I suspect that most of the change might be due to death, and possibly even manipulation of the numbers.
The number of homeless males has not noticeably declined in this area. There does seem to be an increase in homeless older females.
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,163576,00.html

I suspect you are correct. The only way the numbers are going down with the returning Vets from Iraq and Afghanistan, is through death or a fudging of the numbers by the administration. With everything and every area of our economy in freefall the homeless numbers should be going through the roof. Maybe the homeless are moving into all those forclosed homes.

i think the high numbers were made up anyways....

1 is to many 154,000 is a disgrace. If you think the numbers are made up come with me on my outreach. Keep the promise!

quote:

Originally posted by outlaws93:
i think the high numbers were made up anyways....

I agree outlaw. Everyone knows the only thing the VA can count correctly is how many laptops they lose each year.

i think all va should be the same if you sevr this usacountry your owneley a phon call away it seem like you sev say 23 yaers and your nothing

its all good and well that the numbers are dropping,(so thay say),, but if thay dont do anything to expidite the clams process for disibility, there will be many more add to the list im sure,,,i have been waiting to get mine raised for over a year and a half now,, and still dont know nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by outlaws93:
i think the high numbers were made up anyways....

Good God outlaw...do you actually know anything about anything? Or do you just jump in and take shots at anything you feel might be a "liberal" point of view?
It's not republican vs democrat. We've developed a substantial homeless veteran problem under both parties. The only difference is that "right now" the republican administration could do something about veterans issues, but choose not to.

As Iraq and Afghanistan war casualties soar to unprecedented levels, Bush's 2009 Veterans Affairs' budget comes up short.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will treat about 333,000 sick and injured veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2009, according to VA statistics released last week. That number is a 14 percent increase over this year's casualty total. Yet, despite the Bush administration's promises to prioritize the VA even as other domestic departments' funds are cut, its annual budget request for next year places more financial burdens than ever on many returning soldiers.

At first glance, Bush's 2009 budget may seem like a boon to veterans: It would increase the VA budget by $3.4 billion.

"The President's ongoing commitment to those who have faithfully served this country in uniform is clearly demonstrated through this budget request for VA," said VA Secretary James B. Peake at a budget hearing last Thursday. "Resources requested for discretionary programs in 2009 are more than double the funding level in effect when the president took office seven years ago."

However, veterans' advocates argue the budget's growth has not kept pace with the skyrocketing size of the veteran community - or the increasing cost of servicing them.

"Bush only provides the news on the increased budget without providing full facts on the increased demands and costs," said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

Although the "discretionary spending" Peake mentions has indeed doubled since Bush entered office, the VA budget as a whole has only increased by about a third - roughly in proportion to the growth of the veteran population, according to VA statistics.

Peake's comparison of today's VA budget to that of seven years ago also sidesteps the reality of changing market values. Congressman Bob Filner, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs' Committee, says that regardless of the administration's sweeping claims, the 2009 VA budget is not much improvement over last year's. According to Filner, the budget's much-touted 5.5 percent increase for veteran health care "barely covers the cost of medical inflation."

"The service and sacrifice of our veterans is real, and the budget for the VA must provide realistic funding levels to meet these needs," Filner said in a statement upon the budget's release. "I am concerned that this budget proposal contains only modest increases for veterans' health care while paying for this slight increase with cuts in other veterans' programs below the historic levels this Congress provided for in this fiscal year."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021408J.shtml

quote:

Originally posted by Duster6:

quote:

Originally posted by outlaws93:
i think the high numbers were made up anyways....

I agree outlaw. Everyone knows the only thing the VA can count correctly is how many laptops they lose each year.

When this story came out earlier this month on another thread, the AP mentioned one of the reasons for the decline.

quote:

VA and community programs targeting homelessness, a decline in the number of living World War II, Korean and Vietnam veterans, and an improvement in the way the annual estimate was taken so fewer people were counted more than once were all credited as reasons behind the overall decline.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163457,00.html

I notice that trivial detail was left out in this VA press release. I would still like to see a breakdown of the numbers for each of the reasons why the numbers have declined ... but this press release seems to imply that it has declined only because "the economy is strong" and because the VA has been so forthcoming in providing services ... both of which assertions I find hard to swallow whole.

