36% of SF's homeless are African American, versus 7% of the general population.
The data doesn't back you up. The very poorest unable to even find housing are statistically more likely to be African American than Hispanic.
[1]:http://sfmayor.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/...
Moreover, it's not even the 'Bay Area' - it's a tiny, unrepresentative spot of 700 000 people.
Also - 'homelessness' is not the same thing as 'under the poverty line'.
California is 33% latino, and less than 7% African American.
African Americans might be more likely to be 'in poverty', sadly, but there are nearly 5x more Latino Americans than African Americans in California.
This does not even include a large population undocumented people, who are far more likely to be Latino than Black.
Here is the data:
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
In the US, Latino Americans are just slightly less likely to be 'in poverty' than African Americans. In California, with a 5x more population, that would very roughly boil down to 5x more Latino Americans in poverty than African Americans.
Hence my point.
You also need to be very careful with context and analysis of "latino". Statistically, Latino is an overlay term representing cultural origin. Many African Americans identify as Latino.
Again, NYC is not America.
Again, we're talking about poverty rates, not homeless rates.
Yes, I understand 'Latino' is not always central/south American in the classic sense, but fyi - Latino's are far more likely to be classified as 'White' than 'African American' - i.e. Spanish, Cubans etc.