Talk:Homelessness in the United States/Archive 1

POV/Poor Writing

Most experts do NOT agree that Regan caused homelessness. This is extremely agressive, and uncalled for. An edit is in order. --75.1.246.112 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I 2nd Zenosparadox's beliefe that there is something of an aggressive POV on this page. Do most experts really believe that Reagon is the root of modern homelessness? -FarfromaReaganlover 24 October 2006

I feel there is something of an aggressive POV on this page. From statements like "Visitors to the city often get a taste of big city reality when they see people begging for change on many corners," to "We shelter our criminals but not our unfortunates", or so the advocates are inclined to say," the article is either poorly written, has a POV, or both. Zenosparadox 15:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Quotes: (Rephrasings from awkward constructions like "above-mentioned dilemma" are not included here. I feel I have not deleted any information. If you believe I have, please extract it, and re-add it. I wouldn't mind if you let me know as well! Zenosparadox 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no simple answer to the dilemma of what is homelessness just as there is no simple cause for why people become homeless. As equally diverse as the causes are the lives of those who experience homelessness. Homelessness is a complex social phenomenon that means different things to different people. However, since the vast majority of people experiencing homelessness do not want to be, for the intents and purposes of this entry consider homelessness as a situation to be prevented, escaped, and ultimately, ended.

Furthermore, Reagan was responsible for huge cuts in both welfare and income taxes. Many accredit such actions as widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

In context, this was explaining Reagan's culpability in the homelessness problem. Historical Background: 1980's includes his cuts in federal housing & deinstitutionalizing mental health hospitals, but I failed to see why precisely a rich/poor income gap would matter in the context of homelessness. I believe this to be part of a more pervasive POV, specifically that the author views the two, tax cuts with nonproportionate impact, and cutting of federal aid/deinstitutionalization, as one bundle, though they have different impacts on homelessness. Thoughts? If the rich/poor income gap exacerbated the homelessness problem by means of making houses more expensive, aggregating property in the hands of those few rich so poor couldn't buy property, then I could see the cause/effect. Otherwise, I think it's NPOV. If there's more data here, add it back in with the explanatory data.

At any rate, policies set into motion in the 1980s were never adequately reversed during the Bush Senior or Clinton administrations and disparities between rich and poor continued to widen; conditions, therefore, remained ripe for becoming homeless.

Was not deleted, but seems awfully NPOV. "adequately reversed.

Twenty years ago there was not wide-spread homelessness in America. Tonight nearly a million people will be homeless, despite a two billion dollar a year infrastructure designed to deal with the problem.

Was not deleted, but seems awfully NPOV. Was changed. (Citation needed, phrasing).

"Critics contend mainstream homeless programs fail to meet the unique needs of homeless youth."

Was not deleted, but a better explanation would be nice.

The entire topic "Criminalizing Homelessness" is a bit off. "Life-sustaining" doesn't resonate too well, smacks of author's clear NPOV. Zenosparadox 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited it to improve NPOV and Bold compliance. More work is needed. The lead needs work. Lead

24.23.60.221 (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this page seek to declare most of the cities listed the "homeless capital" of the United States? E.g.: "Over the years, Chicago has gained a reputation as the city with the most homeless people, rivaling Los Angeles and New York, although no statistical data have backed this up." Why not just stick to facts and refrain from attempting to declare a "homeless capital" which has zero practical meaning? There's no homeless Congress. Tom K. (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Massive Page Overhaul

I took the liberty of expanding the entry. Hopefully the new information is informative and helpful...I'm sorry it's so long, but I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible. I think that homelessness, especially in the United States, is an important yet frequently neglected issue. As far as I'm concerned, any dialouge on the topic is a good thing. I did rearrange the original material, but I didn't delete anything. -Kroz 05.26.06

Time for another overhaul! There's so much information on this page. There's POV and neutrality issues all over the place. The article lacks cohesion in a number of places as well. We need more verifiable claims and inline citations from reliable sources in many sections as well. I address the quality of this article, but it's a daunting task and I'm overwhelmed!Asturnut (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at updating this page as well, mostly to reflect the most current statistics we have in the United States from the 2009 AHAR report released in June 2010. I edited the 2000s section the most and began the 2010s section, which includes a section about the nation's first Federal Strategic Plan released in June 2010 and a requirement of the HEARTH legislation of 2009. Unfortunately, I too am overwhelmed. There's a part of me that just wants to get rid of all the content that is clearly biased to up the quality, but I simply don't have time. Deinstitutionalization and the urban renewal programs of the 1950s and 1960s in this country led to an increase in homelessness because the promise of affordable housing stock increase never materialized, but I don't have those citations handy. I mostly tried in the 2000s section to get rid of city-specific information or red herrings (e.g. discussion of a 2003 documentary) and focus on large sweeping federal-level policies in the decade that targeted the homeless population. - SWeaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWeaks (talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Does it upset you that one of the greatest nations on earth-as America is called-has such a high percentage of homelessness? Do you take a stand and do anything? Does it even affect you?--anyonita 20:57, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

