2015 Needs Assessment: Consumer Advocacy
San Francisco has changed rapidly in the last two decades, shaped by undercurrents of gentrification,
immigration, housing, and economic crises. San Francisco’s community of seniors and adults with
disabilities is nestled within this larger context. To remain safely in the community, it is essential that
they have access to the full range of available benefits and support resources. Because of specific
barriers to service, many consumers require assistance with advocacy.
Consumer advocacy programs assist seniors and adults with disabilities to advocate for their rights and
services either on an individual level or at the level of systems change. The direct service models of
consumer advocacy are those that either: (a) strengthen consumers’ ability to advocate on their own
behalf to access services or defend rights; or (b) provide volunteer or professional staff to advocate on
consumers’ behalf. Systems advocacy efforts are coordinated activities designed to influence specific
planning processes, systems changes, and/or legislation that will benefit seniors and adults with
disabilities in key issue areas.
Population Overview1
Seniors
Location – all and low-income seniors. Approximately 1 in 5 San Francisco residents is over age 60 (the
total senior population is nearing 160,000). District 3 is home to the largest senior population: 18,736.
Districts 1, 4, 7, and 11 all have over 16,000 seniors each.
Low-income seniors (age 65+ with income below the poverty threshold) tend to reside in Districts 3 and
6. District 3, which includes Chinatown and North Beach, is home to 7,729 seniors or 18.4% of the city’s
low-income seniors. District 6 includes SOMA and the Tenderloin neighborhoods and houses 5,581 lowincome seniors (14% of the city’s low-income seniors).
1
Unless otherwise specified, analysis is based on American Community Survey 2013 5-Year estimates. Data tables
with exact population estimates by district can be found at the end of this assessment. Note: Census data available
at the census tract level (used to identify supervisorial districts) does not permit crosscutting and typically defines
seniors as those age 65+. Additionally, less data is available for younger adults with). Where possible, IPUMS data –
which allows for crosscutting data by defined categories but does not allow for analysis by location – will be
incorporated into this assessment.
1
Race/ethnicity. The majority of older adults (age 65+) in San Francisco are either white (47%) or API
(43%). API seniors are the largest group in most districts. Districts 9, 10, and 11 have the largest minority
presence: over 64% of older residents are minorities in these areas. The chart below provides the racial
and ethnic profile of each district; Data on income is only available at the 100% FPL and suggests that
the racial/ethnic profile of very low-income seniors tends to mirror the above profile.
Language. Language trends tend to reflect the race/ethnicity profiles discussed above. 32% or almost 1
in 3 older adults age 65+ in the city speak English “not well” or “not at all.” 25% of older adults have
limited English proficiency and speak a language in the census Asian-Pacific Islander (API) languages
group (e.g., Cantonese, Tagalog).
District 6 (54%) and District 3 (50%) have the highest rates of limited English proficiency. Fluency rates
are also lower than the city average in Districts 1 (Richmond district) and 4 (Outer Sunset), which
historically have been home to API and Russian communities. API languages are most prevalent for
limited English speakers with the exception of District 2, where Indo-European languages (e.g., Russian
and Persian) are most common among non-English speakers.
2
Younger Adults with Disabilities
Location – All & Low-Income Younger Adults with Disabilities. Approximately 41,000 younger adults with
disabilities2 live in San Francisco, representing approximately 7% of the population age 18 to 64. District
6 is home to the most younger adults with disabilities: 6,951, which represents 17% of the city’s
population of younger adults with disabilities. Districts 5, 9, 10, and 11 each contain between 10 and
11% of the city’s younger adults with disabilities.
Low-income adults with disabilities (age 18 to 64 with income below the poverty threshold) are most
likely to live in District 6 or District 5. 43% of the city’s low-income younger adults with disabilities live in
these districts (29% in District 6 alone), which may be due in part to the availability of low-income
housing options (single residence occupancy hotels and public housing).
Race/ethnicity. As depicted in the chart on the next page, census data indicates that YADs in San
Francisco are most commonly white: 38.8% citywide. This trend is consistent in all districts except
Districts 10 and 11. African-Americans also represent significant portions of YADs: 16.6% citywide.
Notably, African-Americans represent only 6% of the entire city population.
While it may be that the white and African-American communities have higher rates of disability, this
disparity between general population trends and census data on disabilities – especially the low
representation of API in the YAD population – suggests that some minority communities may be less
likely to be diagnosed with or report disabilities or are undercounted by the census. Income data by
race/ethnicity and disability is not available by supervisorial district.
2
Census data for younger adults with disabilities age 18 to 59 is not available at the census tract level (used to
identify supervisorial districts). IPUMS ACS 2013 1-Year Estimates suggest approximately 33,500 adults with
disabilities age 18 to 59 live in San Francisco.
3
Disability Characteristics. Per census data, the most common disability among younger adults with
disabilities in San Francisco is cognitive difficulty. 20,293 or approximately half of adults reporting
disabilities have difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions because of a physical,
mental, or emotional problem. While there is some variation, at least 40% of YADs in each district have
trouble with cognition (the maximum is 60% in District 6). Another common disability is difficulty
ambulating: 18,821 or 46% of this population have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
4
Service Areas
The remainder of this assessment will focus on the key service areas. The preceding discussion of
population trends provides some relevant insight into the need for advocacy services and will be
supplemented by additional analysis directly related to the specific service areas.
I. Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program (HICAP)
The Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program (HICAP) is a state-sponsored, volunteersupported program that provides free counseling to Medicare beneficiaries about their benefits, rights
and options, and other health insurance-related questions. Many eligible persons have difficulty
navigating the Medicare system because of limited English proficiency, literacy, and issues related to
poverty. Census data3 suggests the prevalence of the need for extensive services:
 33% of San Francisco seniors and 14% of younger adults with disabilities speak English “not
well” or “not at all.”
 23% of San Francisco seniors and 21% of younger adults with disabilities have less than a
high school degree, making them more likely to require counseling services for their health
insurance benefits.
 16% of seniors and 35% of younger adults with disabilities in San Francisco are living under
the federal poverty threshold.
San Francisco’s Medicare-enrolled population has increased by 16% over the last five years to
approximately 140,000 beneficiaries.4 This increase is likely due in large part to baby boomers, who
began turning 64 in 2010, and can be expected to continue increasing for several years as baby
boomers continue to age into Medicare. Those who are newly eligible for Medicare are likely to have
questions about enrollment procedures and drug
benefits. Furthermore, many consumers remain
confused about the impact of federal health reform
legislation on Medicare benefits, which may increase
demand for HICAP services.
As shown in the map to the right, seniors age 65+ tend
to live in the western part of the city, as well as District 3
(Chinatown and North Beach). Please refer to the map in
the Population Overview section for information about
location of younger adults with disabilities who may be
eligible for Medicare after two years of disability
benefits from the Social Security Administration. HICAP
services are typically offered at locations throughout the
city in order to reach as many consumers as possible.
The current provider of HICAP services in San Francisco
reports a high volume of consumers. In FY1314, 1,707 persons received HICAP counseling – well above
3
Based on IPUMS ACS 1-Year 2013 Estimates. “Seniors” refers to adults age 60+ and “younger adults with
disabilities” refers to adults age 18 to 59.
