SUMMARY OF ISOLATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS – …mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA36919.pdf · independent of depression and/or live-alone status, was a predictor of functional

SUMMARY OF ISOLATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS – SEPTEMBER 2014

San Francisco Human Services Agency 1Planning Unit

The following report is an update to the isolation-related needs assessment findingsreleased in April 2012.

Overview

The issues of isolation – physical, social, and linguistic – that aredescribed elsewhere in this report are like a bright red thread runningthrough the challenges of service access. Isolation was a commontheme during San Francisco needs assessment discussions. Socialisolation, having no close friends and few contacts with the outsideworld, is linked to poor health (Seeman et al., 2001). It is comparable tothe risk factors in obesity, sedentary life styles and possibly evensmoking (Cacioppo et al., 2002). A recent study found that loneliness,independent of depression and/or live-alone status, was a predictor offunctional decline and even death among older adults (Perissinotto, etal., 2012).

The risk of isolation increases with age, as frailty increases and social circles shrink(Rathbone-McCuan & Hashimi, 1982). For individuals who are homebound due tofunctional impairments, social isolation can be severe. The first part of this reportprovides data on isolation, but no reliable way exists to calculate the number of SanFranciscans who are socially isolated or homebound, and one of the biggest challengesin addressing isolation is simply identifying isolated individuals and building their trust.

Participants in needs assessment focus groups stressed theimportance of resources that help to reduce isolation, including:senior centers; adult day programs; support groups; churchcommunities; activities at cultural institutions, including librariesand museums; social and hobby-related clubs; and informalnetworks of family and friends. Community and senior centerswere cited as offering a place for people to congregate with others,including those who speak their primary language, as well as a free

way to have fun, eat a good meal, and dispel depression and loneliness. Not all isolatedseniors need services, one participant at a community forum noted, they often just needopportunities to socialize. Trust is often a critical first step in breaching the isolation ofseniors and adults with disabilities. At a forum on senior isolation, participants stressedthat the fear of losing independence often impeded seniors from seeking connections(Family Service Agency of San Francisco, 2012).

San Franciscans who experience unique issues related to isolation include:

Younger adults with disabilities: Many social programs and discounts at culturalinstitutions are targeted toward the senior population, not younger adults withdisabilities. Per 2012 program data, the vast majority (92%) of DAAS program

Many seniors havebeen taken advantageof so they’re wary ofpeople… This topic ishard because a lot ofseniors don’t wantservices even thoughthey need them.-- African AmericanFocus Group Participant

This communitycenter is like asecond family.– Jackie Chan

CommunityForumParticipant



participants in this area are be seniors. Working with younger disabled populationsrequires much more than providing physical accessibility. In fact, the 2009 AmericanCommunity Survey found that the most common type of disability for younger adults inSan Francisco was serious difficulty with concentrating, remembering or makingdecisions because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, followed closely byserious difficulty with walking or climbing stairs.

Linguistically isolated seniors: The 2009 American Community Survey estimates that31,532 (28%) of seniors age 65 or older are living in linguistically isolated households.1

This is an increase compared to the 2000 Census, when 25% of seniors werelinguistically isolated.

Individuals living alone, not in senior-specific or supportive housing:Just over 40% of all households with an older adult (age 60+) weresingle-person households according to the 2010 Census. Focus groupand community forum participants, especially the African Americanfocus group, expressed particular concerns about individuals living inmore isolated housing types. According to a study of isolated seniorsin the Bay Area, those living in senior-specific housing or even in SingleRoom Occupancy hotels (SROs) are less likely to be isolated than thoseliving in non-senior-specific housing. These residents may be less likelyto have relationships with immediate neighbors, and their buildingsare less likely to be targeted for outreach regarding local socializationactivities for seniors (Portocolone, 2011).

LGBT seniors: Research has demonstrated that LGBT older adults arean at-risk, health disparate, and vulnerable population. In 2012, theBoard of Supervisors established a time-limited aging LGBT task forcegroup to explore the health and wellness of LGBT older adults in SanFrancisco. Although this population shares many of the same needs asthe general aging population, the 2013 study completed by the taskforce also found important distinctions. For example, LGBT older adults are more likelyto live alone and less likely to have children (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al, 2013).Additionally, some of the surveyed individuals reported a sense that services (e.g., mealsite/free groceries and substance use programs) were not LGBT-friendly.2 Socialisolation is a significant risk for this population; ten percent of survey participantsexperience frequent limited activities due to poor mental health and 15% reportedhaving seriously considered taking their own lives in the past 12 months.

