Child homelessness on the rise


ONE IN THIRTY CHILDREN HOMELESS! Forgot to administer 7 billion in foreclosure relief while WALL STREET got their 70 billion.:thumbsup: WE ARE ‘DUMB’ AMERICANS!


Wow, thanks for the bit of information. Homelessness is on the rise and keeps rising. Many people seem to be in some state of denial or they just don’t care. Our Holy Father, God Bless him, sees this very clearly and he is not afraid to bring this out into the open.


I would like to briefly hear what you mean by foreclosure relief and Wall Street’s earnings.:smiley:


That is a lot.



I heard that this morning while driving into work.

That’s just horrible. I felt the same way … :frowning:


Fake news from the Onion but I think it accurately captures how a lot of people perceive our “welfare state” versus the reality:

NEW YORK—Considering how these days the government in this country coddles its citizens from the cradle to the grave, an 11-year-old boy currently homeless on the streets of New York must be unaware he lives in a nanny state, reports confirmed this week. According to sources, the boy, who is visibly malnourished and has been abused by nearly every adult in his life, apparently hasn’t been told that America has become an entitlement society that gives out free health care, housing, food stamps, and God knows what else to anyone who wants it—regardless of whether they’ve actually worked for it. Why anyone would choose to sleep in an alleyway every night when he could instead be taking advantage of the bloated welfare state in a nation that is quickly on its way to full-scale socialism was reportedly beyond the ability of sources to comprehend. Observers eventually concluded that the homeless, hungry child must be so lazy he isn’t even willing to stand in line for big-government handouts like the rest of this nation’s freeloaders.


As the article points out, poverty is NOT the only contributing factor, **but pervasive domestic violence.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter here. ** If we would live as God’s people under His care, and the children were a result of a blessed marital state instead of an immoral sexual revolution this would not be happening to this extent.

There is a strong link between runaways and divorce. When neither parent is primarily concerned with the quality of life for their children but pursue ungodly things due to selfishness, what can one expect?


Over 1/5th of these homeless children are in California. You take those stats out, it may well be lower by quite a bit.

**California accounts for over 1/5 of homeless children in US, report says **

The problem is particularly severe in California, which has one-eighth of the U.S. population but accounts for more than one-fifth of the homeless children with a tally of nearly 527,000.


I also saw, on our local news, how our charities and governments are coming together to tackle these issues. Yesterday, Denver had a convention for the homeless which made available the resources available to them. I heard that it typically takes eight months of being homeless for people to discover many of these resources. Since yesterday was major cold, I hope many were able to attend and get these resources. After readin their website, I am glad there is long term plans to help us when things go bad.

Several movies like “The Pursuit of Happiness” and TV shows about homeless seem to show how people struggle with banking, and places to keep personal belongings. My first though is that the homeless should be made available monthly lockers … But that web site seems more logical.


No need to wonder. We have all the data needed to calculate what the homeless children stat is for the US minus California:

(4/5) / (7/8) x (1/30) = 0.030476 = about 1 in 33.

So does that qualify as “quite a bit lower”?


My first question is what is the definition of homeless that they are using. I volunteer with kids quite a bit through local schools. Being homeless as in - mommie moved in with BF, then had a fight and now they had to move in with Aunty, but may have to move again because “new” Uncle doesn’t like mommie - that I can see easily happening to 1 in 30. Also homeless as in renting hotel room by the week rather than having a permanent address.

Homeless as in living in a shelter / home for victims of domestic violence - yes, but much lower. Homeless as in living on the streets or in vehicles - fairly rare in our community.

The reason I question it is because when I hear homeless I think of the last category - then the stat seems made up and would (in my younger years) immediately cause me to disregard the entire notion as a scare tactic.

Also the solution is very different for each “type” of homeless - so to me lumping them all in together doesn’t help to solve the problems.