According to wiki's own article on homelessness - the USA has less homelessness than Canada the EU and Australia per capita.

That is not right, the Australian rate is 0.5%, the American rate is 1%. Even more striking, the Australian rate includes trailer homes and emergency housing because there are almost no truly homeless in Australia, the American figure is limited to only those actually homeless. Sad mouse 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We can have a wiki homeless solution network to help homeless in the US

I personally helped many homeless in Greater New York area, and it would be very powerful if we can have a wiki homeless solution network that document the help and solutions for homeless in the US nationwide. For example, we can have list of soup kitchens, address, phone numbers, schedule. Where to take showers ...etc in all cities of the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.73.41 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2005 (UTC), added by Knowsitallnot 01:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

I like the idea of a wiki homeless solution network! Explosive7300 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh...wikipedia is not the place for that

Hello:

That's a wonderful idea, to use Wikis to assist the homeless with learning about available services, but Wikipedia's not the place for that (see the Wikipedia policies). There are many other public wikis out there where such an idea would fit in perfectly with their overall mission.

The problem with the idea is that you can't universalize it---if an exception is made for this one thing, then everyone will want to put in all kinds of really detailed information that's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a telephone book or a Web directory.

--Coolcaesar 21:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup

I removed a number of the more POV remarks and highly questionable claims (building codes cause homelessness?). The article still needs some fixing -- the studies cited range from the 1960s to the 1990s, a period of extensive change in the structure and delivery of social services (New York City alone changed extensively during this period.) jdb ❋ (talk)

64.136.49.229

This editor may have some legit concerns, but needs to find a better way to address them. I'm saying this as the edits, though they are POV, may have some substance. But I'm not going to spend time trying to figure out what it is. --DanielCD 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the programs that treat veterans ineffective? This might be an important thing to add. I left the word "ineffective" in, but it's still weak without saying just what the programs are and why they don't work. --DanielCD 01:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many veterans are cycled through ineffective programs that actually put them on the streets homeless.

This says just about nothing; it's really filler. Could someone elaborate (preferrably with sources to cite?) --DanielCD 01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I work at the VA

Homeless veterans that I see suffer from absolute poverty and know what they need to get out of their situation. They are not listened to at all, instead they are ran through the VA "assembly line" one-size-fits-all system. Very few are really mentally ill/addicted( Throw Bush or Clinton out on the streets with nothing and they would be self-medicating/peeing and pooping in doorways too!). Anyways, poverty does strange thing to humans! This is very verifiable and must remain in the article "cause" section, besides just because something is cited by some "authority" does not make it correct either! If you don't see it with your own eyes you're seeing it with someone else's mind.

Dr. Wilson Mendez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.49.229 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 February 2006, added by Knowsitallnot 01:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

I am an advocate for the homeless, formerly homeless person in Baltimore. We have a huge population of homeless veterans here. It is and should remain listed as a cause. I agree 150%. Explosive7300 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Real Cause"

I deleted the last cause claiming to be the one real cause it is clearly POVDaniel J. Leivick 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Documentary, understanding

i just watched a documentary called Dark Days (imdb, rotten tomatoes & awards), which i thought was pretty objective film about living as a homeless person, in the tunnels in nyc. The director marc singer, lived with these people, and filmed them as they were, living/talking daily lives. it also features how some of the homeless utilizing HUD's Section 8. I think it promotes understanding and glimpse of the reality for this portion of the homeless. To me, it was neither entirely negative or positive, neither pity nor scorn, but because of the closer proximity to the subject at hand (homelessness), i def gained in greater understanding. Can we somehow reference this film here? In external links? or See also? or smthg? somewhere?

