Email This to a Friend
Cooking the Books on Homelessness Stats
Are there really 3 million Americans wandering the streets?
A civil grand jury in San Francisco (which readers should understand served as an advisory group and was not associated with any court case), recently found (PDF) that “The Homeless Have Homes, But They Are Still On the Street.”
In its detailed report (PDF), the grand jury also inadvertently revealed just how wildly overestimated statements made by the media and politicians are about the degree of homelessness in the US.
Among other things, the group found that most of the homeless have a city-funded home. This would mean that they’re not, well, “homeless.”
In a SFGate.com column about the report, C.W. Nevius noted that city officials agree (bold is mine):
The mayor and others are now admitting what the grand jury reported — that a majority of those on the streets are not homeless.
The head of the city’s homeless program, Dariush Kayhan, estimates that 50 to 75 percent of street people live in supportive housing.
“We just warehouse addicts,” said the grand jury’s Stuart Smith. “Granted, it is a nicer place for them, but it doesn’t address the problem.
The grand jury’s detailed report also says that:
… the city is now spending $186 million a year on homelessness, six times what was spent in 1993-94.
That astonishing amount is nowhere near the whole story. The group further noted that the $186 million “excludes the cost of County Adult Assistance Program welfare grants, emergency medical response, hospitalization, jail costs, most city management and overhead functions, and much else.” That is, the true cost, if it could be determined, would come in a lot higher.
A bit of number-crunching shows just how out-of-control the city’s homeless program spending really is:
- The report says that the city had 6,377 homeless in 2007 — a decline, by the way, of 26% since 2002.
- The direct costs alone to the city per homeless person are ….. (sit down) ….. over $29,000 a year.
- Yet, Nevius reports that not much has been accomplished beyond the “warehousing” noted earlier. In fact, people are still asking, “… can’t someone stop the panhandling? And, given all the programs and services, is it unreasonable to ask those who are being given supportive housing to start making some effort to be self-sufficient?”
This is San Francisco we’re talking about, so that question is up in the air.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
22 Comments
1. gnubi:I remember reading somewhere that the method a homeless shelter used to quantify the homeless was to count the number of people using its facilities each day. The interesting part was that there was no provision for counting repeat users. Thus, 3 people staying for 7 days counted as 21 homeless served. Just a guess, but I’ll bet there’s more money and political power associated with the number 21 than the number 3.
Jul 24, 2008 - 4:08 am 2. BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Post (’Cooking the Books on Homelessness Stats’) Is Up:[...] It’s here, with a good tease question: [...]
Jul 24, 2008 - 6:04 am 3. Joan of Argghh!:Right you are, gnubi. Sweet, sweet Social Services money and jobs would be lost. It’s a very lucrative industry with extremely competitive agencies vying for their slice of the American pie.
We won’t change it, because we’ve moved too far in the wrong direction. It would be cruel to wean the poor folks we’ve crippled with soft landings.
Jul 24, 2008 - 6:22 am 4. Assistant Village Idiot:The statistics have an accordion quality depending on need. “Insecure housing” is frequently referenced, and the numbers for temporary and chronic homelessness get conflated. I work in emergency psych and have contact with shelters and housing advocates all the time, and I couldn’t tell you what numbers are reliable, even for my own state.
Jul 24, 2008 - 6:35 am 5. ursa major:A friend of mine worked the 2000 census in the small northern Ohio county where I live. The census officials were positive that there were homeless people roaming the countryside. My friend along with several other census takers were compelled to go out at night with flashlights to “find” where the homeless were sleeping. Furthermore, they were directed to do this on a rainy night. They looked under every bridge in the count, large culverts and abandoned barns. Result? Zero homeless!
Jul 24, 2008 - 6:58 am 6. always right:Result? Zero homeless!
However, it makes the Ohioans feel proud when they have funds to help the homeless. And politicians put helping the homeless on their resume.
I wonder where does the money truly be spent on.
Jul 24, 2008 - 10:58 am 7. uburoisc:The homeless are, for the most part, either drug addicts, crazy people, or inveterate bums. Some are illegals.
The money for the homeless is spent on jobs for perfectly able people who cannot be of any other value to society except by pretending to help the “homeless”
Anytime anyone suggests that the homeless policies should be reconsidered, the government unions and the people who pretend to help the homeless throw a big fit and the politicians run and hide.
Without the homeless, the homeless jobs racket would have to wait tables.
There are a host of reasons who the drug addicts and crazy people do not get help, but that is another subject.
Jul 24, 2008 - 11:44 am 8. Bugs:I am loth to judge homeless people – I don’t know what events or problems brought them to their current circumstances. But I have to wonder along with others, “…given all the programs and services, is it unreasonable to ask those who are being given supportive housing to start making some effort to be self-sufficient?”
This question really comes to mind in this town, when I see the same homeless people wandering the streets year after year. Are they really victims of the economy or their own mistakes? Or are they merely engaging in their preferred lifestyle? I know it’s more complicated than that and not all homeless people are the same. But it does make me question the numbers also wonder if our tax dollars are being spent wisely. By “wisely,” I mean to help people find homes, not to subsidize their homelessness.
Jul 24, 2008 - 1:48 pm 9. Mudpie:We had millions of homeless under R.R. & Bush I.
Jul 24, 2008 - 3:08 pm 10. Paparon:Clinton was elected and The Homeless disappeared. Now under Bush II, we have millions
of homeless. Somehow I think Obuma will eleminate the bums.
How many of these homeless should be in a mental institution getting proper care?
Jul 24, 2008 - 3:17 pm 11. Joan of Argghh!:The professionally homeless have reasons why they don’t check in, don’t hold a job, drift from town to town and have no friends to help out. None of those reasons are good.
The unfortunate homeless are usually the result of a domestic split. They regroup quickly, usually, with help.
Jul 24, 2008 - 3:28 pm 12. Roderick Reilly:“”"”The homeless are, for the most part, either drug addicts, crazy people, or inveterate bums. Some are illegals.”"”"”
“”"”"How many of these homeless should be in a mental institution getting proper care?”"”"”"
While there were undoubtedly some mentally-ill vagrants prior to the mid-70s (I personally recall such people), the great influx of “crazy” homeless accured when Judge Harold Greene ruled in favor of mental health patient advocates to have America’s institutions virtually emptied of it’s patients. These well-meaning activists never heard of the expression “be carefull what you wish for,” and made no provisions for, nor even tried to set up model programs for dealing with the transition of the mentally ill from being locked up to being reintroduced to general society. It was watching this happen that made me acquire contempt for “activism.”
Jul 24, 2008 - 3:44 pm 13. ic:Homelessnes is always a problem when a Republican is in the White House, especially just before an election. For some unfathomable (miraculous?) reasons, homeless people disappeared, or seldom heard of in the Clinton years.
Jul 24, 2008 - 11:55 pm 14. SNZ:Unless you live in San Francisco, why care how that city wastes its taxes. Thats the great thing about city and state taxes… If you don’t agree with how your tax money is being spent, one can always move.
Jul 25, 2008 - 3:04 am 15. davod:I read some time ago, during the Clinton administration, that cities left it up to the homeless advocates to provide the figures. This might have explained the jump in the number of homeless.
Jul 25, 2008 - 6:24 am 16. Crass Børsting:Same problem everywhere, it seems.
In semi-socialist Denmark, some “homeless” people are actually building careers on belonging to this ill-defined group. Receiving welfare stipends while actually having places to live, often spacious subsidized apartments in the suburbs, selling their “homeless magazine” in the streets and, whenever possible, appearing in the media as the poor, wronged victims of society.
Jul 25, 2008 - 8:50 am 17. Sandra M:Unlike many politicians and bloviators on the subject of homelessness, I actually have met and spoken to (at length) a homeless couple.
They were homeless because unlike most people their first priority wasn’t shelter, it was alcohol in one case and drugs in the other.
Seldom have I met people so skilled in getting money and help from others. In the time I knew them the alcoholic managed to get a desk top Macintosh from a social service agency and then later a Powerbook like mine, which he gushed would give us something else in common. And his wardrobe included a Ralph Lauren denim jacket.
What I noticed is that people like this are a bottomless pit of need. They buy at 7/11 which is more expensive than a supermarket. They lose their glasses, and whatever you give them: blankets, duffle bags They always need MORE! Especially more MONEY!
Where did this couple sleep? Under a bridge.
The young man was not dumb, but alcohol had so completely destroyed his memory that he had to write every instruction down or he’d forget it.