4
There were 139,544 persons enrolled in Medicare because of age or disability status in 2012. In 20017, there
were 119,814 eligible individuals. Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare Enrollment
Reports: http://www.cms.gov/MedicareEnrpts/.
5
the 1,329 benchmark established by the California Department of Aging. The number of consumer
contacts increased in several key areas in FY1314, including contacts with low-income beneficiaries
(increased by 46% from the prior year and exceeded the CDA benchmark by approximately 4,700
contacts) and contacts regarding Part D enrollment and assistance (increased by 43% and exceeded
CDA benchmarks by 3,300 contacts). This data suggests that the need for healthcare counseling
remains high in San Francisco.
II. Home Care Advocacy
To remain safely in their homes, seniors and adults with disabilities often require help with non-medical
personal care and basic chores. The need for in-home care is often especially crucial following hospital
discharge, and failing to secure adequate support can lead to poor recovery or re-hospitalization. In
some cases, the lack of in-home and other services upon discharge can result in a client being referred
to Adult Protective Services. Without adequate support, seniors and younger adults with disabilities
face higher rates of adverse events that affect both quality of life and long-term care costs (e.g.,
dehydration, falls, burns, missed meals, and missed doctor’s appointments). Community-based in-home
services facilitate living at home rather than moving to institutional settings (Wiener, 2004).
By far the largest home care program in the city, the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program has
consistently grown and also consistently been subject to programmatic changes. The continued growth
indicates the ongoing and increasing need for the service. As of December 2014, approximately 22,500
care recipients were active in IHSS, supported by over 17,000 care providers. Program changes can
cause significant confusion and upheaval for the participants. Since 2009, the state has attempted
several times to enact cost-saving strategies, including cuts to consumer care hours. While federal
judges twice prevented these cuts, a permanent 7% cut was implemented July 1, 2014. A newer
anticipated area of conflict is related to the recent Medi-Cal expansion. Younger consumers who are
newly eligible under the less restrictive MAGI criteria will have to meet traditional eligibility criteria to
continue receiving Medi-Cal upon turning 65. These consumers may be unprepared for this transition
and be at risk of losing crucial home care.
Organizing an effective IHSS program that is responsive to consumer needs requires significant
coordination between numerous constituent groups: consumers, providers, unions, the Department of
Aging and Adult Services, the San Francisco Public Authority, the IHSS Consortium, hospitals, and other
community-based service providers. For over twenty years the IHSS Task Force has served as a place for
stakeholders to plan, problem-solve, and coordinate of local and state advocacy. The Office on the
Aging’s Home Care Advocacy funding supports the group. Examples of significant issues addressed by
the Task Force in recent years include: (1) hospital discharge and transitional care issues related to IHSS;
(2) access gaps for consumers whose income or assets are higher than the standard SSI rate; and (3)
coordination of responses to state policy changes or proposed state budget cuts.
III. LTC Consumer Rights Advocacy
Recent years have shown significant increases in the availability of a variety of home and communitybased services, including: rapid growth in IHSS; growth of the Community Living Fund, which helps
persons leaving Laguna Honda Hospital or at risk of institutionalization; implementation of several
Medicaid waivers; investments in supportive housing; and the implementation of the Diversion and
6
Community Integration Program. Meanwhile, state and local funding cuts have resulted in reduced
services in a variety of related service areas. The IHSS program in particular has faced dramatic state
cuts, only to have funding restored due to court interventions. The Medi-Cal expansion has instituted
new, less restrictive eligibility criteria for younger adults, expanding healthcare access to individuals who
may have little experience with healthcare systems. The changing landscape of home and communitybased services can be confusing for consumers, caregivers, and providers alike.
While there are a variety of information and referral services designed to support consumers in
identifying available services (e.g., DAAS Integrated Intake, Aging and Disability Resource Centers, 211,
311), staff at those programs do not often have the experience or time to assist individuals who are
experiencing access barriers. Legal services providers sometimes assist with a variety of programrelated grievances, but many circumstances do not really require the professional services of a lawyer
and could be resolved more efficiently through consumer education and empowerment. Case managers
often act as long term care consumer rights advocates, but many consumers do not require the care
planning and social work component of those services. Long term care consumer rights advocacy
services are intended to educate individual and targeted groups of consumers about the basic rights
guaranteed in the various long term care services in San Francisco, and to provide individual assistance
in navigating dispute resolution, hearings, and other grievances as needed, thus filling a niche left fairly
vacant by those other services.
In addition to providing direct assistance to individuals and educating consumer groups, long term care
consumer rights advocacy services are also intended to provide trainings to agencies and develop
outreach materials in order to educate providers about consumers’ rights and the relevant processes.
This service is also intended to include strategic thinking about large-scale advocacy and tracking of
issues related to long-term care for report to the Long-Term Care Coordinating Council.
IV. Empowerment
While advocates can – and do – perform valuable work on behalf of the senior and disability
communities, San Francisco understands the great value in empowering consumers to self-advocate on
both personal and community-level issues. Many seniors and adults with disabilities have the capacity
and desire to be self-sufficient and to work proactively on behalf of their community. Providing a more
comprehensive orientation to social service systems empowers seniors and adults with disabilities to
navigate service systems, which can increase sense of self-efficacy and have a positive impact on
physical and mental health (Paukert et al, 2010). Training on public policy systems empowers individuals
to advocate for desired programs and affect larger level change on behalf of their community.
Historically, empowerment programs in San Francisco have been focused in the following ways:
 Individual empowerment: These classes teach seniors and adults with disabilities how to gain
access to community resources, such as transportation, housing, and health care, and how to
advocate for themselves. These classes also provide a forum in which seniors and adults with
disabilities can share information and support each other. The program is motivational,
encouraging consumers to enhance their quality of life. These classes have been provided
through the Senior & Disability Survival School.
 Community empowerment: These classes teach individuals how to achieve systems-level change
through the civic and political process using the tools of advocacy and volunteerism, training
participants to be community organizers. Offered in multiple languages, the program’s
7
curriculum includes sessions on community organizing, lobbying, meeting facilitation, public
speaking, diversity, and leadership. Trainings may focus on particularly relevant advocacy areas
(for example, recent trainings focused on transit justice and advocating for free MUNI for lowincome seniors and adults with disabilities). Graduates are encouraged to become involved in
efforts to organize their own communities, and many go on to volunteer with organizations
serving seniors and persons with disabilities. These trainings have been provided through the
Senior & Disability University.
In keeping with the empowerment focus, curriculum for both of these programs has historically
incorporated the input of the Senior & Younger Adults with Disabilities Empowerment Advisory Council.
Classes are offered throughout the city and in multiple languages to increase empowerment in multiple
communities.
V. Housing Advocacy
Housing continues to be the most overarching, urgent challenge facing seniors and younger adults with
disabilities. San Francisco real estate is among the most expensive in the country, with the median home
price of an owner-occupied unity estimated at $744,600, 103% higher than the state median.5 At $3,120,
the average market rate rent for a 1-bedroom unit in San Francisco is well over twice the average Social
Security retirement check and over three times the maximum SSI payment.6
As shown in the chart to the right,
census data7 indicates seniors are less
likely to rent and pay less in rent than
adults with disabilities and the nondisabled younger adult population. This
tendency is likely to in large part to rent
control protections and smaller units.