1 IPUMS American Community Survey 3-year estimates 2007-2009.2 The full report can be accessed athttp://depts.washington.edu/agepride/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SF-LGBTOlderAdultsFINAL7-10-13.pdf

I live at the librarybecause it’s the onlyplace to go. I try to goto senior days withmy grandchildren andthey don’t let me in.Those days are goodfor people withdisabilities becausethey are not socrowded. I could goon free day foreveryone, but it’s notgood because of mymobility issues. –Adults withdisabilities focusgroup participant



The following trends may have an impact on the issue of social isolation in the comingmonths and years:

Expansion of on-line access and social networking tools: Online social connection is agrowing strategy for reducing isolation among older adults and adults with disabilities.The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), which provided computersto several community-based organizations serving seniors and adults with disabilities viaa grant through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), has beencontinued through the locally-funded SF Connected initiative. Supported by Mayor Leeand the Board of Supervisors, SF Connected is a partnership between DAAS, Departmentof Technology and 26 community-based service organizations – all collaborating toprovide computer access, training, and support for seniors and adults with disabilities.Additionally, the Community Living Campaign continues to focus on on reducing socialisolation and eliminating barriers to the aging community through the use of internet-based tools that can provide a forum to build and enhance personal relationships.

Village model: The two “Village” organizations continue to operate in San Francisco.These membership organizations promote participation in social, cultural, and volunteeractivities and help connect consumers to support services as needed. Memberships ofthe villages have grown over the last three years (from approximately 160 to 375).Though still relatively small, these villages represent a new model for engaging isolatedindividuals and those who are at risk of isolation. 3

CHANGES TO DAAS PROGRAMMING OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS (UPDATED SEPT. 2014)

Over the last five years, DAAS funding for isolation and socialization programming hasincreased by $1,233,241 (40%).4 Nearly half of that increase was due to the BTOP grant,which included, among other services, internet-based community building initiativesthrough the Community Living Campaign, National Council on Aging, and othercontractors. In FY10/11, BTOP was just beginning and funding was used to hire aconsultant.

Other funding and programming changes at DAAS included:

Community Services, which focus on Senior/Activity Centers, had the largestincrease ($604,591, 49%). Funding in this program area is used to provide a varietyof supportive services to clients including: translation, activities scheduling,information and referral, etc. The size of this funding increase reflects the overall

3 For more details, please refer to the San Francisco Village Website,http://www.sfvillage.org/ or the NEXT Village Website: http://nextsf.org/.4 Please note that FY10/11 figures include year-end addbacks. Due to pending addbacks,FY14/15 figures may not represent the entire amount that will be spent in each programarea in the year.



OOA budget increase between FY10/11 and FY14/15 (from approximately $22.6million to $27.3 million).

Funding for Social Supports for Hoarders and Clutterers has increased by $110,241(76%). This service was initially funded in FY06/07. As more professionals havebeen trained on the issue, the number of consumers receiving information andreferral has increased over time. This program has been threatened repeatedly bybudget cuts, but has yet to see a significant cut after year-end Board of Supervisoradd-backs are taken into account. Notably, funding for this service this year wasprovided in the FY14/15 budget, rather than as addbacks from the Board ofSupervisors.

The Senior Companion program represents a small portion of Isolation/Socializationfunding. FY14/15 slightly increased funding ($771, 3%). Formerly funded in part bythe state, this service is now funded entirely by the local General Fund.



REFERENCES

1. Cacioppo, J., Hawkley, L., Crawford, L.E., Ernst, J., Burleson, M., Kowalewski, R.,Malarkey, W., Van Cauter, E., & Berntson, G. (2002). Loneliness and Health:Potential Mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64: 407-417.

2. Family Service Agency of San Francisco (2012). Tea & Conversation, Notes.March 7, 2012.

3. Rathbone-McCuan, E., & Hashim, J. (1982). Isolated Elders: Health and socialIntervention. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publications.

4. Perissinotto, C. M., Stijacic Cenzer, I., & Covinsky, K. E. (2012). Loneliness in OlderPersons: A Predictor of Functional Decline and Death. Archive of InternalMedicine, 172(14):1078-1084.

5. Portacolone, E. (2011). Precariousness Among Older Adults Living Alone in SanFrancisco: an Ehtnography. PhD dissertation, University of California in SanFrancisco, September 6, 2011.

6. Seeman T.E., Lusignolo T. M., Albert M., & Berkman L. (2001). Socialrelationships, social support, and patterns of cognitive aging in healthy, high-functioning older adults: MacArthur studies of successful aging. HealthPsychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, AmericanPsychological Association. 20(4): 243-55.

7. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Kim, H. J., Hoy-Ellis, C. P., Goldesen, J., Jensen, D.,Adelman, M., Costa, L. M., & De Vries, B. (2013). Addressing the Needs of LGBTOlder Adults in San Francisco. Seattle: Institute for Multigenerational Health.

