Descriptive Title: Percent of population, 1 year and older, living in the same house as one year ago

Geographic Unit of Analysis: Census tract

Percent of population, 1 year and older, living in the same house as one year ago (2005-2009)
Neighborhood% living in same house as 1 year ago90% MOE*
Bayview/Hunter's Point 87% 2%
Bernal Heights 90% 2%
Castro/Upper Market 85% 2%
Chinatown 89% 3%
Excelsior 91% 2%
Financial District/South Beach 82% 6%
Glen Park
Golden Gate Park NA NA
Haight Ashbury 76% 2%
Hayes Valley
Inner Richmond 80% 2%
Inner Sunset 83% 2%
Lakeshore 71% 2%
Lincoln Park
Lone Mountain/USF
Marina 77% 3%
McLaren Park
Mission 86% 2%
Mission Bay
Nob Hill 80% 2%
Noe Valley 87% 2%
North Beach 80% 3%
Outer Mission 90% 2%
Outer Richmond 87% 3%
Pacific Heights 76% 3%
Potrero Hill 81% 4%
Presidio 73% 5%
Presidio Heights 85% 4%
Russian Hill 82% 2%
San Francisco 84% 0%
Seacliff 83% 4%
South of Market 71% 3%
Treasure Island 76% 10%
Twin Peaks 88% 1%
Visitacion Valley 90% 1%
West of Twin Peaks 91% 2%
Western Addition 79% 2%

Why Is This An Indicator Of Health and Sustainability?

Households that are displaced often experience unhealthy situations due to the loss of social relationships within a community, the difficulties and stress associated with finding new housing that is affordable, as well as, the added time, energy and money needed to relocate. Frequent household moves have been linked with negative childhood events such as abuse, neglect, household dysfunction and increased likelihood of smoking and suicide in children.Frequent family relocation also leads to children repeating grades, school suspensions, and emotional and behavioral problems.b Childhood residential instability has also been found to predict lifetime risk of depression.c

In contrast, residential stability in childhood has shown to have positive effects on health at midlife.d Creating opportunities for affordable and safe housing forms a stable and healthy household environment which has long-term positive health implications, particularly for children.  

For additional information on the connections between housing and health, visit: The Case for Housing Impacts Assessment by SFDPH, Program on Health Equity and Sustainability (Report).

Interpretation and Geographic Equity Analysis

This indicator describes the percentage of persons (1 year and older) living in the same house that they lived in one year ago. This indicator which describes residential mobility is one dimension of social cohesion.  Neighborhoods that experience less residential mobility are more likely to develop lasting, supportive social networks among residents than neighborhoods with high residential mobility. Social networks tend to be developed over time and frequent turnover of neighbors decreases the likelihood that existing residents will invest in relationship development with newer residents.

With a few notable exceptions, neighborhoods in the southern third of San Francisco have lower residential mobility than many other neighborhoods. Certain census tracts in Pacific Heights, Western Addition, Haight Ashbury, Lakeshore, and South of Market have experienced significant residential turnover. Other neighborhoods that previously had low residential density, including Mission Bay, South of Market, Lakeshore, and formerly industrial areas of Bayview  have experienced a substantial growth in population over the five year period.  Neighborhoods with the lowest residential mobility are Crocker Amazon, Excelsior, Parkside, West of Twin Peaks, Outer Mission, Outer Sunset, Glen Park, Visitacion Valley, and Bernal Heights.

As illustrated on the map for Indicator H.1.d Home Ownership, residential mobility correlates closely with proportion of owner-occupied households. Recent events such as the dot-com boom in the late 1990s, the recent mortgage foreclosure crisis and rise in unemployment rates have significantly impacted residential demographics and mobility in the Bay Area.  Certain communities, particularly low-income communities of color, have been disproportionately affected by the changes and resulting demographic shifts. 

Over the past forty years, the African American community in particular has experienced significant residential mobility.  According to a 2009 report by the Mayor’s Task Force on African-American Out-Migration, the number of African Americans residing in San Francisco in 1970 was about 88,000. By 2005, the number had dropped to 46,779.  Between 1990 and 2000, the number of African American households decreased by 20.3%, while the number of non-African American households increased by 11%.e


Data were collected from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2005-2009. The estimated number of persons living in the same house they lived in one year ago was divided by the total population one year of age and older to calculate the percent who are still living in the same house.

