streets with more empathy, the situation of the homeless population? i'm considering how i can i understand it -- you're a staffer, you do that. >> i work with clients almost every day. who interacts with clients in special shelter directors, meet with them regularly, they have a very good understanding and empathy of what is a.m. ~ what's going on on the streets. and really, it's -- solving this issue is bigger than the level of empathy, which is there. it calls for a lot more than that, which is funding and systematic changes in some areas to better serve folks who are on the street. >> i think what i saw at least within the food access open

groups, project had almost a leadership team taking a snap challenge and have changed the culture i think of how they looked at the issue. for me personally that helped a lot. i'm trying to look into what other ways we can be policy makers to be the issues. working with clients and community members is one thing. but for a short time opens their eyes. i'll leave it at that. >> i think when we're dealing with this issue, which can be a politically charged issue like homelessness, we really need to strip thats away and try to be as empirical as we can, look at the date a. when i talk about the shelter, thinking through what they might look like, we don't have a good sense of who is in our shelter system. we have a shelter reservation system now we've been able to convert to a database as well.

with you don't have a lot of information on exit transitional housing. we haven't in last years drawn on best practice research in the area. 5, 6 years ago we were traveling all over the country looking at picking pieces from everywhere. let's not reinvent the wheel. [speaker not understood], that's where i believe change is driven from, from data, promising and evidence-based practices. not to miss the importance of how difficult it is to live on the street every day. hopefully everyone in this room understands that. sound public policy divorced from turf and idealism, ideologies and preconceived notions that are brought to the table. which i'm certainly -- everyone brings those biases in. to really use data to strip

that away is really important. >> okay. anything else? i know you've gone through the last slide. >> i have, i've talked a lot. yeah, i've mentioned. i'm just running through my list on thing we can talk about. i talked about long-territoriv stayer, the a queuity index, supportive housing, ayev touched on everything you want to date on. >> just from a data perspective, you mentioned shelter beds are >> wrap, yeah. the permanent supportive housing. i don't have the city-wide number. i have the hsa budget here.

that's not the right number. here it is. >> so, you're going to do the math, supervisor. 15 million for care not cash. another 19 million for master lease on loss, and mc kinney in there. in general fund let's call it 35 million in general money for housing and shelter plus care. in hsa's budget for permanent supportive housing. >> and how many units? >> about 1300 in cap and about another 2200 and, so, i'm doing back of the envelope stuff. i can get you an actual per unit cost.

it's about 3500 general fund funded for operational services. >> obviously devil is in the details here. i think as we think about things, i a grief bee with you, looking at those cost arms [speaker not understood]. >> i've done it, i just don't have it with me. >> one question. you talked about, fully agreed with this. if we're doing outreach, the ability to offer something at that point in time. do we have within -- i know you said we have some allocation of shelter beds for either the hot team or other -- >> so, my staff, joyce crumb tells me we have about 30 set aside beds for the hot team in the shelter. >> i guess we'll talk about the adequacy of that or not or pros and cons of that.

colleagues, any further questions for mr. rohr? thank you so much for your data. much appreciated. at this point i'd like to call -- we have people here from applied research who did the hsa count and were involved in that. are they still -- and peter [speaker not understood], samantha, a colleague of yours. thank you for coming today and thank you for doing what you do for us. we're just letting you be an opportunity to speak. i think when people see, they walk to talk about how it was collected and what have you, talk to the people who did the collection themselves and also i think my understanding is what you've done as well look at other jurisdictions also. just want to give you an opportunity to speak, maybe talk about what you've dub, if there are relevant insights in terms of what other places are doing that would be helpful as well. >> sure. well, first off, thank you for the opportunity to talk about

the 2013 point time [speaker not understood]. there's a little background, applied survey research has been in business since 1980 and we've been doing point in time counts since 1999. and currently we've done probably close to 50 point time counts throughout mostly california, but in some other communities as well. we've had the opportunity to work in large urban cities such as atlanta, las vegas, los angeles. we've worked in santa clara, and we've also worked in rural communities as well, mendocino, sonoma, and other spots. in 2013 we provided technical assistance and direct assistance and point in time counts in other communities in california as well as san francisco.

those include sonoma, monterey, santa cruz, san luis obispo, and santa clara counties. so, we've got a pretty good field for the methodological issues and doing the counts and we brought aboard in san francisco to help bring some best practice ideas in a technical assistance fashion. we think that it's important, as was mentioned by both trent and bevan, to be data driven and having good consistent and quality data is really important to be able to see the trends and see the impacts of various intervention strategies. so, as we evaluated the san francisco strategies, there's a lot of good things, good best practices that are in place.

one of which is 100% canvassing of the entire city. in the early stages of your pet counts, there was more of a sample or hot spot strategy and that's been replaced by 100% canvassing which is real positive. there's been increased collaboration with national, state, and county agencies to participate in the count and represent and do targeted outreach to many of the specialty groups and subpopulations within the [speaker not understood] community. there's been a greater alliance on hmis data in the count rather than calling up shelters as was done in the early days when hmis compliance was not to the level it is today. >> can you clarify hmia? >> that's the homeless management information system,

which is the electronic database which hub has basically mandated the communities that use hud funding use as a case management tool. and are integrated into national reporting requirements for the fund -- the annual nofa funding applications that fund your federal programs here. one of the other enhancements we've done in particular in san francisco is to expand a face to face survey of homeless persons throughout the city in both sheltered and street environment. so, we've done our best to do administer a randomized sample of surveys and in this

particular 2013 count, we administered roughly a thousand surveys to get qualitative information that gives some of the insights into the residency, to numbers of chronic homeless, the subpopulation detail that's required for local planning and national reporting. there is also important other data that come out of the survey that's been cited earlier such as the residency and so on, and that's been expanded significantly since the beginning of the point in time counts. in 2013 in particular, a big enhancement is part of the continuous improvement effort in the pit count has been to comply with the hud requirements to better profile youth homelessness. and in particular, the

development of a new reporting category which is transitioning age youth, which is roughly 16 to 18 through 24 which is a separate reporting group, and was not previously profiled effectively in the county and which arose out of a national observation that the typical count logistics and methodology excluded certain groups such as families and especially children in their data collection efforts. so, thats was resulted in just under -- just around 00 additional persons found in the 2013 count that were in this unaccompanied youth category, the transition aged youth. so, there's just been an ongoing participation in these

best practice reviews and we've seen a very good, steady increase in the qualitative efforts in the point and time count to more effectively profile and provide outreach services during the count. the youth -- the youth in particular which was a special kind of independent outreach effort was with the cooperation of a lot of local service providers, of youth service, homeless youth services including larkin street as well as many others. and other outreach strategies targeting folks that are living in vehicles, living in the parks, in abandoned buildings and so on, and homeless that are difficult to find by our typical enumeration volunteers

and participants. so, we'll have -- we've had outreach folks that have special knowledge of some of these hard to reach homeless to actively participate in the study and have improved the overall quality. so, we feel in general that the comparative numbers with the methodology that's been employed in the last couple of counts to the 2013 count is consistent and enables good policy and strategic planning that will help inform the next version of the ten-year plan to end chronic homelessness. we were also asked to talk a little about our experience in some other communities and how san francisco is different or look a little different than

what we've experienced elsewhere. in the communities that i mentioned earlier that we worked in in california, we found as opposed to the overall national reduction in homelessness that was found by the annual housing assessment report to congress, that most of the communities that we worked in saw an increase in homelessness. >> supervisor mar? >> thank you for explaining the methodology. you mentioned people living in their vehicles, cars. do you have a sense of how many people are living in their cars or vehicles now and how that's changed over time? >> when i talk, i'll ask samantha to look it up on the chart. i don't have that committed to memory. >> and supervisor farrell says that we'll be getting some of the data. the other question is my district has most of golden gate park. how many homeless people,

chronic and not chronic, live in golden gate park? do you ve the ability to hone in on that geographical area? that data would be helpful to me. mr. rohr shared one-third of the population is african-american. is that consistent with your numbers? i know when the census has done its counts, there is a civil rights battle to under count for low-income and african americans. how do you do your count? they use the census and other ways, but how do you adjust for maybe an under count of your numbers especially reaching non-english speaking populations like the undocumented population? >> [speaker not understood] will come up with the other questions you had. i do know one number off the top of my head. you mentioned the ethnicity

issue. our survey indicated that african americans represented 24% of the homeless population in our survey. and in your profile of 6% in the general population is accurate. relative to making adjustments for under count, the hud guidelines that are put out for the count are very prescriptive and they actually change every single -- practically every single year. certainly every two years. so, there is no ability to do any additional estimations over what you observe on your count typically unless you have a scientific sample. so, doing adjustments for various factors of under count is not really allowed in the official reporting.

that said, the definition is also very, very specific in that it does eliminate significant folks that many of us would consider part of the count, but are actually excluded from the count because of the homeless definition that hud applies for point in time count. specifically, double up persons and couch surfers are excluded from the count. they're very difficult to actually observe and officially enumerate in any kind of methodology because of privacy concerns and our inability to get into private property and homes. but the county office of education and the education districts throughout the state have a slightly broader definition which includes double ups and we know from the

data that they supply that the double up number is a very significant number. sometimes, you know, 5 to 6 times the point in time number that can be reported. so, there's also specific outreach challenges, as you said, with ethnic groups to get to, and our ability to outreach to them is dependent upon the ability of the community to have folks that can reach into those, into those communities and get a window to their living conditions. and then commonly, what we'll find in a lot of ethnic groups that they vary significantly fall into that double up category. we found that latino families and many asian families that are what are probably homeless by most common definitions.

even if we knew about them, they would be excluded from the specific reporting. so, in general, we always -- we don't do any adjustments of our observed count because we're restricted from doing so and we don't have the certainty to be able to do it. more often than not, we've felt that the definition is probably more limiting to the count number than any kind of statistical estimations. >> too much in transitional, have we seen an increase in 50 years, the love era, are there more younger people coming now or is this a common trend that's been flat? >> well, it's kind of hard to say. we certainly don't -- we don't have the quantitative data back

up in san francisco because thises was the first year that we did the youth count we have as a firm been doing youth count since 2005 and have been advocates of coming up with dedicated youth count strategies. in los angeles is where we first rolled out the dedicated youth counts and we haven't seen increases in los angeles as youth category. but until recently youth was defined as under 18. and generally unaccompanied youth under 18 is not as great as that 18 to 24 age group which is -- which is now an official reporting category. did you have numbers on

vehicles? >> i don't have it with me. [speaker not understood]. >> the vehicle numbers in our observations in other communities have been increasing dramatically in places like santa clara, santa cruz in particular, monterey where we've seen huge increases in the vehicularly housed, as we call them because historically we know that youth -- not youth. historically we know that living in your own car is one of the first places, one of the first refuges that homeless will go to if they have it. and then anecdotally, our experience has been that that is rarely sustained longer than a year because the high cost of keeping up your car, the tickets and the code enforcement issues with parking and other related issues. >> do you want to help me out here, 13% -- >> can you speak into the

microphone, that would be great. >> it was 13% of those found in the point in time counted living in their cars, 13%. >> and, again, that's consistent with other communities. whereas the san francisco overall point in time count was, 2013, was roughly flat when compared to the 2011 number. some comparative numbers in neighboring communities, santa clara went up 8%. los angeles 18%. new york city 22%. i didn't include it in my notes here. santa cruz went up 28%. and consistently, the numbers of unsheltered are even higher than san francisco's 59%.

they range from, you know, 60, 67, 68% to 82% in santa cruz county, which is our home county. what we -- one of the other questions you asked earlier was commented on is that even in this environment where there have obviously been a tremendous number of successes from various departments and programs that have been developed in the city, why isn't the number going down. and our observations, and again, the point in time count doesn't get to all the why's. it's not really the purpose of it, unfortunately. this has been a very tough economic period. and just to stay flat in this environment represents a huge accomplishment.

the other thing that we've observed in some of the other communities is this whole double up population which, because it's ineligible for putting time counts, doesn't get quantified very effectively. it's also very challenging to quantify it. what we have noticed in particular in one community that we did measure double up homeless was in santa cruz county that the number of double ups in santa cruz county in the last two years increased approximately 50 to 75%. and what we're getting from that data and from other anecdotal sources is that throughout the communities that we've worked in, the first safety net of friends and

family is being severely tapped by folks that have lost their housing and are on the verge of homelessness. so, the traditional family housing safety net that has been able to absorb these recession cycles that we're in right now is add a saturation point forcing more and more folks onto the street as that safety net is unable to support the friends and families that they've taken in, you know, during these economic hard times. so, we think that that's likely happening in san francisco as well which, of course, is further exacerbated by, you know, the housing shortage that exists here and the increasing demand for that housing. you know, you can see it in

communities like los angeles where they have the 18% increase in homelessness amidst a real renaissance in their whole service sector and public-private partnerships that -- with united way and other agencies which, you know, have not been done in years, yet even with those interventions they saw a significant increase. one of the other comments that i did want to talk a little bit about, we did note that roughly 39%, you know, came to san francisco as homeless. trent mentioned this. this is whether services locally are magnet for homeless. this is another fascinating area, homeless mobility. the numbers that we've seen in

other commutes are very consistently in the 60 to 70% range that the homeless in a measured community had lived previously in that community as part of a normal life. so, the actual mobility of services attracting the homeless is something that we haven't seen any empirical data to support. and the numbers in san francisco are very consistent with the other communities that we've worked in. >> have you seen over time as well? that is really helpful information to know. >> yeah, there's -- i think there's a miss understanding that the homeless move around

almost in a market-based system where they see where services are and make a calculation that they're going to go to where those services are like a consumer. and our experience has been those kind of movements definitely exist, but they're not dissimilar to folks that are the general population that are attracted to the city for employment opportunities, friends and family, resources that they have in looking for an opportunity with their safety net. and hoping that that safety net can turn them around. and this whole idea of residency and what really defines a resident is not very specific, but our feeling is the numbers are