This data should not be taken to indicate
that seniors are not at risk of significant
housing-related issues. If housing is lost
(e.g., due to eviction), seniors – who
tend to live on fixed incomes – will face
extreme difficulty finding a new
affordable location in the city. With
market rates rising throughout the Bay
Area, consumers may no longer be able
to find a new home nearby and may end up quite far from the community and services they rely on.
5
U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Data from Zillow, a real estate
service that tracks market rate trends, estimates the median home price in December 2014 is $1 million in San
Francisco compared to $437,400 statewide.
6
Average rent is $1,736 per month, while the average Social Security check in San Francisco is approximately
$1,161 per month and the maximum monthly payment for an aged or disabled SSI recipients is $973. (Sources:
Market rent data from Priceonomics and U.S. Social Security Administration 2013)
7
IPUMS ACS 2013 1-Year Estimates. Given the rapidly changing state of the housing market, census data on rent is
useful as a point of reference but may be somewhat outdated.
8
Public agencies spend millions each year to fund non-profit affordable housing, public housing and
Section 8 rental vouchers for low-income San Franciscans. However, the demand far outpaces the
supply for government-subsidized units. Recently, the local public housing waitlist was opened for six
days, during which 10,000 homeless households signed up. The San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing
and Community Development’s State of the Housing Market Update 2014 compared market rental rates
to affordable8 rental rates and found that the average affordability gap has grown between 2011 and
2014 from $1,640 to $2,402 – a 46% increase over 3 years. However, even fair market rental rates used
to determine payment amounts for consumers in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) housing programs are unaffordable for consumers with household income below 50% of the area
median income (AMI). The average affordability gap between HUD rates and affordable rent for
households at 50% AMI is $1,026.
DAAS lacks the financial capacity to develop housing, and instead has focused primarily on the provision
of social services. However, because of the vital nature of housing issues, DAAS has historically chosen
to fund some housing advocacy and counseling services in an effort to strategically improve the housing
situation for seniors and adults with disabilities. Since housing is such a vital issue for seniors and adults
with disabilities, DAAS-funded housing advocacy services should be aimed at making a strategic impact.
Below is a description of these services followed by some important themes and issues to consider in
this arena in the future.
 Housing Advocacy: Housing advocacy is a “systems-change” activity that includes advocating for
affordable and accessible housing for seniors and adults with disabilities. Activities include
commenting on draft reports and participating in public hearings and forums to advocate the
need for increased housing options. Activities and reports of the Mayor’s Office of Housing, the
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Department are of particular strategic
interest. Advocates also help to promote legislation that will increase the housing supply or
improve living conditions.
 Education and Outreach Activities: This activity is aimed at residents, and actions include
developing and distributing materials to inform diverse San Francisco populations about their
rights as tenants. Service providers note that many elderly or disabled tenants may choose not
to call attention to code enforcement because they do not speak English or that they want to
avoid conflict for fear of retaliation, including eviction – please see maps in the overview section
of this assessment for analysis of limited English proficiency by district. Another key activity is to
consolidate information on affordable housing options, vacancies and wait lists and publicize the
information to seniors and adults with disabilities.
 Housing Counseling: These services provide more individualized assistance in tackling housing
problems. Common challenges include: preventing eviction; working with landlords to improve
housing habitability; referring to legal assistance or mediation through the San Francisco Rent
Board; and navigating decentralized vacancy- and wait-lists for subsidized housing.9
 Single Room Occupancy Hotel Advocacy: Many low-income seniors and adults with disabilities
rent units in Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in hotel-style buildings. An estimated 18,500
people live in the 530 buildings classified as SROs by the Planning Department. A 2009 study by
8
The affordable housing rate is based on 30% of household income.
While the Mayor’s Office of Housing also contracts with about a dozen non-profits to provide similar housing
counseling services in San Francisco, many specialize in some capacity. DAAS contracts are intended to ensure that
providers are available who have experience working with seniors and adults with disabilities to ensure their
unique challenges and needs are understood. For example, knowing which buildings are physically appropriate for
the clients and/or have designated senior/disabled units is useful. Cultural competency, language capacity and
neighborhood location are also factors that determine which clients are served and the quality of that service.
9
9
the Human Services Agency found that that a significant proportion of SRO residents (43%) were
60 years or older (Fribourg, 2009). Census data also indicates that low-income younger adults
with disabilities tend to live in the SOMA and Tenderloin areas, which are populated with SROs.
Many of these buildings do not have reliable elevators (or any elevator) or lack well-lit hallways
or stairways, which can contribute to social isolation and safety hazards for seniors and adults
with disabilities.
VI. Legal Services
Legal services help seniors and younger adults with disabilities remain safely in the community and out
of institutions. Issues addressed by legal services can include:
 Immigration: San Francisco seniors are much more likely than seniors statewide to be
immigrants, and unresolved immigration issues can thwart unifications with family members still
living in countries of origin. Having family nearby can provide the informal support necessary
for older persons to live safely and independently.
 Financial distress: Because many consumers have fixed incomes, especially those relying on
public benefits, events like eviction, illegal rent increases, or consumer fraud can be
catastrophic. Debt collection can be particularly onerous and threatening.
 Public benefits: The process of applying for benefits often entails a high probability of initial
denial that can be resolved on appeal. Seniors and adults with disabilities may benefit from legal
assistance navigating eligibility criteria and application processes.
 Protection: Mistreatment – either financial or physical – can jeopardize the security of seniors
and persons with disabilities, and legal services can help vulnerable persons make necessary
reports and seek remedies that keep them safe.
 Discrimination: Because of age or disability status, discrimination is a common barrier to full
participation in the community.
 Planning: Seniors often have unique legal needs, including assistance with will preparation and
advance directives. Low-income seniors in particular may be hesitant to formalize preferences
for end-of-life care and estate planning due to the cost of legal guidance.
Common areas of focus for legal services providers continue to include public benefits, housing, and
protection. Each of those areas is described in detail below.
Public benefits. Whether applying for SSI, MediCare, Medi-Cal, or other public benefits like Cash
Assistance Linked to Medi-Cal, seniors and persons with disabilities often have unique challenges that
require legal assistance. The process of applying for benefits often entails a high probability of initial
denial that can be resolved on appeal. Legal advice is particularly important to immigrants, who
because of their immigration status may be hesitant to seek needed entitlements. Their apprehension
may be compounded by limited English proficiency and confusion about the public benefits system.
Supplementary Security Income (SSI) benefits appear to be especially critical for low-income seniors in
San Francisco. Statewide, most consumers receiving SSI benefits in 2013 were eligible through the Blind
and Disabled criteria and only 28% qualify for SSI benefits for the Aged. However, in San Francisco, a
much larger percentage of the SSI recipients were eligible through the Aged criteria: 42%. This data
likely reflects the fact that San Franciscan seniors are much more likely than seniors statewide to be
10
immigrants (34% compared to 13% statewide).10 They may not have the work history to qualify for
Social Security retirement benefits, making SSI a crucial benefit.
