A reporter’s question about homelessness at this week’s presidential press conference was obnoxious enough. The answer was even worse.
“A recent report found that . . . one in 50 children are now homeless in America,” began Kevin Chappell of Ebony. “With shelters at full capacity, tent cities are sprouting up across the country . . . . What would you say to these families, especially children, who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country?”
Why do some reporters insist on hijacking national forums to flaunt their moral sensitivity? If Chappell believes the federal government should be doing more for the homeless, fine. But his setup for the president — explain your policy, sir, to children under bridges — was pure grandstanding meant to push the answer toward a particular result.
President Obama didn’t disappoint. He said he’d tell the children he’s “heartbroken that any child in America is homeless” and explain his many efforts to save and create jobs for their parents. So far, OK.
Then Obama uncorked a whopper. “The homeless problem,” he added, “was bad even when the economy was good. Part of the change in attitudes that I want to see here in Washington and all across the country is a belief that it is not acceptable for children and families to be without a roof over their heads in a country as wealthy as ours.”
Why, we were sitting around the dinner table just last week discussing why it was acceptable for kids to be without a roof over their heads — and I’m sure your family was, too. Thank heavens the president intends to light a fire under our moral obtuseness. I’m feeling guilty already.
How did such a saintly fellow manage to achieve political success?
As it turns out (and as the president will soon discover), homelessness cannot simply be banished with a wave of the wand. Nor had it been ignored during the Dark Age of Bush. Even back in those benighted times, a homelessness czar by the name of Philip Mangano barnstormed the country pushing a “housing first” approach that has been embraced by cities like Denver.
The upshot: Before the economic crisis hit, according to The Washington Post, the Department of Housing and Urban Development “noted a 12 percent drop in the number of homeless people from 2005 to 2007. The percentage of those classified as ‘chronically homeless’ dropped even more sharply” — by nearly 30 percent.
So too in Denver under Mayor John Hickenlooper’s program — at least until the economic free-fall. In an op-ed published here last July, the president of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and two co-authors declared that “we are on track to reduce chronic homelessness by 75 percent in the first five years” of the mayor’s plan, which began in 2005. The director of Denver’s Road Home, Jamie Van Leeuwen, tells me the city hasn’t backed down from its goals, either. Despite the hard times, he insists, officials “remain committed to our 75 percent reduction in chronic homelessness by year five.”
Incidentally, the claim that “one in 50 children are now homeless in America” doesn’t pass the smell test, as bloggers such as Mickey Kaus (kausfiles.com) quickly pointed out. In the first place, Chappell misstated the findings of The National Center on Family Homelessness, which said one in 50 are homeless at some point during the year, not at any given time. And even that claim is grossly inflated by counting children living in motels, hotels and trailer parks on a temporary basis, as well as those in “substandard housing” or who are “doubled up” with friends or relatives. Those awaiting foster care are included, too.
Now, I’m not suggesting that if one in 100 or 150 children are homeless, that it would be “acceptable” in the sense that we should never think of it again. But if we’re going to rue the failures of a “country as wealthy as ours,” there’s no reason we shouldn’t at least begin by sticking to the facts.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com