Forgive me please if I sound uncharitable :frowning: I truly feel for these families - particularly the children. But I also prefer to view things on an individual level - and working to bottom up to solutions, rather than top down. :shrug:


HUD definition of homelessness:

[LEFT]A person is considered homeless only when he/she resides in one of the
places described below:[/LEFT]

[FONT=SymbolMT]• [/FONT][FONT=Arial]In places not meant for human habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks,[/FONT][LEFT]
[LEFT][FONT=Arial]abandoned buildings (on the street).
[/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/FONT][FONT=Arial]In an emergency shelter.[/FONT][/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/FONT][FONT=Arial]In transitional or supportive housing for homeless persons who originally came[/FONT][/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=Arial]from the streets or emergency shelters.
[/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/FONT][FONT=Arial]In any of the above places but is spending a short time (up to 30 consecutive[/FONT][/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=Arial]days) in a hospital or other institution.
[/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Is being evicted within a week from a private dwelling unit and no subsequent[/FONT][/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=Arial]residence has been identified and lacks resources and support networks needed
to obtain housing.
[/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial]Is being discharged within a week from an institution, such as a mental health or[/FONT]
[LEFT][FONT=Arial]substance abuse treatment facility or a jail/prison, in which the person has been
a resident for more than 30 consecutive days and no subsequent residence has
been identified and the person lacks the resources and support networks needed
to obtain housing.
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New]o [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial]For example, a person being discharged from prison after more than 30 days[/FONT]
[LEFT][FONT=Arial]is eligible ONLY IF no subsequent residence has been identified and the
person does not have money, family or friends to provide housing.
[/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial][size=3][size=2]Is fleeing a domestic violence housing situation and no subsequent residence[/size][/size][/FONT][size=3]
[FONT=Arial][size=2]has been identified and lacks the resources and support networks needed to obtain housing.[/size]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][size=3][size=2][FONT=Arial]The following do NOT meet the HUD definition of Homeless:[/size][/size]
Persons living in housing, even though they are paying an excessive amount for
[LEFT]their housing, the housing is substandard and in need of repair, or the housing is
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial]Persons living with relatives or friends.[/FONT]
[LEFT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial]Persons staying in a motel, including a pay-by-the-week motels[/FONT]
[LEFT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial]Persons living in a Board and Care, Adult Congregate Living Facility, or similar[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial]Persons being discharged from an institution that is required to provide or[/FONT]
[LEFT][FONT=Arial]arrange housing upon release.
[/FONT][FONT=SymbolMT]• [/LEFT]
[/FONT][LEFT][FONT=Arial][size=3][size=2]Wards of the State, although youth in foster care may receive needed supportive[/size][/size][/FONT][size=3]
[FONT=Arial][size=2]services which supplements, but does not substitute for, the state’s assistance.[/size][/size]


Sure is, it means there are 3 less children homeless without California, 2-3 if one wants to quibble. Those are human lives so yes, it is a big difference.


HUD’s definition of homelessness (2012):

*][size=2]An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence;
*]An individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground;
*]An individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including hotels and motels paid for by Federal, State or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations, congregate shelters, and transitional housing);
*]An individual who resided in a shelter or place not meant for human habitation and who is exiting an institution where he or she temporarily resided;
*]An individual or family who will imminently lose their housing [as evidenced by a court order resulting from an eviction action that notifies the individual or family that they must leave within 14 days, having a primary nighttime residence that is a room in a hotel or motel and where they lack the resources necessary to reside there for more than 14 days, or credible evidence indicating that the owner or renter of the housing will not allow the individual or family to stay for more than 14 days, and any oral statement from an individual or family seeking homeless assistance that is found to be credible shall be considered credible evidence for purposes of this clause]; has no subsequent residence identified; and lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing; and
*]Unaccompanied youth and homeless families with children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes who have experienced a long-term period without living independently in permanent housing, have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves over such period, and can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time because of chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health conditions, substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or childhood abuse, the presence of a child or youth with a disability, or multiple barriers to employment.