San Francsico Senior Demographics by Supervisorial DistrictSupervisorial District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TotalPopulation

All Ages 74,948 63,706 75,694 71,586 77,663 66,209 69,329 68,510 82,286 74,110 81,194 805,23560-74 y/o 9,697 7,525 11,337 10,133 8,195 7,239 10,167 7,944 8,436 7,838 10,699 99,21075-84 y/o 4,192 3,143 5,223 4,194 3,266 2,776 3,804 2,155 2,984 2,560 3,732 38,029

85+ 1,849 1,718 2,251 1,919 2,008 1,025 2,026 940 1,164 961 1,630 17,491Total Senior Population 60+ 15,738 12,386 18,811 16,246 13,469 11,040 15,997 11,039 12,584 11,359 16,061 154,730% of Seniors in District 60+ 21.0% 19.4% 24.9% 22.7% 17.3% 16.7% 23.1% 16.1% 15.3% 15.3% 19.8% 19.2%Distribution by District, of Seniors 60+ 10.2% 8.0% 12.2% 10.5% 8.7% 7.1% 10.3% 7.1% 8.1% 7.3% 10.4% 100.0%

Gender, Age 60+Male 6,828 5,290 8,929 7,139 5,791 5,921 7,197 5,686 5,527 5,039 6,846 70,193

Female 8,910 7,096 9,882 9,107 7,678 5,119 8,800 5,353 7,057 6,320 9,215 84,537% Female 57% 57% 53% 56% 57% 46% 55% 48% 56% 56% 57% 55%

Ethnicity of Senior Population, 65+One race 11,087 9,196 13,809 11,394 9,682 7,565 11,185 7,008 8,389 7,602 10,899 107,816One race % 98.7% 98.6% 99.1% 98.8% 97.8% 97.7% 98.5% 97.7% 96.2% 97.9% 97.6% 98.2%

African American 245 165 210 127 1,588 595 530 226 446 2,132 1,132 7,396African American % 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% 1.1% 16.0% 7.7% 4.7% 3.2% 5.1% 27.5% 10.1% 6.7%

Asian/Pacific Islander 6,443 1,367 8,633 6,775 2,928 4,151 3,367 1,030 3,009 3,472 5,586 46,761Asian/Pacific Islander % 57.4% 14.7% 61.9% 58.8% 29.6% 53.6% 29.7% 14.4% 34.5% 44.7% 50.0% 42.6%

Native American/Alaskan Native 14 13 12 15 16 34 27 34 64 19 38 286Native American/Alaskan Native % 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%

White (Alone) 4,317 7,623 4,879 4,398 5,016 2,648 7,118 5,438 3,881 1,601 3,406 50,325White (Alone) % 38.4% 81.8% 35.0% 38.1% 50.7% 34.2% 62.7% 75.8% 44.5% 20.6% 30.5% 45.8%

Other race 68 28 75 79 134 137 143 280 989 378 737 3,048Other race % 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 1.4% 1.8% 1.3% 3.9% 11.3% 4.9% 6.6% 2.8%

Two or more races 143 128 132 135 215 176 170 165 327 162 273 2,026Two or more races % 1.3% 1.4% 0.9% 1.2% 2.2% 2.3% 1.5% 2.3% 3.8% 2.1% 2.4% 1.8%

Latino/Latina* 359 292 324 436 429 451 782 1,109 2,978 867 2,122 10,149Latino/Latina % 3.2% 3.1% 2.3% 3.8% 4.3% 5.8% 6.9% 15.5% 34.2% 11.2% 19.0% 9.2%White (Alone, Not Hispanic) 4,077 7,385 4,672 4,101 4,760 2,409 6,535 4,712 2,174 1,206 2,235 44,266White (Alone, Not Hispanic) % 36.3% 79.2% 33.5% 35.6% 48.1% 31.1% 57.6% 65.7% 24.9% 15.5% 20.0% 40.3%

Total Senior Population 65+ 11,230 9,324 13,941 11,529 9,897 7,741 11,355 7,173 8,716 7,764 11,172 109,842(Source: Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Tables P12A to P12I)

(Source: Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data)


*Non-white races may include a few individuals who identify as Latino. An estimated 4,090 seniors age 65+ fall into this category.