"The result is a fascinating slice of a part of life most of us have never considered. The characters are gritty, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic and always very real. Dark Days takes homelessness out of the realm of sociological phenomenon and into an almost-visceral engagement with these people and their lives. We look in as the characters decorate their scrap-metal shacks with discarded material, earn their livings, emotionally support each other and ultimately struggle with their homes' demise. Though clearly Singer roots for his subjects, he avoids the temptation to pity them; he simply calls it as he sees it - and has lived it. " --Review on imdb, by utzutzutz@aol.com

Knowsitallnot 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

worst intro sentence ever.

"Homelessness in the United States is a problem." just pathetic. Joeyramoney 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

The section "Criminalizing Homelessness" misstates the changing policy of combating homelessness. The section states that there is a "growing trend...towards criminalizing the state of being homeless." This is not quite true. For example, for many years in California under the state's penal code there were a variety of penalties intended to minimize the nuisance caused by homeless people by criminalizing their behavior. However, many of these laws were (probably) rightfully overturned by being unconstitutional for a variety of reasons (cruel and unusual punishment, no requirement of an act by the suspect, etc.). However, for example, it remains a crime in California under Penal Code 647(c) to accost "other persons in any public place or in any place". (Good luck finding an officer to help though!) Many laws remain on the books in many states and municipalities, the only thing that has changed is the policy on how to deal with the problem of homelessness, that is a shift away from direct aid to reduce the problem towards penalizing the individuals in the hope that the problem will disappear. Note, that this is a policy enforcement decision and quite different from a policy of passing new laws. What has changed is not the law but the will to enforce the laws. --Ian Struan 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have studied the life of Rev. Albert Gleason Ruliffson in some detail and in the course of delving into his achievements had to seriously look at his role in founding the Bowery Mission. I searched New York City dailies expecting to find an announcement that the Bowery Mission was launched in 1879 but rather to my surprise found nothing until 1880. The New York Times and The New York Tribune are credible sources of information quoted even by Christopher Gray in his New York Time's Streetscape's feature, which discusses in part the history and lore of New York City buildings and landmarks. In the absence of other sources, recourse to newspaper accounts is sometimes necessary, as proved to be the case with the mission.

It is widely regarded that the mission was founded in 1879 but this does not make it a fact especially when newspapers offer another year. In order to verify that the newspaper accounts were accurate in their reportage, I looked at the Annual Reports of the Bowery Mission written by Rev. Albert G. Ruliffson himself. These reports are available through the New York City Public Library on microfilm. The Third Annual Report of 1883 states "On November 6, 1880 night work begun." Then I compared this date with a contemporary newspaper brief from New York Herald on Sunday, November 6, 1881: "The first anniversary of the Bowery Mission and Young Men's Home (No. 36) will be observed this afternoon and evening." Both the Annual Report and New York Herald concur with the November 6, 1880 date.

I am well aware that the bowery.org site in detailing the history of the Bowery Mission gives the 1879 year but it also states that the mission under Christian Herald leadership began it's start at 14 Bowery. Other cached sites give 36 Bowery. Doing some fact-checking through its articles of incorporation in NY State, Christian Herald took over operation of the mission in 1895 at which time the mission had according to King's Handbook of New York City relocated to 103 Bowery and not 14 Bowery. If one goes with the 1880 year, the Annual Reports and newspapers support a 36 Bowery address. In any event, could not have been at 14 Bowery as Christian Herald was not even remotely associated with the Bowery.

The Bowery Mission has been serving the homeless on the Bowery for over a hundred years and deserves recognition in your article. However, some qualification regarding the 1879 date could be given through a change in terms such as reportedly founded in, or claimed by Christian Herald Association to have been founded in, or even more tentatively, may have been founded.

The newspaper quotes lend credibility to the 1880 date of founding and should be integrated into your article. It also needs to be clarified that Christian Herald's Association with the Bowery Mission begins in 1895 and Ruliffson acted independently of the Association.

To date, there is no published in-depth history of the Mission.--Jingerfluffy (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are lazy homeless people editing this article from public libraries instead of being productive and applying for a job?

This must explain why this article sounds like a poorly written soapbox. How else can these people continue to leech off society without attempting to blame others for their poor choices? WatchingYouLikeAHawk 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the people who are editing this possess compassion, unlike people like you. The homeless person is not always at fault. How could you possibly imply that they are? Obviously you have never been even close to homelessness when you were helpless to do anything about it. Life can be complicated, and sometimes you get stuck in a situation you can't fix. What about the abused who flee their homes with their children? Many times these people have no access to any of the household funds, whether they were working or not. And would you call those kids "leeches?"

This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. As an editor, compassion has no place in your vocabulary, and if you see your work on Wikipedia as being guided by "compassion" then I request that you leave at once, if only for the benefit of this encyclopedia's credibility. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a reference source for factual information, not a useless hodgepodge of socialist whining. Writing based on one's own illusion that one is being "compassionate" is precisely the sort of thing that has regrettably made Wikipedia utterly useless as a valid reference. E Pluribus Americanus (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As a formerly homeless person who is now an advocate working to end homelessness, you obviously need an education on homeless people. The majority are far from lazy. Do you actually know any homeless people? I became homeless through domestic violence. I possess a college degree and I also currently have a job. This is the danger of you possibly only knowing a single story regarding homeless people and quite possibly not knowing any personally. Explosive7300 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. groupuscule (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Added public attitudes section

The Additional issues section seemed to make lots of unsourced assertions about public opinion, so I deleted some things and added another section with the sourced material I could find. Roving Wordslinger 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

More NPOV cleanup

I removed a section of the article entitled "Near-homeless: disabled non-abusers have little safety net". While it may raise some valid points it fails to:

1. cite references,
2. maintain a neutral point of view, and
3. maintain an encyclopedic tone.

Also it was very poorly written. --24.18.139.74 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bowery Mission, Lower East Side, Manhattan, New York

I used to be a chaplain at the Bowery Mission under the Willock administration. While there I decided to do a little research to answer basic questions I had asked myself about the mission.

Over the years, I've done my best to answer or attempt to answer some of my original questions. One such question, Was the Bowery Mission the first to minister to the needy on the Bowery?

I would recommend the author, if not already done or underway, do research about the Bowery Branch of the YMCA. This organization, in fact, pre-dates the Bowery Mission, as does another one known then as The Five Points Mission which pre-dates both.

My other comment concerns the black and white illustration of The Bowery Mission and the range 1800s for purpose of dating.

This image is of the Bowery Mission then located at 36 Bowery which did not first open it's doors to the public until the year 1880. So you can narrow the period of the illustration to the 1880s.

The parent organization which incorporated the Bowery Mission, Christian Herald, accepts and publicizes the 1879 year as the founding date of the Bowery Mission. (Your footnote cites their website bowery.org)The information on their website in terms of the history of the Bowery Mission, I believe, is drawn from a biography about the life of the Dr. Louis Klopsch who assumed control of the mission in 1895 and died in 1910.

The 1879 date probably is based on a marble memorial tablet in the chapel of the Bowery Mission dedicated to Rev. Albert G. Ruliffson. This tablet erected posthumously attributes Ruliffson as the founder, and gives November 7, 1879 as the founding date. If it were not for this tablet, it's likely that an 1880 year of founding would be stated. For example, King's Handbook of New York, uses that year.

The book I cite about Dr. Klopsch claims that prior to 36 Bowery, Rev. Ruliffson had laid the foundation for what would be later called The Bowery Mission and Young Men's Home at "14 Bowery". To date, I've found no other sources to corroborate that location.

Klopsch's biographer, it seems, relied mostly on the earlier articles about the Bowery Mission published in The Christian Herald and Signs of the Times, however, I have not found this 14 Bowery address in anything published pre-1881 in that christian weekly.

One final comment, if I may. There were a host of non-religious organizations or charities that provided services to the homeless in New York City as well as non Protestant churches. You may want to expand on this in your overview.

Bowerymissionresearcher 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Tony (Brigagliano) Squire

Excellent information. Thanks very much. We shall have to incorporate some of this material into the article, as corroborated. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Broken Link In References

Reference 4 links to the First and not the fifth Annual Homelessness Assessment Report. A possible link could be www.hudhre.info/documents/5thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf Hoaggi (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference 10 has a broken link which now leaves the following quote without a citation: "As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week." --Xe7al 01:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 47 is a broken link, as well. Can someone find a source for this statistic? --74.235.128.214 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken link fixed. The actual statistic may be another quest. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous comment

This article sounds like it was written by the homeless poverty pimps who have reaped billions and billions of dollars keeping this tragedy going and going and going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.138.30 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Photo POV

It seems patently obvious to me that the photograph used at the top of the article fails to keep within the NPOV guidelines that (theoretically) guide Wikipedia entries. It is quite clearly designed to evoke a sympathetic response from the viewer. Arguing over whether or not one should have sympathy for the homeless is not relevent to Wikipedia, and so I won't delve into that issue, but the fact that the photograph clearly has that aim in mind disqualifies it as an NPOV photograph for this article. It is no more legitimate to use the current photo than to use this one, for the same reason: http://eldib.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/homeless.jpg