His upper-middle class family wanted nothing to do with him after decades of being lied to and being taken advantage of.
I know that at the beginning of the month, such people in San Francisco are given a stipend of $400 or more. They usually go on an alcohol or drug binge with the money. Better to give them no more than a few dollars for incidentals at a time.
Money would be better spent on soup kitchens and nutritional supplements (B vitamins would make staying off alcohol easier).
Iince, I wouldn’t wish a night in a homeless shelter on anyone, it makes sense to remodel old hotels with bathing facilities and clean used clothes made available to them, and a switchboard that could take messages on jobs, with AA and Narcotics Anonymous meetings on site.
For the addicted and mentally disturbed, halfway houses where someone could make sure they take their meds If they show that they are willing to give up alcohol or drugs then more services should be made available to them.
The technology of pendants or bracelets that when pressed bring the paramedics to one’s home should do away with another social atrocity: nursing homes. The only one I’ve ever heard good things about was run by nuns. I’m sure the elderly would much rather stay in their homes and have part-time attendants do their shopping and cleaning and sometimes cooking. Much cheaper than a nursing home where doctors frequently charge thousands of dollars for five minute visits. The agency involved: the Department of Health and Human Services is doing a terrific job. Why not do as the private sector does and reward a great job with more responsibility such as the totally corrupt and incompetent Department of Housing and Urban Development? Would save the taxpayers huge amounts of money and would greatly help the elderly and disabled. And did you know that Barack Obama’s housing for the poor project when he was a community organizer is falling apart?
Jul 25, 2008 - 11:29 am 18. BizzyBlog » SF Report Unmasks Overhyped Nationwide Homeless Numbers:[...] This originally appeared here at Pajamas Media on Thursday [...]
Jul 26, 2008 - 5:23 am 19. JDubya:Amazing. A ton of money squandered by the guilt ridden fools, gutless to demand these people actually to work. I agree with other responses above about insanity and drug addiction. The former were kept in asylums and/or given strict drug assistance (which helped many), but this was torn aside by the guilt ridden fools who stated that these people should have the right to manage their own lives. As for the drug addicted, no one forced them to do it, some probably tried to help and gave up, and in the end, it is the individuals responsibility.
None of these people should be given money or a shelter at tax payers expense. Those who are in need of psychological assistance should get it, but in an asylum, where proper care and assistance will be put to good.
Giving handouts is another stupid social engineering attempt, gone awry (surprised?) due to stupidity on the governments watch with people who probably are not experts in the matter AND are not in the business to watch the budget.
If it truly is societies goal to end this problem, more measures are required to insure the right people are at them helm AND that the budgets applied should SHRINK every year. If we are to rid this issue, the goal should be to remove people from this situation, reform those with a chance and SHRINK the pool.
Jul 27, 2008 - 9:03 pm 20. ZZMike:Weren’t they thinking of putting in “homeless parking meters” not too long ago?
Their Sanctuary City progam isn’t exactly a stellar performer, either.
Jul 28, 2008 - 3:15 pm 21. John:The poverty industry knows how to get funding very effectively. For instance, The city of North Vancouver decided to count the homeless in our suburb next to Vancouver. Population about 95,000 with 2,165 so-called homeless. Over a “9 month period with 34 social agencies tabulating to find 2,200″!! (any repeats in 9 months?) Now the real kicker is this. I asked the city council how the assessment is done. Turns out Canada (US too??) uses the United Nations definition of homelessness. Living rough on the street or in a shelter, living on a friend or relatives couch and even the the temporary sleeping in a car or van. How did North Van’s homeless numbers turn out?
Jul 29, 2008 - 6:51 pm 22. BizzyBlog » Couldn’t Help But Comment (080608, Morning):Rough 570
couch 1021
car/van 574 (remember over a 9 months period)
Now remember I’m talking Canada….we use the enlightened United Nations definitions to decide our homeless numbers. It is insane. And real problems like Vancouver’s 15,000 heroin and crack addicts get shelter and free needles while there are only 34 YES 34 detox beds in the whole socialist mind numbed city. Guess it makes the bedwetters of the apocalypse feel good. Don’t be hoodwinked my US friends.
[...] up on my July BizzyBlog/Pajamas Media column on the chronic overestimation of the number of homeless in the US — Warren Todd Huston [...]
Aug 6, 2008 - 4:54 am