Eviction Prevention and Housing Stabilization. Per census data, 43% of San Francisco seniors (age 60+)
and 64% of younger adults with disabilities (age 18 – 59) are renters. Many seniors and persons with
disabilities are living in tenuous housing. As depicted in the chart below , Ellis Act petitions are on the
rise (as property values continue to increase, Ellis Act evictions offer a way for residential property to be
sold for significant profit without requiring the new owner to continue renting units). In recognition of
the difficulty faced by seniors and adults with disabilities that have to relocate under the Ellis Act, San
Francisco has instituted supplemental relocation compensation requirements that must be paid for each
elderly (age 62+) or disabled tenant forced to
locate. Notably, the number displaced may be
significantly undercounted due to landlord
threats, harassment, and buyouts that
supersede the need for formal eviction
petitions. Legal assistance may help prevent
evictions or ensure consumers receive all the
payment for which they are eligible.
Additionally, it is estimated that over 8,000
San Francisco seniors are living in single room
occupancy (SRO) hotels in the Chinatown,
Tenderloin, South of Market, and Mission
neighborhoods (Fribourg, 2009). As shown in
the low-income consumer location maps in
the Population Overview section of this assessment, low-income seniors tend to live in District 3 (in
particular, these consumers reside in the Chinatown neighborhood) and District 6 (Tenderloin and
SOMA neighborhoods). Low-income adults with disabilities tend to live in District 6 and District 5
(Western Addition). The FY1314 Rent Board Annual Report indicates that the source of most tenant
petitions for assistance is these neighborhoods with 35% of tenant petitions come from just three
neighborhoods: the Tenderloin, Western Addition and SOMA (15% from the Tenderloin alone).
10
IPUMS ACS 2013 1-Year Estimates
11
Protection
Legal services can play an important role in providing a source of advice outside of the criminal justice or
protective service systems. A 2014 nationwide study by the National Institute of Justice found that
nearly 6 of 10 senior participants age 60+ were targeted by a fraud attempt in the prior year. A national
study in 2010 found that 1 in 10 senior respondents reported emotional, physical, or sexual
mistreatment or potential neglect in the past year (Acierno et al, 2010). Abuse of younger adults with
disabilities is also unfortunately prevalent and often perpetrated by family members and/or care
providers. Prevalence estimates vary by study depending on the sample population and type of abuse
explored; 30% of adults with disabilities using personal assistance services for support of activities of
daily reported 1 or more types of mistreatment by their primary provider (Oktay & Tompkins, 2004.
Other studies indicate higher rates of abuse – between 55 and 68% – when any perpetrator is
considered (Powers et al, 2002; Powers et al, 2008).
Seniors and persons with disabilities can overcome their fear and broach difficult situations by talking to
an expert in a trusted service setting. After initial consultations, legal services often arrange for
restraining orders for victims of physical abuse, estate arrangements that prevent financial abuse, and
negotiated settlements.
VII. Naturalization
The goal of contracts for naturalization services is to help legal permanent residents (LPR) – also known
as green card holders – become naturalized citizens of the United States. In 2012, approximately 35,000
new individuals were granted permanent residency in the local region (San Francisco, Oakland, and
Fremont). Helping vulnerable members of this group successfully navigate the complex naturalization
process is important for a number of reasons, including:
 Financial Security—Naturalized citizens that meet the standard eligibility criteria can receive
critical federal benefits such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and food
stamps. Increased income, along with its auxiliary benefits like Medi-Cal, often allows older or
disabled immigrants to remain in the community, aging in place rather than relying on
institutional care or charity care.
 Family Reunification— Seniors who are legal permanent residents may lack the informal family
support that would allow them to continue living safely in the community. Naturalized citizens
can petition to have their married children immigrate, while legal permanent residents can only
petition unmarried children. This is important because children of seniors are likely to have
already reached the age of marriage.
 Freedom of Travel—Since 9/11, legal permanent residents have faced heightened scrutiny when
traveling to and from their home countries. Maintaining connection with family abroad is an
important aspect of healthy aging for immigrants.
 Stability—Naturalized citizens cannot be deported. The security of naturalization may
encourage seniors and disabled persons to seek more preventive health care and services and
avoid costly, disruptive emergency care and potential institutionalization.
While the actual number of Legal Permanent Residents in San Francisco is unavailable, census data can
be used to estimate the number of seniors and adults with disabilities who are non-citizens. Per the
2013 ACS estimates, San Francisco is home to approximately 13,000 to 19,000 non-citizen seniors and
12
2,000 to 6,000 younger adults with disabilities.11 Federal reports suggest the population eligible for
naturalization is growing. A 2012 report by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated that
the LPR population eligible for naturalization grew by 3% between 2011 and 2011.12
Census data also provides some insight into the location of
non-citizens who may benefit from naturalization services
(albeit without demarcating seniors or adults with disabilities
– this data is more useful as a general point of reference for
non-citizen populations). As shown in the map to the right,
Districts 9 and 11 have the largest non-citizen populations.
Districts 2, 4, 7, and 8 have smaller non-citizen populations.
Review of recent census data confirms that non-citizen
seniors continue to be disproportionately from China. 38% of
non-citizen seniors are from China, compared to only 26% of
the younger non-disabled population. Younger adults (18 –
59) reporting disabilities13 tend to be from Latin America and
Eastern Europe.
11
These ranges are based on 95% confidence intervals from the IPUMS ACS 2013 1-Year Estimates. This is an
approximation for the population but does provide a point of reference. It could overestimate the size of the
eligible population because legal permanent residents are just one category of non-citizens. Temporary workers
(with student or work visas) and undocumented immigrants are also non-citizens. Alternatively, the range could
underestimate the size of the eligible population. Non-citizens are less likely to respond to surveys due to fear of
deportation. Consequently, the non-citizen community as a whole could be much larger than the estimated upper
bounds of 19,000 seniors and 6,000 younger adults with disabilities.
12
Department of Homeland Security, 2013. “Estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident Population in 2012.”
13
Cultural variation in the conceptualization and stigma of disability may impact response to census questions
about functional “difficulty” in key areas and skew the disability data.
13
Spoken language and English proficiency are important factors that can impact an individual’s
confidence and ability to navigate the immigration system. As shown below, census data indicates
higher rates of English proficiency among naturalized citizens compared to their non-citizen peers.
Please see the map of limited English proficiency in the Population Overview section of this assessment
to identify areas with high concentrations on individuals with limited English capacity.
14
Sources Cited
Acierno, R., Hernandez, M. A., Muzzy, W., & Steve, K. (2014). The National Elder Mistreatment Study.
National Institute of Justice.
Acierno, R., Hernandez, M. A., Amstadter, A. B., Resnick, H. S., Steve, K., Muzzy, W., & Kilpatrick, D. G.
(2010). Prevalence and Correlates of Emotional, Physical, Sexual, and Financial Abuse and
Potential Neglect in the United States: The National Elder Mistreatment Study. American Journal
of Public Health, 100(2), 292–297. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.163089
IPUMS-USA. 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.
Oktay, J., & Tompkins, C. (2004). Personal assistance providers’ mistreatment of disabled adults. Health
& Social Work, 29(3), 177-188.
Powers, L., Curry, M., Oschwald, M., Maley, S., Saxton, M. & Eckels, K. (2002). Barriers and strategies in
addressing abuse: A survey of disabled women’s experiences. Journal of Rehabilitation, 68(1), 413.
Priceonomics. (2014). The San Francisco Rent Explosion: Part II. Accessed online February 13, 2015, at:
http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion-part-ii/
San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development. (2014). State of the Housing
Market Update 2014. Accessed online November 25, 2014: http://www.sfmoh.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=8295
San Francisco Rent Board. (2014). San Francisco Rent Board Annual Report FY1314. Accessed February
14, 2015, online at: http://www.sfrb.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2756
Social Security Administration. (2014). SSI Recipients by State and County, 2013. (SSA Publication No. 1311976). Accessed online January 17, 2015 at:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2013/ssi_sc13.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2013). Population Estimates: Estimates of the Legal Permanent
Resident Population in 2012. Accessed online February 12, 2015, at:
http://www.dhs.gov/publication/estimates-legal-permanent-resident-population-2012
Wiener, Joshua, et al. (2004). Home and Community-Based Services: A Synthesis of Literature.
Administration on Aging. Accessed online January 31, 2006, at:
www.aoa.gov/prof/agingnet/RSSR/RSSR.asp
Zillow. (2015). San Francisco Home Prices & Values. Accessed online February 13, 2015, at
http://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/
15
San Francisco Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District
3
76,373
5,115
6,294
5,003
2,324
18,736
24.5%
11.6%
4
73,665
5,553
5,648
3,838
2,336
17,375
23.6%
10.7%
Supervisorial Districts
5
6
7
80,297
60,944
71,496
3,851
3,716
5,107
4,782
4,384
5,730
3,231
2,687
4,109
1,902
862
1,984
13,766
11,649
16,930
17.1%
19.1%
23.7%
8.5%
7.2%
10.5%
8
69,750
4,090
4,225
2,311
1,043
11,669
16.7%
7.2%
9
83,000
4,055
4,593
3,301
1,039
12,988
15.6%
8.0%
10
74,870
4,066
4,292
2,646
1,044
12,048
16.1%
7.4%
11
84,804
5,291
6,434
4,014
1,911
17,650
20.8%
10.9%
Total
817,501
48,869
57,055
38,053
18,022
161,999
19.8%
100.0%
Total Senior Population 65+
11,455
9,708
Seniors 65+ as % of District
14.8%
15.0%
Distribution, by District, of Seniors 65+
10.1%
8.6%
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B01001)
13,621
17.8%
12.0%
11,822
16.0%
10.4%
9,915
12.3%
8.8%
11,823
16.5%
10.5%
7,579
10.9%
6.7%
8,933
10.8%
7.9%
7,982
10.7%
7.1%
12,359
14.6%
10.9%
113,130
13.8%
100.0%
Gender, Age 60+
3
8,740
9,996
53%
4
7,863
9,512
55%
Supervisorial Districts
5
6
7
6,337
5,579
7,694
7,429
6,070
9,236
54%
52%
55%
8
6,439
5,230
45%
9
5,937
7,051
54%
10
5,597
6,451
54%
11
7,048
10,602
60%
Total
73,710
88,289
54%
Population
All ages
60-64
65-74
75-84
85+
Total Senior Population 60+
Seniors as % of District
Distribution, by District, of Seniors 60+
1
77,453
4,971
5,775
3,823
1,857
16,426
21.2%
10.1%
2
64,849
3,054
4,898
3,090
1,720
12,762
19.7%
7.9%
1
2
Male
6,965
5,511
Female
9,461
7,251
% Female
58%
57%
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B01001)
7,933
13.0%
7.0%
Supervisorial Districts
Ethnicity of Senior Population, 65+
One race
One race %
African American
African American %
Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian/Pacific Islander %
Native American/Alaskan Native
Native American/Alaskan Native %
White (Alone)
White (Alone) %
Other race
Other race %
Two or more races
Two or more races %
1
11,286
98.5%
284
2.5%
6,375
55.7%
14
0.1%
4,512
39.4%
101
0.9%
169
1.5%
2
9,643
99.3%
141
1.5%
1,441
14.8%
0
0.0%
8,019
82.6%
42
0.4%
65
0.7%
3
13,470
98.9%
263
1.9%
8,780
64.5%
27
0.2%
4,324
31.7%
76
0.6%
151
1.1%
Latino/Latina
222
473
501
Latino/Latina %
1.9%
4.9%
3.7%
White (Alone, Not Hispanic)
4,377
7,644
4,002
White (Alone, Not Hispanic) %
38.2%
78.7%
29.4%
Total Senior Population, 65+
11,455
9,708
13,621
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Tables B01001A to B01001I
4
11,623
98.3%
75
0.6%
6,964
58.9%
21
0.2%
4,511
38.2%
52
0.4%
199
1.7%
5
9,784
98.7%
1,664
16.8%
3,015
30.4%
13
0.1%
5,013
50.6%
79
0.8%
131
1.3%
6
7,722
97.3%
459
5.8%
4,457
56.2%
0
0.0%
2,656
33.5%
150
1.9%
211
2.7%
7
11,661
98.6%
520
4.4%
3,484
29.5%
28
0.2%
7,563
64.0%
66
0.6%
162
1.4%
8
7,401
97.7%
251
3.3%
1,057
13.9%
29
0.4%
5,820
76.8%
244
3.2%
178
2.3%
9
8,650
96.8%
451
5.0%
3,264
36.5%
90
1.0%
3,912
43.8%
933
10.4%
283
3.2%
10
7,831
98.1%
2,131
26.7%
3,502
43.9%
52
0.7%
1,884
23.6%
262
3.3%
151
1.9%
11
12,133
98.2%
1,281
10.4%
5,697
46.1%
65
0.5%
4,590
37.1%
500
4.0%
226
1.8%
Total
111,204
98.3%
7,520
6.6%
48,036
42.5%
339
0.3%
52,804
46.7%
2,505
2.2%
1,926
1.7%
554
4.7%
4,052
34.3%
11,822
378
3.8%
4,765
48.1%
9,915
350
4.4%
2,548
32.1%
7,933
744
6.3%
7,003
59.2%
11,823
866
11.4%
5,212
68.8%
7,579
2,833
31.7%
2,227
24.9%
8,933
825
10.3%
1,359
17.0%
7,982
2,700
21.8%
2,477
20.0%
12,359
10,446
9.2%
45,666
40.4%
113,130
Demographics of All Seniors - 1
San Francisco Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District
Supervisorial Districts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
Total Senior Population, 65+
11,455
9,708
13,621
11,822
9,915
7,933
11,823
7,579
8,933
7,982
12,359
113,130
English Proficient: English as primary language
or speaks English "Very well" or "Well"
7,696
8,832
6,868
7,088
7,258
3,783
10,123
6,692
5,697
5,201
7,639
76,877
Limited English: Speaks English "Not well" or
"Not at all"
3,759
876
6,753
4,734
2,657
4,150
1,700
887
3,236
2,781
4,720
36,253
Limited English, % of Seniors 65+ in District
32.8%
9.0%
49.6%
40.0%
26.8%
52.3%
14.4%
11.7%
36.2%
34.8%
38.2%
32.0%
29
0.3%
520
4.5%
3,184
27.8%
26
0.2%
48
0.5%
439
4.5%
389
4.0%
0
0.0%
153
1.1%
109
0.8%
6,461
47.4%
30
0.2%
81
0.7%
346
2.9%
4,225
35.7%
82
0.7%
54
0.5%
908
9.2%
1,685
17.0%
10
0.1%
141
1.8%
966
12.2%
3,021
38.1%
22
0.3%
60
0.5%
368
3.1%
1,257
10.6%
15
0.1%
325
4.3%
192
2.5%
363
4.8%
7
0.1%
1,346
15.1%
164
1.8%
1,726
19.3%
0
0.0%
326
4.1%
72
0.9%
2,383
29.9%
0
0.0%
1,043
8.4%
329
2.7%
3,336
27.0%
12
0.1%
3,606
3.2%
4,413
3.9%
28,030
24.8%
204
0.2%
10.4%
2.4%
18.6%
13.1%
7.3%
11.4%
4.7%
Distribution, by District, Limited English %
*Examples of Indo-European languages include Russian, French, German, Persian, and Hindi.
^Examples of Other languages include Hebrew and Arabic, as well as Native American and African languages.
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B16004)
Supervisorial Districts
Senior Households
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total Households with Persons 60+
9,543
8,830
12,683
9,191
9,622
8,372
10,159
Owner Occupied
4,995
4,904
2,663
7,028
2,894
871
7,779
Renter Occupied
4,548
3,926
10,020
2,163
6,728
7,501
2,380
Renter Occupied %
47.7%
44.5%
79.0%
23.5%
69.9%
89.6%
23.4%
Distribution, By District, Renter Occupied
9.7%
8.4%
21.4%
4.6%
14.4%
16.0%
5.1%
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B25007)
2.4%
8.9%
7.7%
13.0%
100.0%
8
8,190
4,958
3,232
39.5%
6.9%
9
6,948
4,178
2,770
39.9%
5.9%
10
6,145
3,959
2,186
35.6%
4.7%
11
7,295
5,960
1,335
18.3%
2.9%
Total
96,978
50,189
46,789
48.2%
100.0%
6,120
3,109
50.8%
8.8%
6,169
2,034
33.0%
5.8%
5,635
1,571
27.9%
4.5%
7,840
1,570
20.0%
4.5%
82,467
35,247
42.7%
100.0%
Estimate of Language Ability Indicators, 65+
Spanish
Spanish %
Indo-European Languages*
Indo-European %
Asian-Pacific Island Languages
API %
Other Languages^
Other %
Total Households with Persons 65+
8,094
7,486
Lives Alone
3,002
4,226
Lives Alone %
37.1%
56.5%
Distribution, by District, Lives Alone
8.5%
12.0%
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B11007)
10,593
5,673
53.6%
16.1%
8,229
2,556
31.1%
7.3%
7,686
4,595
59.8%
13.0%
6,262
3,843
61.4%
10.9%
8,353
3,068
36.7%
8.7%
Supervisorial Districts
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
Population Estimate, 60+
Senior LGBT Population
828
972
2,196
1,109
991
1,805
1,152
2,190
741
590
752
17,211
Senior LGBT Population %
5.3%
7.8%
11.7%
6.8%
7.4%
16.3%
7.2%
19.8%
5.9%
5.2%
4.7%
11.1%
Source: San Francisco City Survey 2001-2011. Note that seniors were defined as 60+ for all years except 2011, in which they were defined as 65+. The sum of the estimates for the districts do not total
the estimate for the entire city; each percentage, including that for all districts, are applied independently.
Demographics of All Seniors - 2
San Francisco Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District
Distribution of San Francisco Senior Population 60+ by District
(Total = 161,999)
14%
11.6%
12%
10%
8.5%
7.9%
8%
10.9%
10.5%
10.7%
10.1%
7.2%
7.2%
8.0%
7.4%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Supervisorial District
8
9
10
11
Race/Ethnicity of Seniors 65+ by District
100%
90%
Other
80%
70%
African American
60%
50%
Latino/Latina
40%
30%
White (Alone, Not
Hispanic)
20%
Asian/Pacific Islander
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Supervisorial District
8
9
10
11
Total
Demographics of All Seniors - 3
San Francisco Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District
3
% of Seniors 65+ in District who speak English "Not well" or "Not at all" by Language Group and District
60%
54%
50%
50%
40%
41%
41%
Other
39%
35%
33%
33%
27%
30%
Spanish
20%
16%
Indo-European
14%
9%
10%
API
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Supervisorial District
8
9
10
% of Seniors 65+ in District Living Alone
Total
% of Seniors (60+)* in District who are LGBT
25%
70%
56%
60%
60% 61%
54%
51%
16%
43%
37%
37%
31%
20%
20%
50%
40%
11
15%
12%
33%
28%
30%
10%
20%
20%
8%
11%
7%
7%
7%
5%
6%
5%
5%
9
10
11
5%
10%
0%
0%
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Supervisorial District
9
10
11 Total
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Supervisorial District
Total
*In 2011, seniors were defined as 65+. In all other years, seniors were defined as 60+.
Demographics of All Seniors - 4
San Francisco Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District - Poverty Estimates
Poverty Status (Estimates)
Total Seniors 65+ <100% FPL
Total Seniors 65+ 100%-199% FPL
Total Seniors 65+ 200% FPL+
Seniors 65+ for whom poverty status was
determined
Total Senior Population 65+
% of seniors in this district with incomes
below:
100% FPL
200% FPL
1
1,505
2,315
7,435
2
720
1,310
7,502
3
3,365
4,364
5,847
4
1,028
2,146
8,531
Supervisorial Districts
5
6
7
1,932
2,642
755
2,767
3,229
1,662
4,801
2,050
9,126
8
901
1,105
5,550
9
1,069
2,387
5,350
10
1,176
1,638
4,976
11
1,242
2,780
8,073
Total
16,335
25,703
69,241
11,255
9,532
13,576
11,705
9,500
7,921
11,543
7,556
8,806
7,790
12,095
111,279
11,455
9,708
13,621
11,822
9,915
7,933
11,823
7,579
8,933
7,982
12,359
113,130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
13.1%
33.3%
7.4%
20.9%
24.7%
56.7%
8.7%
26.8%
19.5%
47.4%
33.3%
74.0%
6.4%
20.4%
11.9%
26.5%
12.0%
38.7%
14.7%
35.3%
10.0%
32.5%
14.4%
37.2%
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
6.3%
7.6%
11.8%
11.2%
16.2%
14.0%
4.6%
5.7%
5.5%
4.8%
6.5%
8.2%
7.2%
6.7%
7.6%
9.6%
100.0%
100.0%
Distribution, by district, of seniors with
1
2
3
incomes below:
100% FPL
9.2%
4.4%
20.6%
200% FPL
9.1%
4.8%
18.4%
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B17024)
Supervisorial Districts
Race & Ethnicity of Seniors 65+ with
Incomes below 100% FPL (Estimates)
One race
One race %
African American
African American %
Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian/Pacific Islander %
Native American/Alaskan Native
Native American/Alaskan Native %
White (Alone)
White (Alone) %
Other race
Other race %
Two or more races
Two or more races %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
1,471
97.7%
47
3.1%
867
57.6%
0
0.0%
538
35.7%
19
1.3%
34
2.3%
720
100.0%
0
0.0%
155
21.5%
0
0.0%
565
78.5%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3,321
98.7%
36
1.1%
2735
81.3%
13
0.4%
481
14.3%
56
1.7%
44
1.3%
1,017
98.9%
0
0.0%
720
70.0%
4
0.4%
293
28.5%
0
0.0%
11
1.1%
1,906
98.7%
423
21.9%
628
32.5%
0
0.0%
841
43.5%
14
0.7%
26
1.3%
2,580
97.7%
161
6.1%
1787
67.6%
0
0.0%
574
21.7%
58
2.2%
62
2.3%
747
98.9%
28
3.7%
367
48.6%
0
0.0%
352
46.6%
0
0.0%
8
1.1%
875
97.1%
0
0.0%
236
26.2%
0
0.0%
639
70.9%
0
0.0%
26
2.9%
990
92.6%
66
6.2%
340
31.8%
23
2.2%
418
39.1%
143
13.4%
79
7.4%
1,154
98.1%
334
28.4%
518
44.0%
19
1.6%
204
17.3%
79
6.7%
22
1.9%
1,195
96.2%
152
12.2%
550
44.3%
0
0.0%
451
36.3%
42
3.4%
47
3.8%
15,976
97.8%
1,247
7.6%
8,903
54.5%
59
0.4%
5,356
32.8%
411
2.5%
359
2.2%
Latino/Latina*
38
77
152
32
81
Latino/Latina %
2.5%
10.7%
4.5%
3.1%
4.2%
White (Alone, Not Hispanic)
529
488
414
261
790
White (Alone, Not Hispanic) %
35.1%
67.8%
12.3%
25.4%
40.9%
1,505
720
3,365
1,028
1,932
Total Senior Population 65+ in Poverty
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Tables B17001A to B17001I)
*Non-white races may include a few individuals who identify as Latino, but the total is relatively low.