Please, people, I want to live to see the day when Wikipedia can be cited as a valid source of information (at present, no reputable university would ever accept a Wikipedia page as a reference) but getting there requires that editors set aside their personal beliefs, convictions, etc. and adhere to the policy of NPOV. The photograph is clearly sympathetic and therefore violates the NPOV rules, so I'm removing it. I'm afraid there will be objections, but please be sure to note your objections here rather than simply making a revert--reverts without explanations will simply be undone. E Pluribus Americanus (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Understanding the Numbers

The size of the budget authority outlays discussed in the 1980s section, particularly with regards to the degree to which they were 'cut', needs to be severely clarified. For those who do not understand Congressional budgeting, money is not allocated for things bit by bit. Rather, the funds to pay for designated goods and services are allocated all at once, and up front, and then slowly spent over time. As such, it is not enough to say that HUD's budget changed, without noting that what HUD was being budgeted to do had also changed. For example, in 1977, rental subsidies were being allocated for *twenty four years* at a time! That is, for each client being assisted, funds for that full period, two and a half decades, were put aside by the budgeting authority.

In the early 1980s, coming out of the heavy (stag)flation of the Carter years, programs across the board were being adjusted to cover much shorter term commitments, in order to allow the government to be more flexible from budgetary cycle to budgetary cycle. In general, these commitments were reduced from terms of 24 years to five years or slightly less. Thus stating that the budgetary authority was "cut" from 74 to 19 billion in constant dollars is massively misleading, since the 19 billion is a (renewable) commitment authority of approximately one fifth the time. All of this information is easily available from the Ways and Means committee's own web page, here. This document further clarifies that additional savings were made possible by "changes in the method for financing the construction and modernization of public housing and the construction of housing for the elderly and the disabled."

The absolute bottom line is that the expenditures of the Reagan administration for Public Assistance Outlays *grew* at a faster rate than the overall economy, as shown here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelOfSwords (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Rent War

May I please add a link to the Anti-Rent War because renting is oppression so it causes homelessness & crime? Stars4change (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You will need a strong reliable source stating that "renting is oppression". 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Overview

Please cite each claim so that these do not require removal. bold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.60.221 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Overview Section is not an overview. It is WAY too long. I didn't delete the whole thing ([[WP:|Bold]]) because some of this material is valid and is also useful to the reader. Please source it and clean it up. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Poverty rate

The poverty rate seems not to account for the homeless rate: "Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006. There were 37.3 million people in poverty in 2007, up from 36.5 million in 2006. The number of people without health insurance coverage declined from 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006 to 45.7 million (15.3 percent) in 2007." Please source the claim that it is an important factor. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Fighting poverty: If homelessness is inextricably linked to poverty, then without alleviation of the most crippling aspects of poverty, homelessness can never be effectively ended.

"IF" sets an argumentative tone inappropriate in an encyclopedia, either homelessness is inextricably linked to poverty or it is not. I don't know personally. The Reader however has the right to expect a reliable source for support.

This is another issue with two sides but only one is covered. [[WP|NPOV}] is thus denied. We could get into the poverty rate in this article, but presently there is not one reliable source that suggests that the poverty rate is important to the homeless rate. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor put this back in. Why? Either the assertion is a fact, and would then be supported - or it is an opinion and there are two sides to cover. Between 2006-2007 the poverty rate was stable, was the homeless rate also stable? 76.126.50.198 (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone reverted "Fighting poverty If homelessness is inextricably linked to poverty, then without alleviation of the most crippling aspects of poverty, homelessness can never be effectively ended.[citation needed] In particular, three main concerns are the focus of both governmental and non-governmental (NGO) efforts to end homelessness."

This claim requires a reliable source. If there are two views on this claim then both need to be included and sourced. The source already cited do not include poverty as a cause of homelessness. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Housing Opportunities

This section is badly in need of an update, housing prices are not presently rising 24.23.60.221 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor asserts that home prices are still rising. This is innaccurate, please support your claim. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Criminal behavor

"Institutional release. Most individuals being discharged from prison have few resources to "get back on their feet" and have eroded personal contacts that may provide support. Youths who "age out" of systems such as foster care often find themselves without needed support networks."

None of this is sourced, but I left it for now anyway. The statements are likely true, but is there evidence that they have a higher rate? If so, please cite it. Drug and alcohol abuse rates have a huge impact. These groups have higher rates of these. Even if we show a higher homeless rate for these groups we don't know why they have it. This requires a study and strong scientific skills. If we can cite the study, fine.

Does anyone want to rewrite this part, my preference is for deletion unless it can be sourced. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

This article violates NPOV by bringing Ronald Reagan into it. There are two schools of thought, one that Reagan helped the homeless more than any modern president (because he innovated the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) and another that he hurt the homeless. We can get into this topic as long as both perspectives are covered, but WHY? Few readers remember Reagan. They are not interested in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Can we stay with the topic? Whoever put Reagan back in, please explain? 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead

The lead does not comply with Lead. Further it is unsourced and is not supported by any part of the article. I suggest deletion and replacement with an actual lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"In the United States, homelessness increased significantly in the 1980s and also became an important political topic. The number of homeless is reported to have risen dramatically since that time, especially with the foreclosures in the sub-prime mortgage and financial crisis of 2008."

The source cited does not support the claim that foreclosures have increased the number of homeless. Although such is a reasonable presumption, it still needs a reliable source. What the source does say is (1) that the homeless now include some people impacted by the foreclosure crisis and (2) that many of them were renters where the landlord was foreclosed upon. It does not say that the foreclosure crisis has increased homelessness even a little bit.

Did homelessness increase in the 1980's? If so, please support the claim. Does the Reader care, or are they mostly interested in now?

The article's lead violates lead. It will be better off with none. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article pretty much has to have a lead section. If you believe the current lead section is inadequate or otherwise subpar, then by all means rewrite it. Do not leave the article without a lead section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You reverted the beginning of the new Lead. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The second cite says: "At a shelter for women and children run by the West Side Catholic Center in Cleveland, where Ms. West now lives, foreclosure accounted for zero arrivals in 2007, the center’s executive director, Gerald Skoch, said. Last year, two cases emerged. This year, the number has already reached four."

We have these four unfortunates far too prominently within our lead: "The number of homeless is reported to have risen dramatically since that time, especially with the foreclosures in the sub-prime mortgage and financial crisis of 2008". The article does not use the word "dramatic" or "sub-prime mortgage". The article says that the main impact is to renters, a fact that I added but was dropped. Why?

Why not use a reliable source? One shelter's experience with four people accurately reported does not constitute a basis for claiming any national trend. This story sold newspapers, but we have no papers to sell. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use Talk before reverting the Lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

President Obama

An editor deleted material about President Obama's homeless initiatives but returned irrelevant material about the Diggers of fifty years ago. Why? Obama's initiatives are very relevant. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are the Diggers (who had nothing at all to do with homelessness) from the 60's more relevant thnan what President Obama is doing? 00:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has had a cleanup tag for a year. How can we solicit help for this task? I seem to recall a process? It has had fact tags for two years. 07:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.50.198 (talk)

Natural disasters

The article claims that natural disasters lead to homelessness, but none of the many sources support this. For example: "Tornadoes destroyed entire towns in Tennessee in 2006." Are these people in Tennessee still homeless? Did they get help? Should we either tell the Reader what happened to them, or leave this out?

Is there even one homeless person from Katrina that we can source?

I suggest deleting this section or offering reliable sources that natural disasters lead to homelessness. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyber-begging

How does this topic relate to homelessness? Please link it to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.50.198 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is related as per the Boston Globe. It's about homeless people using the internet for medicant purposes. I'm putting it back in. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but one homeless person begging by computer is just not relevant. If one homeless person rode a horse and was interviewed by the Globe, would we cover this? 76.126.50.198 (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition

"While there is no one agreed upon definition, one definition originally developed as part of the McKinney-Vento Act of 1987 federal legislation,[82] describes a "homeless" person as being:

1.an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; 2.and an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is-- 1.a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); 2.an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or 3.a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings."

The article covers people with inadequate housing that do not meet the definition above. This is inconsistent, so I will delete that text. Feel free to update the definiation to cover poorly housed people. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Structural factors

Housing Opportunities "There are three aspects of the current housing market that are as equally pivotal in causing homelessness:"

Unemployment is cited in most of our sources as a primary cause. here we say that unemployment is irrelevant. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Non-independent sources

"Non-independent sources may be used to source content from articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. I.e. "The organization claimed 10,000 people showed up to protest." is ok when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not.

A way to understand non-independent sources in regards to this article is to go to their web page and learn if they are an advocacy organization. We need advocacy organizations because they are vital to our community life. When editing an encyclopedia however we almost always need to follow the WP policy above.

Lazy editors generally rely upon them because a Google search may quickly find them. Editors who are hiding their original research love them. Editors committed to violations of neutral point of view depend upon them. Still, there are times to use these.

Reliable sources

There is no such thing as reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards on topics such as homelessness. Every source from HUD on down to the homeless person in the street has an agenda. Most of the homeless in Indianapolis where I live, where I was considered chronically homeless (homeless 4 times or for over one year in a 5 year time period), and now run two transitional homes, would not be homeless by HUD standards as they are living in shelters, with friends, or the illegal family "double-up" (illegal because violates Indianapolis zoning and city health codes). ALL advocacy agencies have an agenda. They all use government "facts" from "studies" but use only those which further their cause. I am on the Advocacy Council of CHIP-Indianapolis. CHIP is the "Coalition for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention"; it is a national organization with a local Indianapolis branch. I could write a wonderful article on homelessness in Indianapolis, its causes, who is helping, how to get out of homelessness, etc. But that article would not translate to homelessness in San Francisco or Florida with the many "beach bums" or to New York City where it is much more expensive to live than Indianapolis and there is more of a drug and crime problem. In Indianapolis, only 15% of the homeless are those one would recognize as such: the old "skid-row" homeless with drug and alcohol dependencies, cup-shaking and other soliciting, lining up for hours at feedings, and the like. Most of our homeless are families affected by the mortgage crisis (including me, I do not drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or do illegal drugs, and I had a job, yet I became homeless when my mortgage bank refused to accept the payment to bring my foreclosure current and sold the house I grew up in and inherited without a mortgage). I wrote several papers for college on homelessness in this city in the past 2 years. But the figures, facts, and statements only apply to Indianapolis. My opinion is that some of these topics should have their own separate articles. The Bowery Mission is one such topic--make reference to it then give it an article of its own. This would greatly shorten the article on homelessness in the USA in general. I have not attempted to "clean up this article for many of my changes would not be liked, after all , I AM AN ADVOCATE. A general article such as this is must by definition grow to be of cumbersome length because every year there are new statistics, new approaches, new successes, new failures, new advocates and new antagonists. Maybe a couple of short separate articles like "Homelessness in the 1980s", Homelessness in the 1990s",and the like could make this a more manageable article. There are studies to state that the "mortgage crisis" increased homelessness or lack of affordable housing is also an issue, or by which several other "unsupported statements" can be supported. But do the studies in Indianapolis done twice yearly apply to the whole country? We know the answer is no. MichaelSchwing (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Common dreams

Common Dreams readily admits to being an advocacy group. This means that we need to be careful before citing them and we need to be careful how we cite them. The article uses Common Dreams to advance the thesis that the Democratic Party controlled Congress caused the homeless crisis of the 1980s. In an earlier version this source was used as a reliable source to suggest that Ronald Reagan did the exact same thing. In fact, either assertion is a neutral point of view violation.

Does this make Common Dreams bad? Not at all, Common Dreams is an advocacy organization. They do not edit encyclopedias. Editors however who cite Common Dreams as a reliable source without regard to non-independent sources have made an error. These errors are a serious problem for this article. 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ShelterForce

ShelterForce is an advocacy group.

National Housing Institute: Reagan's Legacy: Homelessness in America was written by an advocay group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Public Agenda

Public Agenda is a research organization that produces research from a pov. It therefor is an independent source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.50.198 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Homeless women in the United States

I propose to delete the material on Homeless women in the United States because:

1. The article covers this topic better than this article can

2. This article is tagged as too long.

3. This article's topic is all of the homeless. WP is better when each article stays on topic.

Any comments? 76.126.50.198 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Institutional release

"Most individuals being discharged from prison have few resources to "get back on their feet" and have eroded personal contacts that may provide support. Youths who "age out" of systems such as foster care often find themselves without needed support networks."

I hesitate to delete the unsupported claim without discussion. If we just claim that those above have a higher homeless rate we don't need a source. It however doesn't say this, it is an argumentative paragraph, and is unsupported. Drug and alcohol problems are a primary cause of homelessness. Do these populations also have a high incidence for thesae problems?