Hence different agencies use different definitions of homelessness, which affect how various programs determine eligibility for individuals and families at the state and local level. Health centers use the HHS definition in providing services.


Huh? I’m not sure why it is even relevant to leave out California in the first place. Homeless children in California are also human lives. But even if you could somehow justify forgetting about California, you are still left with a statistic that says in the rest of the US, one in 33 children are homeless. If one in 30 is a serious problem, then one in 33 is only a slightly less serious problem.


I think a lot of the children are teens that are couch-surfing. They’ve been kicked out of their homes or left voluntarily because of abuse or neglect. There isn’t a homeless shelter where I live but a social worker I know said that there are enough homeless youth in our community to warrant one.

ETA: The benefit from having a shelter is that they can be more easily connected with services that can help them increase their education, increase income, get treatment for addictions and mental health issues and other barriers to stable housing.


You math seems a little off, unless there really are only 10-15 homeless kids in the entire US. :confused:


Your response does not make sense, sounds like 1 out of 30 children is homeless with California, 1 out of 33 children is homeless without California. I don’t see what is off about that.


The banksters on Wall Street who gambled away our cash in derivatives of sinful usurious mortgages (including the push over the cliff from Fannie Mae, which crashed after Republican warnings, and Democrat assurances that all was well), got their $70 billion bailout. The mere $7 billion slated for “Hardest Hit” foreclosure relief was never administered excepting a few million to friends of the administration, “crony capitalism.”

Americans are still at risk after Clinton’s repeal of the Glass-Steigall Act separating commercial banking and investment “banking” that must be classified as gambling because…

Brooksley Born was head of Commodity Futures Trading and then forced out of the Clinton administration for proposing regulations on derivatives; and notes that this is still totally unregulated, i.e., lying is legal, and…

Coupled with the repeal of the Glass-Steigall Act, this means that when banksters win gambling with our money, they keep the cash; when they lose, instead of having to resort to a “too big to fail” $70 billion dollar bailout, OUR ASSETS ARE NOW COMMINGLED WITH THEIR ASSETS, AND AVAILABLE TO PAY THE PIPER!

Add to this the IRS silencing of the “Tea Party” whose only interest is in following the money, and revealing the national and international banks secretly running the show, and auditing the Federal Reserve, and this multi-administration coiling python is poised to squeeze what little life is left in the American economy, doomed to crash again when the Federal Reserve stops printing money that is supporting a stock market boom.

This increase in child homelessness is but a symptom of the total undermining of this economy and the success of the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm the system. So this chaos is, for “them” GOOD NEWS! Bureaucrats win, you lose and now must rely on the gubbermint saviors! Wiki says:

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”.


Sounds like government by mentally-debilitated OCD control freaks…Or could it be Satan? :blush: So are Americans “stupid” as Jonathan Gruber claims? Or just dumbed down at the behest of the teacher’s union? God bless and protect this sweet land of liberty from wiretaps, drones and self-serving bureaucrats and make us a nation united in His sanctity. PS The Priests for Life lost their appeal because it’s no burden to comply with buying abortion-providing insurance. “Those that have not the love of the truth will have cause to believe a lie.” WAY, TRUTH & LIFE, SAVE US!


Well somebody’s math is off. :shrug: (and not just mine…I missed the whole "in 30/33 part when I was reading)

There are 75 mil under 18 in the US, 8.9 mil live in CA leaving 66.1 mil in the rest of the US

75 mil/2.5 mil homeless = 1 in 30 total US
8.9 mil/500K homeless = 1 in 18 in CA (#48)
66.1 mil/2 mil homeless = 1 in 33 in US minus CA
779K/5K homeless = 1 in 155 in Conn (#1)

And CA wasn’t even the worst state or even 2nd worst state. Kentucky (#50) and New York (#49) had worst stats than CA.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit