Committee reviews 2015 point‑in‑time homeless count: modest net increase, older and more service‑intensive population

The committee met to review San Francisco’s 2015 point‑in‑time (PIT) homeless count and related survey findings, hearing from the Human Services Agency and the city’s survey partner about where the numbers changed and what those changes mean for services.

Trent (Human Services Agency) told the committee the PIT count conducted in late January found 6,686 people in the street and shelter‑based count, a roughly 4 percent rise from the prior count (6,436), and noted the count is a HUD‑required, single‑night snapshot used to secure Continuum of Care funds and to plan services. He said the unsheltered component rose substantially (roughly 3,505 people, a ~33 percent increase compared with two years earlier) while a separately collected youth count declined from 914 to 853.

Peter Connery of Applied Survey Research reviewed methodology and reporting standards, noting HUD’s strict PIT definitions exclude many doubled‑up households and some private or inaccessible locations; when all HUD reporting categories are combined, Connery reported 7,539 persons for San Francisco in 2015 (an increase of about 205 people, or roughly 4 percent). He cautioned that differences in local methods and access constraints can affect estimates and that supplemental approaches to capture doubled‑up or hard‑to‑access populations are resource‑intensive.

Both presenters emphasized important population shifts that affect planning. The HSA presentation showed the population is aging: the share of people age 51 and older rose substantially (from the 2013 level cited by HSA to 30 percent in 2015). More than half (51 percent) had a most‑recent homeless spell longer than a year, while 35 percent had a most‑recent spell shorter than six months and 10 percent had been homeless less than 30 days — data the agency says identifies opportunities for rapid rehousing and family reunification.

Trent also highlighted targeted successes: veterans fell from about 17 percent of the homeless population in 2011 to 9 percent in 2015, and chronic homelessness (the HUD definition tied to duration and disabling condition) declined from earlier years to roughly 1,745 chronic individuals in 2015. The agency reported cumulative placements and reunifications over the last two years — several hundred supportive housing units added and more than 1,500 people placed by HSA and DPH programs — as evidence the city is housing people even while net counts remain roughly level.

Committee members pressed presenters on two recurring issues: the limits of the HUD PIT definition (which excludes doubled‑up households and some private‑property locations) and whether SRO and other local data sources could supplement the PIT to better reflect youth and family homelessness. Connery and HSA staff acknowledged those gaps and encouraged using supplemental city or service‑provider data where available; Connery said HUD auditing rules constrain which counts are reported to HUD but that locally compiled datasets can be appended to city reports.

Public commenters urged both immediate interim actions (use of underused city parcels, temporary modular shelters, private donations to scale interim capacity) and better documentation of the populations they see on the street, arguing official counts understate visible homelessness in some neighborhoods.

The committee moved to file the PIT report; the motion by Supervisor Tang was taken without objection and the clerk will transmit items acted on to the Board agenda per the clerk’s announcement.

Why it matters: the PIT count shapes HUD funding eligibility and planning for supportive housing, outreach and navigation services. Presenters recommended continuing supportive housing investment, expanding low‑threshold navigation options for people unable to use traditional shelters, and supplementing PIT data with targeted local counts where feasible.

The committee did not adopt new policy at the hearing; it filed the report and expects departments to continue using the data in program planning and in upcoming budget discussions.