I favor deleting the argumentative text unless it is supported, but want to keep these vulnerable populations in. How? 76.126.50.198 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated statements

I notified User:Droit87105 that the recent edits he made to Homelessness in the United States contain information that appears to be opinion and requires the citation of reliable sources. The statements he made without substantiation were removed. Mgreason (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"The homeless ... are usually reluctant to accept help and transitional housing" ? From where is this data? My understanding is that the high numbers of un-housed citizens of the US is due to lack of enough available subsidized units. As a specific example, in Eugene OR, St Vincent DePaul runs a program in which car campers provide security to churches or businesses in return for a parking spot; the waiting list for the 20 spots is 60 cars long. I have more examples with which to back this point. Andrewcottrell (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Listing of Homeless People Per City

Does anybody have the figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangirke (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Homelessness.Houselessness/Habitat Project

Please sign up for the new Proposed Wikipedia Homelessness Project here!

Lots of the problems discussed in this talk are endemic to the topic and needs to be addressed.Brothercanyouspareadime (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to edit this page

I am in a public policy class at Syracuse University. I am interested in editing this page as part of a project. I am open to any suggestions you have. I believe this article is a bit too long, it needs to be reorganized a little and some things should be deleted. I would also be interested in making a US public policy section. I have and am still doing research for this subject and look forward to making some changes. Again if there is anything you would like to see me change or if there is any help you can provide please let me know. I will change things tomorrow morning and would really appreciate it if you would ask me why i felt the need to place/delete/change/ect things before you hit that tempting delete button. This is for a grade. I have every intention of doing the page justice. --HattieMichelle (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting some stuff

There is a lot of content on this page and much of it is from the 90's. I am removing "facts" from the 90's as it is no longer relevent. There has clearly been change over the past two decades. HattieMichelle (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC) -- i went through and deleted some things and also edited. There were a lot of "facts" on here that were no longer relevent so I looked for more resent data. This information is the newest information availible. Most come from the later part of greg is the best?!!!!!

General Cleanup and Homeless Assistance Programs

My suggestions for this page include reducing the length by creating/referencing additional wiklpedia articles instead of having all the information in this one. For example, wikipedia articles further expanding upon the "Homeless Assistance Programs" described in the main article, such as "Transitional Housing" or "Permanent Housing" would be really helpful. M. Umadhay (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Data discrepancy

On the page under "familial composition" it says "41% are single males.", "40% are families with children—the fastest growing segment.", and "14% are single females." all of which appear to be sourced here:

http://nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html

However, under the "Gender" section of that source, it says the following:

"However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007)."

Under "Families" it also says:

"Families with children are among the fastest growing segments of the homeless population. In its 2007 survey of 23 American cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that families with children comprised 23% of the homeless population (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007). "

So, if 76% of the homeless population is single, and 67.5% of the single-homeless population is male, that would mean that 51.3% of the homeless population are single males, not 41%, and 24.7% of the homeless population would be female, not 14%. And clearly "families with children" should say "23%" not "41%". I'm fixing it. 74.60.172.249 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Homeless in porter square.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Homeless in porter square.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Economic Status

...It appears that 70% of Homeless Persons have no money, therefor taxes are not being collected. Although if this is a case of homelessness then 100% are not fundamentally acquired to submit to the fundamentals of the United States. Using a document and or contract form such as our current currency should fulfill this venture but somehow in legal statistics it is not coherent. The Fundamentals of America, who shall conquer this action.David George DeLancey (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hard Times Generation: Families living in cars - 60 Minutes

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389750n Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a real overhaul?

It's clear from the talk page and the article itself that we need to do some work here. Ideas:

• Edit the lead to provide a clearer picture of the quantity & quality of homelessness in the US, today.
• Totally revamp the history section: it's lopsided and weird. (The 1990's: never forget.)
• If there's more than one definition, then we should represent more than one definition rather than just using the government's?
• In general the article is currently slanted towards 'government response' to homelessness, at the expense of covering the phenomenon itself.
• There are two "Causes" sections! Both are disorganized. They contain many crucial facts, but it would be good to organize a little, possibly provide statistics and sort by importance.
• "Criminalization of homelessness" is interesting, needs expansion (& maybe eventually its own article)
• "Specific US cities" — interesting but unwieldy... not sure what to do here. Theoretically could include a huge amount of information.

OK, curious to hear thoughts from anyone interested in working on this page!

love, groupuscule (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1980s section bias problem

Why does the "1980s" section include nothing about Reagan's closure of community mental health hospitals? Paum89 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Compare to this version. Paum89 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. Thanks for linking that older version. It's almost as if Reagan could do no wrong... (Yet homelessness was not only a real issue but even a media issue during his presidency.) This section deserves a rewrite with good references, soon. groupuscule (talk