Making Sense of Homelessness Numbers

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

How come the homeless number map in homeless.cartifact.com has stopped updating since 6/07?

Eric, One reason that the downtown counts by LAPD and LAHSA differ is that the boundaries they are using are not the same. LAPD does not include Newton or Rampart Divisions in their counts. These areas are the recipients of most of the displacement that Chief Bratton references. What is startling about the numbers is that displacement beyond these areas close to Skid Row is not occuring to the extent made out in the mainstream media. Kent

It's in the best interests of certain activist groups, whose very existence depends on a problem being as large as possible, to want to inflate figures. Otherwise, such organizations fear they'll lose their relevancy, prominence and even financial viability. And the people drawn to those groups also worry that they'll become lost and bored if they don't have a problem -- in which the bigger the problem, the better the problem -- to wring their hands over.

And... it's in the best interest of real estate developers and property owners, to undercount the homeless... thereby softening the magnitude of the problem. Makes it easier to sell a loft, if the idea prevails that Skid Row is a "changing neighborhood", and that we are "chipping away" at the problem. That's one less transient on the doorstep. The smell of urine is less pungent ... more subtle. The homeless population is migratory, it is not confined to Skid Row. The problem is greater than just a few square blocks... it's all of Los Angeles, as one big homeless encampment. Skid Row is a microcosm of the economic and social failures of our culture.

Skid Row is a microcosm of the economic and social failures of our culture.

Was the specter of Skid Row as great, if not greater, during the Great Depression, over 70 years ago? If it wasn't, then the mind-numbing chaotic state of Skid Row in the later half of the 20th Century, early 21st Century goes beyond the issue of economics.

If "social failures" refers to a belief that being tolerant of everything and anything is a sign of a big, loving heart (not to mention also a naive brain) --- which starting growing in acceptance over 30 years ago, particularly from the 1960s onward when doing things like dropping out and dropping acid was seen as hip and cool --- then, yes, that is a major failure, as a microcosm or otherwise.

"Social failures" refers to the long cycle of non-treatment and apathy towards homelessness in general. The belief that the best thing anyone can do for the homeless is provide spare change in coins and a temporary cot to sleep on. It is the concession that panhandling is a legitimate profession, and that street encampments are sovereign countries, protected by some undefined constitutional right. Most of all, it is the lack of pressure for individuals to clean up their lives and find a job.

Homelessness comes with free daily hot meals and access to free social services, with no oversight of authority. This might outweigh the benefits of an honest job and a $600 / month apartment.

That might be the microcosm of society, choosing the path of least resistance, homelessness over substance recovery.

"Social failures" refers to more than just experimentation with drugs, which did not directly lead to homelessness. Many events happened in that cycle, between taking the first puff and sleeping in a tent on Skid Row.

This is addressed to those people that imply that the homeless problem was caused by the 1960's hippie culture.

The hippies/lefties/activists of that era did not release tens of thousands of mental patients onto the streets in the late 1960's. No, that feat was accomplished by governor Reagan. Yep, good-ole Ronny. His top priority was slashing taxes, and to do that, government services had to be eliminated. Besides, out of sight, out of mind, right?

And where did these thousands of newly-homeless mentally ill go? Many of them made the rational decision to settle in places like Skid Row, where charities were already set up and ready for them.

The Vietnam War added to the effect. Thousands of soldiers returned from that war with serious drug and mental health issues. Yet, without the government providing necessary services to these soldiers once they returned home, many of them wound up on the streets.

The easy argument that the homeless problem is the fault of "bleeding-heart do-gooder lefties" is historically false. The left may be exacerbating the problem (by turning a blind eye to their own weaknesses). But they didn't cause this problem.

The left may be exacerbating the problem (by turning a blind eye to their own weaknesses)

You can say that again! The brilliant minds at the ACLU, and their endless lawsuits that demand public thoroughfares, including sidewalks and parks, be treated as loosely and freely as possible, have been at the heart of the crazed, wild atmosphere of Skid Row.

Their motto: Enablers R Us.

^ I agree. Individual liberties are not absolute: society has a right to enforce certain standards of behavior, especially when that behavior affects other people.

There are good reasons that we have laws against public drunkenness, defecation, urination, trespassing, etc. The quality of life for the whole of society (not just individuals) must always be considered.

On this subject, I feel like the ACLU (who I often support) has gone way to far.

I'd like to agree with Joel C that it is facile and simplistic to imply that the 60's hippie culture brought about our current dysfunctional homeless situation. However, I'd suggest it is equally facile and simplistic to paint Ronald Reagan as the villain. Reagan did a lot of things as a governor -- like raise taxes, legalize abortion, liberalize the divorce laws -- which most of us would think he'd be against.

The real villain in the current homeless situation was the radical shift in the care for the mentally ill in our society. This fundamental change was made by the mental health care experts in the late 60s and early 70s. In what was a leap of faith, the idea that the mentally ill could be liberated from asylums and treated on an out-patient basis was embraced as the wave of the future. The hippie culture and Ronald Reagan both played a role in the zeigeist of the times. Neither of them pushed the agenda, but signed on for the ride for their own particular reasons. We all did.

However, decades later, it is quite apparent that this social policy change has been nothing but a complete disaster. No one defends Skid Row as an effective way to deal with mental illness and homelessness. Yet, despite ample evidence of this disaster, many institutions have adapted and become financially vested in perpetuating this disaster. Behavior, which I would not tolerate from my 4-year old daughter, is routinely excused by many people who ought to know better.

Regretably, because we treat the 'homeless' situation as something akin to a force of nature, we don't look at its root causes and how our society created the disaster. So we have heated discussions about forfeiting law and order as if this is a panacea to the problem. Until the orthodoxy of the mental health care establishment is overthrow, it is unlikely the dysfunctions of Skid Row will change. Too many powerful interests are vested in perpetuating the misery of the wretched on these means streets. What is astonishing is that warehousing the mentally ill on the streets is held up as the height of enlightened 'progressive' politics.