The chart above displays the number of sheltered, unsheltered, and unsheltered youth homeless individuals counted in the relatively standardized, biennial point-in-time counts conducted from 2005–2017.

Though right track ratings do not appear correlated to year-to-year fluctuations in unsheltered homeless populations, the consistent increase in unsheltered homeless people from 2005–2017 is correlated with a significant increase in the percentage of voters identifying homelessness as a top issue.

As more voters begin to care more about homelessness and unsheltered populations only increase despite years of hearing about new housing, right track ratings have plateaued in the low 40s over the past two surveys.

With homelessness consistently the top, or one of the top few issues, it’s a fair assumption that many voters’ opinions on whether the city is headed in the right or wrong direction depend on how well they feel the current government is handling homelessness.

Measuring any given mayoral administration’s progress on reducing homelessness is complicated, because the most effective way to minimize the number of homeless people in San Francisco is to provide permanent, supportive housing to prevent those at risk from becoming homeless in the first place.

That’s why it can be true that from 2011–2016 the City built 1,474 new units of supportive housing, and in 2015 there were 399 more unsheltered homeless people (not including the youth count) than in 2011.

Most of the approximately $300 million San Francisco currently spends annually on homelessness goes toward running over 7,000 supportive housing units and preventing thousands of housing insecure families and individuals from becoming homeless.

We should also always keep in mind the shallow insight polling provides into voters’ perspectives, given there is no follow up regarding what it means to an individual to choose homelessness as a top issue. It’s unclear whether voters who prioritize the issue expect one Mayor to house all unsheltered individuals throughout their tenure, house half of them, or put them all on a one-way flight to Cuba.

One counterpoint to the idea that city officials are incapable of reducing the number of unsheltered individuals is that we simply haven’t tried spending enough on services. Recently passed Prop C (Our City, Our Home) will effectively double the amount San Francisco spends on homeless and supportive housing services should it go into effect, pending challenges to the legality of the revenue source.

61.34% of San Francisco voters voted for Prop C on November 6, 2018, expressing their support for increasing annual spending on homelessness and supportive housing services by approximately $300 million. Despite this decisive mandate, not a single dollar of the funds collected has been spent on services.

Had Prop C passed by a 2/3 majority, that money would be going into effect as I write this. Opposing Prop C was a risky political move for Mayor London Breed, especially at a time when homelessness is at the top of most voters’ minds.

Now that the measure passed narrowly short of the margin necessary to go into effect immediately, a margin it likely would have achieved had Breed endorsed it, her opposition appears in hindsight to be the most significant factor preventing the immediate implementation of increased funding.

Breed has set the goal of creating 1,000 new shelter beds by 2020, with 491 opened over the past two years. At least 1,100 people are consistently on shelter waitlists as of a hearing yesterday before the SF Board of Supervisors Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee.

Governor Newsom recently proposed increasing state level funding for homelessness services, which will also hopefully result in housing more unsheltered people. Newsom has not, however, addressed whether he plans to call for a state of emergency on homelessness to free up emergency shelter resources.

It’s also worth mentioning that when he was first elected Mayor of San Francisco, Newsom unveiled a policy called the “ten year plan to abolish chronic homelessness.” Spoiler alert: it didn’t work.

Ultimately, the apparent paradox of how public pressure and spending on homelessness services can increase alongside the number of unsheltered individuals highlights the limited ability of local policy to address concerns stemming from systemic failures that originate far beyond City Hall.

It’s difficult to answer the question of whether city leaders are theoretically capable of reducing the number of unsheltered homeless individuals, although it’s clear that doing so within our current Overton window is highly unlikely.

The available evidence seems to point toward the conclusion that anything San Francisco does will be a band-aid on larger failures at the state and federal level that date back decades. That doesn’t mean a band-aid isn’t valuable though, especially when its effectiveness is a matter of life and death for those enduring the elements on our streets.