Demographics of All Seniors - 1

San Francsico Senior Demographics by Supervisorial DistrictSupervisorial District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TotalEstimate of Language Ability IndicatorsLimited English: Speaks English not well or not

at all, 65+ 4,129 819 7,617 4,770 2,746 3,199 2,138 994 3,478 2,602 4,181 36,673Total 65+ (ACS Sample Estimate) 10,379 9,123 14,107 12,213 9,587 6,813 11,694 7,100 8,466 7,480 11,211 108,173

Limited English: Speaks English not well or notat all, 65+ % 39.8% 9.0% 54.0% 39.1% 28.6% 47.0% 18.3% 14.0% 41.1% 34.8% 37.3% 33.9%

Distribution, by district, Limited English 65+ 11.3% 2.2% 20.8% 13.0% 7.5% 8.7% 5.8% 2.7% 9.5% 7.1% 11.4% 100.0%

Lives Alone 60+ 4,075 4,992 7,909 2,915 5,798 5,150 3,510 4,269 2,665 1,850 1,884 45,017Total Households with persons 60+ 11,019 9,080 14,520 11,120 10,290 8,344 10,848 8,660 8,862 7,843 10,311 110,897

Lives Alone 60+ % 37.0% 55.0% 54.5% 26.2% 56.3% 61.7% 32.4% 49.3% 30.1% 23.6% 18.3% 40.6%Distribution by District, Lives Along 60+ 9.9% 8.2% 13.1% 10.0% 9.3% 7.5% 9.8% 7.8% 8.0% 7.1% 9.3% 100.0%

Estimate of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Senior Population% 60+ who are LGBT 5.3% 7.8% 11.7% 6.8% 7.4% 16.3% 7.2% 19.8% 5.9% 5.2% 4.7% 11.1%

# 60+ who are LGBT (estimate) 828 972 2,196 1,109 991 1,805 1,152 2,190 741 590 752 17,211

*For the first time, the 2010 Census was in the short form as the long form has been replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS provides detailed demographic, economic, and housing data that wasonce supplied by the Decennial Census long form. However, the ACS is only sent to 3 million households each year, where as the Decennial Census is sent to all addresses every ten years.


(Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-Year Sample, Table B16004)

(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 estimatefor the entire city each percentage, including that for all districts, are applied independently.)


San Francsico Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District

Race/Ethnicity of Seniors 65+, by District

0%10%

20%30%

40%

50%60%

70%80%

90%100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

Supervisorial District

Est

ima

ted

%

Other

African American

Latino/a

White (Alone, Not Hispanic)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Total Senior Population 60+, by District(Total = 154,730)

15,73812,386

18,81116,246

13,46911,040

15,997

11,03912,584 11,359

16,061

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Supervisorial District



Seniors 65+ who speak English "not well" or "not at all," by

District

40%

9%

54%

39%

29%

47%

18%

14%

41%

35%37%

34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total


Est

imat

ed

%

Seniors 60+ Living Alone, by District

37%

55% 54%

26%

56%

62%

32%

49%

30%

24%

18%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total


Est

imat

ed

%

Percentage of Seniors 60+ who are LGBT, by District

5%

8%

12%

7% 7%

16%

7%

20%

6% 5% 5%

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total


Est

imat

ed%

Source: San Francisco City Survey 2001-2011. Note that seniors are defined as 60+ for allyears except 2011, in which they are definted as 65+.



Distribution of Indicators of Need for Community Services Compared to Actual Enrollment, byDistrict (Each row totals 100% for the city)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

All Seniors 60+ 10.2% 8.0% 12.2% 10.5% 8.7% 7.1% 10.3% 7.1% 8.1% 7.3% 10.4%

Lives Alone 60+ % 9.9% 8.2% 13.1% 10.0% 9.3% 7.5% 9.8% 7.8% 8.0% 7.1% 9.3%

Seniors 65+ <100% FPL 9.2% 3.8% 22.4% 7.9% 10.9% 12.7% 5.2% 6.0% 5.8% 7.4% 8.9%

Limited English 65+ 11.3% 2.2% 20.8% 13.0% 7.5% 8.7% 5.8% 2.7% 9.5% 7.1% 11.4%

CS Consumers FY1112 6.6% 2.6% 8.7% 9.1% 5.9% 19.3% 7.5% 6.5% 9.9% 8.1% 15.9%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


San Francsico Senior Demographics by Supervisorial DistrictSupervisorial District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TotalPoverty Status (Estimates)Total Seniors 65+ <100% FPL 1,153 475 2,810 988 1,371 1,600 650 748 728 924 1,123 12,570Total Seniors 65+ 100%-199% FPL 2,353 1,399 5,621 2,335 3,108 3,236 2,018 1,286 2,476 1,681 2,520 28,033Total Seniors 65+ 200% FPL+ 6,756 7,090 5,547 8,822 4,729 1,977 8,436 5,066 5,198 4,843 7,261 65,725Seniors 65+ for whom poverty status wasdetermined 10,262 8,964 13,978 12,145 9,208 6,813 11,104 7,100 8,402 7,448 10,904 106,328Total Senior Population 65+ 11,230 9,324 13,941 11,529 9,897 7,741 11,355 7,173 8,716 7,764 11,172 109,842

% of seniors in this district with incomes below:100% FPL 10.3% 5.1% 20.2% 8.6% 13.9% 20.7% 5.7% 10.4% 8.4% 11.9% 10.1% 11.4%200% FPL 31.2% 20.1% 60.5% 28.8% 45.3% 62.5% 23.5% 28.4% 36.8% 33.6% 32.6% 37.0%

Distribution, by district, of seniors with incomes below:100% FPL 9.2% 3.8% 22.4% 7.9% 10.9% 12.7% 5.2% 6.0% 5.8% 7.4% 8.9% 100.0%200% FPL 8.6% 4.6% 20.8% 8.2% 11.0% 11.9% 6.6% 5.0% 7.9% 6.4% 9.0% 100.0%

Race & Ethnicity of Seniors 65+ withincomes below 100% FPL (Estimates)

One race 1,138 475 2,751 981 1,371 1,588 650 722 695 924 1,095 12,390One race % 98.7% 100.0% 97.9% 99.3% 100.0% 99.3% 100.0% 96.5% 95.5% 100.0% 97.5% 98.6%

African American 28 0 40 0 582 181 24 0 43 272 125 1,295African American % 2.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 42.5% 11.3% 3.7% 0.0% 5.9% 29.4% 11.1% 10.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 690 92 2,327 753 372 974 322 142 139 385 348 6,544Asian/Pacific Islander % 59.8% 19.4% 82.8% 76.2% 27.1% 60.9% 49.5% 19.0% 19.1% 41.7% 31.0% 52.1%

Native American/Alaskan Native 0 0 11 0 6 10 0 0 21 0 0 48Native American/Alaskan Native % 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

White (Alone) 410 383 373 228 397 373 272 580 418 245 606 4,285White (Alone) % 35.6% 80.6% 13.3% 23.1% 29.0% 23.3% 41.8% 77.5% 57.4% 26.5% 54.0% 34.1%

Other race 10 0 0 0 14 50 32 0 74 22 16 218Other race % 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.1% 4.9% 0.0% 10.2% 2.4% 1.4% 1.7%

Two or more races 15 0 59 7 0 12 0 26 33 0 28 180Two or more races % 1.3% 0.0% 2.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 3.5% 4.5% 0.0% 2.5% 1.4%

Latino/Latina* 25 39 69 44 45 94 58 179 391 116 174 1,234Latino/Latina % 2.2% 8.2% 2.5% 4.5% 3.3% 5.9% 8.9% 23.9% 53.7% 12.6% 15.5% 9.8%White (Alone, Not Hispanic) 395 344 333 184 374 342 246 401 161 151 448 3,379White (Alone, Not Hispanic) % 34.3% 72.4% 11.9% 18.6% 27.3% 21.4% 37.8% 53.6% 22.1% 16.3% 39.9% 26.9%Total Senior Population 65+ in Poverty 1,153 475 2,810 988 1,371 1,600 650 748 728 924 1,123 12,570

(Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-Year Sample, Table B17024, for poverty figures. Total senior population figures from Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data)

*For the first time, the 2010 Census was in the short form as the long form has been replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS provides detailed demographic, economic,and housing data that was once supplied by the Decennial Census long form. However, the ACS is only sent to 3 million households each year, where as the Decennial Census is sent to alladdresses every ten years.

(Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-Year Sample, Tables B17020A to B17020I)*Non-white races may include a few individuals who identify as Latino, but the total is relatively low. An estimated 328 low-income individuals fall into this category.

Demographics of Seniors in Poverty - 1


Supervisorial District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TotalHunger EstimatesSeniors 65+ who…

Live with the threat of hunger 1,738 1,148 3,439 1,798 1,931 1,886 1,515 1,101 1,467 1,290 1,810 19,122% live with threat of hunger 15.5% 12.3% 24.7% 15.6% 19.5% 24.4% 13.3% 15.3% 16.8% 16.6% 16.2% 17.4%

Are at risk of hunger* 937 603 1,889 958 1,050 1,041 798 593 783 698 972 10,322% at risk of hunger 8.3% 6.5% 13.6% 8.3% 10.6% 13.4% 7.0% 8.3% 9.0% 9.0% 8.7% 9.4%Are facing hunger* 319 204 648 325 359 357 270 201 266 238 331 3,518

% facing hunger 2.8% 2.2% 4.6% 2.8% 3.6% 4.6% 2.4% 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3.2%Distribution, by district, of seniors livingwith the threat of hunger

9.1% 6.0% 18.0% 9.4% 10.1% 9.9% 7.9% 5.8% 7.7% 6.7% 9.5% 100.0%

* Note that those at risk of hunger and facing hunger are a subset of those that live with the threat of hunger.