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a sample survey, and thus, data are estimates rather than counts. Estimates have accompanying margins of error that indicate the span of values that the true value could fall within. Margins of error should be subtracted from and added to the value to determine the range of possible values. If the margin of error is too big relative to the value, data are not shown because they are statisitcally unstable. A coefficient of variation of 30% was used to determine statistical instability.


Data presented are from 2005-2009, which is just before the height of the mortgage foreclosure crisis.  Although the southern neighborhoods of San Francisco have historically had higher rates of home ownership compared to other parts of San Francisco, recent reports have suggested that these neighborhoods are also experiencing more foreclosures than other neighborhoods, which may impact residential mobility not currently captured by the Census data available.  One report by ACCE and the California Reinvestment Coalition stated that the three zipcodes with the highest number of foreclosures were 94124 (Bayview), 94134 (Visitacion Valley), and 94112 (Ocean View/Ingleside/Excelsior).f   It is also not known where the individuals losing their homes move to, whether they are staying within the same neighborhood or moving to other areas in San Francisco or outside San Francisco.

Changes in residential mobility do not indicate the reasons for mobility.  In some cases, such as Mission Bay, new housing is built where there formerly was little housing available.  In other cases, rising housing costs contribute to lower income residents experiencing eviction or gentrification in the neighborhood.

One of the most significant effects of residential displacement is the erosion of social capital and social cohesion—factors associated with health, education, and neighborhood safety. Strong social relationships and community cohesion are protective of health in multiple ways. Neighbors, friends, and family provide material as well as emotional support. Support, perceived or provided, can buffer stressful situations, prevents damaging feelings of isolation, and contributes to a sense of self-esteem and value. The magnitude of the effect of social support on health is substantial and has been illustrated by several prospective long term studies in the United States. For example, in one study in Alameda County, those with fewer social contacts (e.g. marriage, family, friends, and group membership) had twice the risk of early death, even accounting for income, race, smoking, obesity, and exercise. Social support and cohesion also serve to nurture children's development, strengthen family ties, and build trust, reciprocity and collective efficacy.g

In contrast, the erosion of neighborhoods as a result of forced displacement results in the reduction of long-term residents who are most likely to invest in their communities. In areas where residents feel less invested because of the continual threat of displacement, one can find depilated environmental conditions, such as broken windows on buildings, loitering and illegal disposing of hazardous substances, as well as higher high school drop out rates and higher crime rates. If displaced residents are forced to relocate outside of their neighborhood, valuable supportive family and community relationships can be lost both for those leaving and well as for those remaining behind.

Data Source

American Community Survey (ACS), 5-year Estimates, 2005-2009. 

Map and table created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software.

Map data is presented at the level of the census tract. The map also includes planning neighborhood names, in the vicinity of their corresponding census tracts.

Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. Planning neighborhoods are larger geographic areas than census tracts. SFDPH chose to use the San Francisco Planning Department's census tract neighborhood assignments to calculate neighborhood values. This assignment method relies on a 'centroids within' methodology to convert census tracts to geographic mean center points. Census tracts are assigned to planning neighborhoods based on the spatial location of those geographic mean center points and neighborhood totals are calculated for the table. In a few case, certain census tracts were redesignated to different neighborhoods based on knowledge of the population dispersion in the tract.

Detailed information regarding census data, geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found at the following links:

Interactive boundaries map

  1. Dong M. 2005. Childhood residential mobility and multiple health risks during adolescence and adulthood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 159:11-4-1110.
  2. Cooper, Merrill. 2001. Housing Affordability: A Children's Issue. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Discussion Paper.
  3. Gilman SE, Kawachi I, Fizmaurice GM Buka L. 2003. Socio-economic status, family disruption and residential stability in childhood: relation to onset, recurrence and remission of major depression. Psychol Medicine 33:1341-55.
  4. Bures RM. 2003. Childhood residential stability and health at midlife. American Journal of Public Health 93:1144-8.
  5. Report of the San Francisco Mayor’s Task Force on African-American Out-Migration.  2009.

  6. Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment and the California Reinvestment Coalition.   The Wall Street Wrecking Ball: What Foreclosures are Costing San Francisco Neighborhoods.  September 2011.

  7. Berkman LF, Syme SL. Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1979;109(2):186-204.