125
4.7%
542
20.5%
2,642
40
5.3%
312
41.3%
755
107
11.9%
532
59.0%
901
454
42.5%
191
17.9%
1,069
118
10.0%
165
14.0%
1,176
339
27.3%
154
12.4%
1,242
1,563
9.6%
4,378
26.8%
16,335
Demographics of Seniors in Poverty - 1
San Francisco Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District - Poverty Estimates
Total Senior Population 65+, by Poverty Status and District
% of Seniors 65+ in District who are Low Income
(Total = 109,411 for whom poverty status was determined)
80%
16,000
200% FPL or more
70%
14,000
Below 100% FPL
100% - 199% FPL
12,000
60%
< 100 % FPL
0
10,000
0
Below 200% FPL
0
0
0
50%
8,000
40%
6,000
30%
4,000
20%
2,000
10%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
11
2
3
Supervisorial District
4
5
6
7
8
Supervisorial District
9
10
11
Total
Race/Ethnicity of Seniors with Incomes <100% FPL, by District
100%
90%
80%
Other
70%
African American
60%
50%
Latino/Latina
40%
White (Alone, Not Hispanic)
30%
Asian/Pacific Islander
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
Supervisorial District
Demographics of Seniors in Poverty - 2
San Francisco Adults with Disabilities Demographics
by Supervisorial District
Population
Supervisorial Districts
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
Adult Population (18 to 64) with Disabilities
3,441
1,422
3,599
2,929
4,355
6,951
Total Adult Population (18-64)
55,606
47,460
56,979
50,464
63,208
6.2%
3.0%
6.3%
5.8%
8.8%
7.1%
Adult Population (18 to 64) with Disabilities %
Distribution, by District, of Adults with
8.4%
3.5%
Disabilities
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B18101)
8
9
10
11
Total
2,272
3,295
4,076
4,371
4,298
41,009
46,671
48,096
54,677
61,027
50,704
57,671
592,563
6.9%
14.9%
4.7%
6.0%
6.7%
8.6%
7.5%
6.9%
10.6%
16.9%
5.5%
8.0%
9.9%
10.7%
10.5%
100.0%
8
2,287
1,008
31%
9
2,403
1,673
41%
10
2,019
2,352
54%
11
1,935
2,363
55%
Total
22,800
18,209
44%
Supervisorial Districts
Gender, Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities
1
2
Male
1,547
802
Female
1,894
620
Female %
55%
44%
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B18101)
3
1,944
1,655
46%
4
1,559
1,370
47%
5
2,207
2,148
49%
6
4,903
2,048
29%
7
1,194
1,078
47%
Supervisorial Districts
Ethnicity of Adult Population (18 to 64) with
Disabilities
One race
One race %
African American
African American %
Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian/Pacific Islander %
Native American/Alaskan Native
Native American/Alaskan Native %
White (Alone)
White (Alone) %
Other race
Other race %
Two or more races
Two or more races %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
3,269
95.0%
124
3.6%
1,358
39.5%
72
2.1%
1,625
47.2%
90
2.6%
172
5.0%
1,393
98.0%
56
3.9%
268
18.8%
20
1.4%
1,015
71.4%
34
2.4%
29
2.0%
3,429
95.3%
441
12.3%
1,266
35.2%
11
0.3%
1,643
45.7%
68
1.9%
170
4.7%
2,798
95.5%
68
2.3%
1,358
46.4%
0
0.0%
1,334
45.5%
38
1.3%
131
4.5%
4,017
92.2%
1,191
27.3%
324
7.4%
60
1.4%
2,233
51.3%
209
4.8%
338
7.8%
6,576
94.6%
1,215
17.5%
771
11.1%
148
2.1%
3,597
51.7%
845
12.2%
375
5.4%
2,208
97.2%
217
9.6%
262
11.5%
14
0.6%
1,655
72.8%
60
2.6%
64
2.8%
3,057
92.8%
211
6.4%
369
11.2%
0
0.0%
2,291
69.5%
186
5.6%
238
7.2%
3,932
96.5%
566
13.9%
598
14.7%
118
2.9%
2,022
49.6%
628
15.4%
144
3.5%
4,115
94.1%
1,699
38.9%
1,040
23.8%
139
3.2%
940
21.5%
297
6.8%
256
5.9%
4,125
96.0%
573
13.3%
1,462
34.0%
0
0.0%
1,460
34.0%
630
14.7%
173
4.0%
38,919
94.9%
6,361
15.5%
9,076
22.1%
582
1.4%
19,815
48.3%
3,085
7.5%
2,090
5.1%
Latino/Latina
Latino/Latina %
White (Alone, Not Hispanic)
White (Alone, Not Hispanic) %
261
7.6%
1,560
45.3%
113
7.9%
936
65.8%
170
4.7%
1,543
42.9%
162
5.5%
1,246
42.5%
454
10.4%
2,020
46.4%
1,538
22.1%
3,011
43.3%
291
12.8%
1,438
63.3%
607
18.4%
1,894
57.5%
1,598
39.2%
1,201
29.5%
728
16.7%
578
13.2%
1,343
31.2%
757
17.6%
7,265
17.7%
16,184
39.5%
3,441
1,422
3,599
2,929
Adult Population (18 to 64) with a Disability
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Tables B17001A to B17001I)
4,355
6,951
2,272
3,295
4,076
4,371
4,298
41,009
All Adults with Disabilities - 1
San Francisco Adults with Disabilities Demographics
by Supervisorial District
Supervisorial Districts
Disability Characteristics* of Adult
Population (18 to 64)
Hearing difficulty
Hearing %
Vision difficulty
Vision %
Cognitive difficulty
Cognitive %
Walking (Ambulation) difficulty
Walking (Ambulation) %
Self Care difficulty
Self Care %
Independent Living difficulty
Independent Living %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
535
15.5%
514
14.9%
1,507
43.8%
1,510
43.9%
823
23.9%
1,306
38.0%
408
28.7%
343
24.1%
580
40.8%
529
37.2%
182
12.8%
443
31.2%
648
18.0%
802
22.3%
1,922
53.4%
1,589
44.2%
681
18.9%
1,333
37.0%
422
14.4%
324
11.1%
1,480
50.5%
1,381
47.1%
581
19.8%
1,064
36.3%
497
11.4%
597
13.7%
2,280
52.4%
2,153
49.4%
886
20.3%
1,798
41.3%
707
10.2%
1,545
22.2%
4,322
62.2%
3,356
48.3%
1,035
14.9%
2,405
34.6%
525
23.1%
413
18.2%
1,135
50.0%
812
35.7%
369
16.2%
823
36.2%
633
19.2%
580
17.6%
1,596
48.4%
1,226
37.2%
623
18.9%
1,261
38.3%
592
14.5%
775
19.0%
1,632
40.0%
2,055
50.4%
710
17.4%
1,387
34.0%
765
17.5%
808
18.5%
1,923
44.0%
2,372
54.3%
1,112
25.4%
1,999
45.7%
924
21.5%
763
17.8%
1,916
44.6%
1,838
42.8%
991
23.1%
1,631
37.9%
6,656
16.2%
7,464
18.2%
20,293
49.5%
18,821
45.9%
7,993
19.5%
15,450
37.7%
Adult Population (18 to 64) with Disabilities
3,441
1,422
3,599
2,929
4,355
6,951
2,272
3,295
4,076
4,371
4,298
41,009
Total Adult Population (18-64)
55,606
47,460
56,979
50,464
63,208
46,671
48,096
54,677
61,027
50,704
57,671
592,563
* The census disability definitions are:
• Hearing difficulty: deaf or having serious difficulty hearing.