(Source: James P. Ziliak and Craig Gunderson, Senior Hunger in America 2010: An Annual Repot and Supplemental Report (Alexandria, VA: Meals on Wheels Research Foundation, 2012). Thisreport and its supplement provides national estimates of the prevalence of various levels of food inssecurity among seniors of different poverty levels. The figures above apply thoseprevalence rates to local SF poverty population figures. It was not possible to provide more local estimates. The Current Population Survey, the original source for the Ziliak and Gundersonarticle, has too small a sample of seniors in poverty to provide accurate estimates, even when using data for all Bay Area counties.)

Senior Demographics by Supervisorial District



Total Senior Population 65+, by Poverty Status and District(Total = 106,328 for whom poverty status was determined)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Supervisorial District

200% FPL or more

100%-199% FPL

<100% FPL

% of Seniors 65+ who are Low Income, by District

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TotalSupervisorial District

Below 100% FPL

Below 200% FPL



Race/Ethnicity of Seniors with Incomes <100% FPL, by District

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total


Est

imat

ed

%Other

African American

Latino/a

White (Alone, Not Hispanic)

Asian/Pacific Islander

% of Seniors 65+ Who Live with the Threat of Hunger

15%

12%

25%

16%

20%

24%

13%15%

17% 17% 16%17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total


Est

imat

ed

%


Senior Demographics by Region

Demographics of SeniorsRegion A B C D TotalIncludes Supervisor Districts 1, 4, 5 2, 3 7, 8, 11 6, 9, 10Population

All Ages 224,197 139,400 219,033 222,605 805,23560-74 y/o 28,025 18,862 28,810 23,513 99,21075-84 y/o 11,652 8,366 9,691 8,320 38,029

85+ 5,776 3,969 4,596 3,150 17,491Total Senior Population 60+ 45,453 31,197 43,097 34,983 154,730% of Seniors in Region 60+ 20.3% 22.4% 19.7% 15.7% 19.2%Distribution by Region of Seniors 60+ 29% 20% 28% 23% 100%

Gender, Age 60+Male 19,758 14,219 19,729 16,487 70,193

Female 25,695 16,978 23,368 18,496 84,537% Female 56.5% 54.4% 54.2% 52.9% 54.6%

Ethnicity of Senior Population, 65+One race 32,163 23,005 29,092 23,556 107,816One race % 98.5% 98.9% 98.0% 97.3% 98.2%

African American 1,960 375 1,888 3,173 7,396African American % 6.0% 1.6% 6.4% 13.1% 6.7%

Asian/Pacific Islander 16,146 10,000 9,983 10,632 46,761Asian/Pacific Islander % 49.4% 43.0% 33.6% 43.9% 42.6%

Native American/Alaskan Native 45 25 99 117 286Native American/Alaskan Native % 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%

White (Alone) 13,731 12,502 15,962 8,130 50,325White (Alone) % 42.0% 53.7% 53.7% 33.6% 45.8%

Other race 281 103 1,160 1,504 3,048Other race % 0.9% 0.4% 3.9% 6.2% 2.8%

Two or more races 493 260 608 665 2,026Two or more races % 1.5% 1.1% 2.0% 2.7% 1.8%

Latino/Latina* 1,224 616 4,013 4,296 10,149Latino/Latina % 3.7% 2.6% 13.5% 17.7% 9.2%White (Alone, Not Hispanic) 12,938 12,057 13,482 5,789 44,266White (Alone, Not Hispanic) % 39.6% 51.8% 45.4% 23.9% 40.3%

Total Senior Population 65+ 32,656 23,265 29,700 24,221 109,842(Source: Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Tables P12A to P12I)

Estimate of Language Ability IndicatorsLimited English: Speaks English not well or not at all, 65+ 11,645 8,436 7,313 9,279 36,673

Total 65+ (ACS Sample Estimate) 32,179 23,230 30,005 22,759 108,173Limited English: Speaks English not well or not at all, 65+ % 36.2% 36.3% 24.4% 40.8% 33.9%

Distribution, by district, Limited English 65+ 31.8% 23.0% 19.9% 25.3% 100.0%



*Non-white races may include a few individuals who identify as Latino. An estimated 4,090 seniors age 65+ fall into this

(Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-Year Sample, Table B16004)

Region Demographics - 1


Demographics of SeniorsRegion A B C D TotalIncludes Supervisor Districts 1, 4, 5 2, 3 7, 8, 11 6, 9, 10Lives Alone

Lives Alone 60+ 12,788 12,901 9,663 9,665 45,017Total Households with persons 60+ 32,429 23,600 29,819 25,049 110,897

Lives Alone 60+ % 39.4% 54.7% 32.4% 38.6% 40.6%Distribution by District, Lives Along 60+ 28.4% 28.7% 21.5% 21.5% 100.0%


Estimate of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Senior Population% 60+ who are LGBT 6.4% 10.2% 9.5% 9.0% 11.1%

# 60+ who are LGBT (estimate) 2,928 3,167 4,094 3,136 17,211

Poverty Status (Estimates)Total Seniors 65+ <100% FPL 3,512 3,285 2,521 3,252 12,570Total Seniors 65+ 100%-199% FPL 7,796 7,020 5,824 7,393 28,033Total Seniors 65+ 200% FPL+ 20,307 12,637 20,763 12,018 65,725Seniors 65+ for whom poverty status was determined 31,615 22,942 29,108 22,663 106,328Total Senior Population 65+ 32,656 23,265 29,700 24,221 109,842

% of seniors in this region with incomes below:100% FPL 11.1% 14.3% 8.7% 14.3% 11.8%200% FPL 35.8% 44.9% 28.7% 47.0% 38.2%

Distribution, by region, of seniors with incomes below:100% FPL 27.9% 26.1% 20.1% 25.9% 100.0%200% FPL 28% 25% 21% 26% 100%

(Source: San Francisco City Survey 2001-2011. Note that seniors were defined as 60+ for all years except 2011, in whichthey were defined as 65+. The sum of the estimates for the districts do not total the estimate for the entire city eachpercentage, including that for all districts, are applied independently.)*For the first time, the 2010 Census was in the short form as the long form has been replaced by the American CommunitySurvey (ACS). The ACS provides detailed demographic, economic, and housing data that was once supplied by the DecennialCensus long form. However, the ACS is only sent to 3 million households each year, where as the Decennial Census is sent toall addresses every ten years.

(Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-Year Sample, Table B17024, for poverty figures. Total senior population



Demographics of SeniorsRegion A B C D TotalIncludes Supervisor Districts 1, 4, 5 2, 3 7, 8, 11 6, 9, 10Race & Ethnicity of Seniors 65+ with incomes below 100%FPL (Estimates)

One race 3,490 3,226 2,467 3,207 12,390One race % 99.4% 98.2% 97.9% 98.6% 98.6%

African American 610 40 149 496 1,295African American % 17.4% 1.2% 5.9% 15.3% 10.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander 1,815 2,419 812 1,498 6,544Asian/Pacific Islander % 51.7% 73.6% 32.2% 46.1% 52.1%

Native American/Alaskan Native 6 11 0 31 48Native American/Alaskan Native % 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.4%

White (Alone) 1,035 756 1,458 1,036 4,285White (Alone) % 29.5% 23.0% 57.8% 31.9% 34.1%

Other race 24 0 48 146 218Other race % 0.7% 0.0% 1.9% 4.5% 1.7%

Two or more races 22 59 54 45 180Two or more races % 0.6% 1.8% 2.1% 1.4% 1.4%

Latino/Latina* 114 108 411 601 1,234Latino/Latina % 3.2% 3.3% 16.3% 18.5% 9.8%White (Alone, Not Hispanic) 953 677 1,095 654 3,379White (Alone, Not Hispanic) % 27.1% 20.6% 43.4% 20.1% 26.9%Total Senior Population 65+ in Poverty 3,512 3,285 2,521 3,252 12,570

Hunger EstimatesSeniors 65+ who…

Live with the threat of hunger 5,467 4,587 4,426 4,643 19,122% live with threat of hunger 16.7% 19.7% 14.9% 19.2% 17.4%

Are at risk of hunger* 2,945 2,492 2,363 2,522 10,322% at risk of hunger 9.0% 10.7% 8.0% 10.4% 9.4%Are facing hunger* 1,003 851 802 861 3,518

% facing hunger 3.1% 3.7% 2.7% 3.6% 3.2%Distribution, by region, of seniors living with the threat ofhunger 28.6% 24.0% 23.1% 24.3% 100.0%

* Note that those at risk of hunger and facing hunger are a subset of those that live with the threat of hunger.