• Vision difficulty: blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses.
• Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions.
• Ambulatory difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
• Self-care difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing.
• Independent living difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table S1801
All Adults with Disabilities - 2
San Francisco Adults with Disabilities Demographics
by Supervisorial District
% of Adults (18 to 64) in District with a Disability
0
16.9%
0
0
0
10.6%
0
9.9%
8.8%
8.4%
10.5%
10
11
8.0%
7.1%
0
10.7%
5.5%
0
3.5%
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Supervisorial District
7
8
9
Race/Ethnicity of Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities by District
100%
90%
80%
Other
70%
60%
African American
50%
Latino/Latina
40%
30%
White (Alone, Not Hispanic)
20%
Asian/Pacific Islander
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Supervisorial District
8
9
10
11
Total
All Adults with Disabilities - 3
San Francisco Adults with Disabilities Demographics
by Supervisorial District
Disability Characteristics of Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities by District
70%
60%
Hearing %
50%
Vision %
40%
Cognitive %
30%
Walking (Ambulation)
%
20%
Self Care %
10%
Independent Living %
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Supervisorial District
8
9
10
11
Total
24,000
20,293
20,000
60%
18,821
50%
15,450
16,000
12,000
8,000
40%
30%
6,656
7,993
7,464
4,000
20%
10%
-
0%
Hearing difficulty
Vision difficulty
Cognitive difficulty
Walking
(Ambulation)
difficulty
Self Care difficulty Independent Living
difficulty
% of All Adults with Disabilities
Reporting Difficulty in Functional Area
# of Adults Reporting Difficulty in
Functional Area
Disability Characteristics of Younger Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilites in San Francisco
Note: Individuals may have multiple disabilities. These categories are not mutually exclusive.
All Adults with Disabilities - 4
San Francisco Adults with Disabilities Demographics
by Supervisorial District - Poverty Estimates
Supervisorial Districts
Poverty Status of Adult Population with
Disabilities (Estimates)
Total Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities <100%
FPL
Total Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities 100%
FPL+
Total Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities for
whom poverty status is determined
Total Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
685
313
1,180
389
1,749
3,735
419
870
1,431
1,304
827
12,902
2,636
1,109
2,340
2,540
2,584
3,128
1,731
2,425
2,645
2,999
3,471
27,608
3,321
1,422
3,520
2,929
4,333
6,863
2,150
3,295
4,076
4,303
4,298
40,510
3,441
1,422
3,599
2,929
4,355
6,951
2,272
3,295
4,076
4,371
4,298
41,009
32.8%
13.3%
40.2%
53.7%
18.4%
26.4%
35.1%
29.8%
19.2%
31.5%
9.1%
3.0%
13.6%
28.9%
3.2%
6.7%
11.1%
10.1%
6.4%
100.0%
% of Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities in
19.9%
22.0%
district with incomes below 100% FPL
Distribution, by district, of Adults (18 to 64)
5.3%
2.4%
with Disabilities <100% FPL
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B18130)
Supervisorial Districts
Employment Status of Adults (20-64) with
Disabilities in Poverty
Employed
Employed %
Unemployed
Unemployed %
Not in labor force
Not in labor force %
Total Adults (20 to 64) with disabilities <100%
FPL
Total Adults (20 to 64) with poverty status
determined
% of Adults (20 to 64) with disabilities in this
district with incomes below 100% FPL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
94
14%
60
9%
531
78%
34
11%
25
8%
240
80%
75
6%
101
8%
1,004
82%
45
12%
36
9%
302
79%
289
17%
139
8%
1,308
75%
326
9%
275
7%
3,123
84%
58
14%
49
12%
311
74%
102
12%
72
8%
696
80%
77
5%
135
10%
1,191
85%
103
8%
192
15%
972
77%
107
13%
91
11%
629
76%
1,310
10%
1,175
9%
10,307
80%
685
299
1,228
383
1,736
3,724
418
870
1,403
1,267
827
12,840
3,291
1,408
3,560
2,904
4,243
6,852
2,149
3,270
3,998
4,236
4,284
40,195
20.8%
21.2%
34.5%
13.2%
40.9%
54.3%
19.5%
26.6%
35.1%
29.9%
19.3%
31.9%
9.6%
3.0%
13.5%
29.0%
3.3%
6.8%
10.9%
9.9%
6.4%
100.0%
Distribution, by district, of Adults (20 to 64)
5.3%
2.3%
with disabilities <100% FPL
(Source: American Community Survey 2013 5-Year Sample, Table B23024)
Adults with Disabilites in Poverty - 1
San Francisco Adults with Disabilities Demographics
by Supervisorial District - Poverty Estimates
% of Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities in District with Income below 100% FPL
60%
54%
50%
40%
40%
35%
33%
31%
30%
30%
26%
22%
20%
20%
19%
18%
13%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
6
7
Supervisorial District
8
9
10
11
Total
% of Adults (18 to 64) with Disabilities in District
with Income below 100% FPL by Employment Status
30%
25%
5
22%
23%
21%
20%
20%
26%
25%
24%
Unemployed
19%
20%
Employed
16%
15%
14%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Supervisorial District
8
9
10
11
Total
% indicates total
percentage of
younger adults in
poverty that are
in the labor force
(e.g., 22% of YADs
living in poverty in
District 1 are in
the labor force)
Adults with Disabilites in Poverty - 2