*Non-white races may include a few individuals who identify as Latino, but the total is relatively low. An estimated 328 low-*For the first time, the 2010 Census was in the short form as the long form has been replaced by the American Community

(Source: James P. Ziliak and Craig Gunderson, Senior Hunger in America 2010: An Annual Repot and Supplemental Report(Alexandria, VA: Meals on Wheels Research Foundation, 2012). This report and its supplement provides national estimatesof the prevalence of various levels of food inssecurity among seniors of different poverty levels. The figures above applythose prevalence rates to local SF poverty population figures. It was not possible to provide more local estimates. TheCurrent Population Survey, the original source for the Ziliak and Gunderson article, has too small a sample of seniors inpoverty to provide accurate estimates, even when using data for all Bay Area counties.)

(Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-Year Sample, Tables B17020A to B17020I)


S1810: DISABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates

Subject San Francisco County, California

Total With a disability Percent with a disability

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

Total civilian noninstitutionalized population 810,767 +/-609 84,428 +/-2,267 10.4% +/-0.3

Population under 5 years 36,240 +/-130 180 +/-133 0.5% +/-0.4

With a hearing difficulty (X) (X) 88 +/-87 0.2% +/-0.2

With a vision difficulty (X) (X) 92 +/-101 0.3% +/-0.3

Population 5 to 17 years 72,834 +/-246 1,685 +/-418 2.3% +/-0.6

With a hearing difficulty (X) (X) 233 +/-126 0.3% +/-0.2

With a vision difficulty (X) (X) 246 +/-171 0.3% +/-0.2

With a cognitive difficulty (X) (X) 1,258 +/-376 1.7% +/-0.5

With an ambulatory difficulty (X) (X) 190 +/-144 0.3% +/-0.2

With a self-care difficulty (X) (X) 330 +/-185 0.5% +/-0.3

Population 18 to 64 years 590,956 +/-516 40,052 +/-1,885 6.8% +/-0.3

With a hearing difficulty (X) (X) 6,552 +/-851 1.1% +/-0.1

With a vision difficulty (X) (X) 7,871 +/-964 1.3% +/-0.2

With a cognitive difficulty (X) (X) 20,276 +/-1,727 3.4% +/-0.3

With an ambulatory difficulty (X) (X) 18,318 +/-1,361 3.1% +/-0.2

With a self-care difficulty (X) (X) 7,546 +/-825 1.3% +/-0.1

With an independent living difficulty (X) (X) 15,381 +/-1,400 2.6% +/-0.2

Population 65 years and over 110,737 +/-449 42,511 +/-1,292 38.4% +/-1.2

With a hearing difficulty (X) (X) 14,786 +/-1,121 13.4% +/-1.0

With a vision difficulty (X) (X) 9,415 +/-1,056 8.5% +/-1.0

With a cognitive difficulty (X) (X) 14,363 +/-1,045 13.0% +/-0.9

With an ambulatory difficulty (X) (X) 28,751 +/-1,262 26.0% +/-1.1

With a self-care difficulty (X) (X) 15,300 +/-1,017 13.8% +/-0.9

With an independent living difficulty (X) (X) 25,253 +/-1,359 22.8% +/-1.2

San Francisco Disability Population Estimates


Disability Population Estimates - 1

S1810: DISABILITY CHARACTERISTICS (continued)


Subject San Francisco County, California

Total With a disability Percent with a disability

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

Estimate Margin of

Error

SEX

Male 411,428 +/-454 40,720 +/-1,646 9.9% +/-0.4

Female 399,339 +/-373 43,708 +/-1,665 10.9% +/-0.4

RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN

One Race 777,098 +/-2,289 81,375 +/-2,257 10.5% +/-0.3

White alone 408,321 +/-3,538 37,883 +/-1,794 9.3% +/-0.4

Black or African American alone 47,620 +/-1,411 10,757 +/-1,039 22.6% +/-2.3

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 3,032 +/-678 783 +/-256 25.8% +/-8.1

Asian alone 271,664 +/-2,112 27,353 +/-1,467 10.1% +/-0.5

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 3,568 +/-162 536 +/-212 15.0% +/-5.8

Some other race alone 42,893 +/-3,442 4,063 +/-642 9.5% +/-1.5

Two or more races 33,669 +/-2,084 3,053 +/-613 9.1% +/-1.8

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 337,038 +/-723 30,867 +/-1,661 9.2% +/-0.5

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 123,618 +/-241 11,872 +/-843 9.6% +/-0.7

PERCENT IMPUTED

Disability status 5.5% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Hearing difficulty 3.7% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Vision difficulty 4.0% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Cognitive difficulty 4.4% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Ambulatory difficulty 4.4% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Self-care difficulty 4.4% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Independent living difficulty 4.5% (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

San Francisco Disability Population Estimates


Disability Population Estimates - 2

Documents

SUMMARY OF ISOLATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS – …mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA36919.pdf · independent of depression and/or live-alone status, was a predictor of functional