I saw a article in last months Playboy magazine entitled "Welcome Home." In it, it stated that veterans compromised about 34% of the homeless population but only compromised about 17% of the general population. These percentages are approxiate. Thus, veterans are vastly over represented in the homeless population.
The same implies that our nation does not treat returning veterans in a just manner in a variety of ways (employment for example).
Those, in fact, who do not have the legal or moral responsibility to serve in our armed services, especially during war, receive preferrential treatment in employment (affirmative action) even over returning combat veteran.
The same will justly result in the statement coming into affect: "It is not honorable but dishonorable to defend a nation that treats you in a dishonorable manner."
In the long run, the same will result in a larger percentage of qualified males being unwilling and/or unable to serve in our armed forces, especially the combat arms.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:

quote:

Originally posted by Duster6:

quote:

Originally posted by outlaws93:
i think the high numbers were made up anyways....

I agree outlaw. Everyone knows the only thing the VA can count correctly is how many laptops they lose each year.

When this story came out earlier this month on another thread, the AP mentioned one of the reasons for the decline.

quote:

VA and community programs targeting homelessness, a decline in the number of living World War II, Korean and Vietnam veterans, and an improvement in the way the annual estimate was taken so fewer people were counted more than once were all credited as reasons behind the overall decline.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163457,00.html

I notice that trivial detail was left out in this VA press release. I would still like to see a breakdown of the numbers for each of the reasons why the numbers have declined ... but this press release seems to imply that it has declined only because "the economy is strong" and because the VA has been so forthcoming in providing services ... both of which assertions I find hard to swallow whole.

Since the economy is certainly not strong and VA outreach doesn't seem to be appreciably better than before, one might conclude that veterans are dieing at an economically acceptable rate. I know this sounds cynical, but consider Concurrent Receipt and the 10 year catch-up clause. Just imagine how much money the government can save by delaying full payment to retirees for 10 years. So, if we do nothing, in 10 years we probably won’t have homeless vets (no more problem), ops…I forgot about OEF/OIF Vets.

Ol Doc;
Liked your post. What you say has merit. We spend about 6 to 8 Billion on the war in Irag each and every week. Just imagine if we cut that cost in half and took the other 3 to 4 Billion and used it to really support our troops. Just think not only would we be taken care of medically and financially, but we would be more educated(GI Bill) and reenlistment would sky rocket. But it does no good to day dream.

quote:

Originally posted by Duster6:
Ol Doc;
Liked your post. What you say has merit. We spend about 6 to 8 Billion on the war in Irag each and every week. Just imagine if we cut that cost in half and took the other 3 to 4 Billion and used it to really support our troops. Just think not only would we be taken care of medically and financially, but we would be more educated(GI Bill) and reenlistment would sky rocket. But it does no good to day dream.

Without them...we're stuck in the past...keep dreaming.

This is a very high quality thread here at In the News.

Here's a link: right here from 1991. I was privileged to have been one of the "Vietnam Vets" that were involved with the Sketches of War. There is a long story (surprise)about what we began to what is now the New England Shelter for homeless veterans in Boston.

The problem then and the problem now is how to count homeless veterans. At that time, we were saying that there were 100,000 homeless Vietnam vets, another 100,000 who had committed suicide and perhaps another 125,000 who were incarcerated.

There has always been a group of people who want to minimize or discredit the size of the problem with veterans, no matter their war or conflict. Could it be that it is their own fear of homelessness themselves? It is a similar problem with PTSD; those who have suffered traumatic emotional exposure may not even know the symptoms until long after their service.

DoD and the VA seem to be working together now, but there are reports that we have seen right here on military.com that this is often not the case. Let's hope and get active where we can to help close the link between military service and civilian life. This is serious business as it effects not only veterans, but their families, the communities in which they live and this Nation as a whole.

Off the soapbox now...thanks.

I'll join in this discussion, since I am homeless as of tomorrow. I worked for the BLM while I was attending school for my MS degree (voc rehab 40% back injury) and applied for a career conditional position within the USGS (an agency defined by a disabled vet—Powell, lost an arm in the Civil War) but the hiring official refused to hire me as a career conditional but hired me as a SCEP (a student position where funding does not come from that department but from agencies' headquarters, so he could some money on his budget). After almost a half year he announced that he needed me to start doing field work (lifting is what I CAN'T do) so I informed him that would be impossible since it was my back that was injured. He informed at that point he would "find a way" to get rid of me.
After a month of hassles he found a point of minutia. My GPA was (I'm not making this up!) was 2.98 and under the rules of SCEP I needed to maintain a 3.0. I had not attended school in almost a year prior to the hiring (I was no longer in school!) and that was the reason for my application to a career conditional position. VEAO states that if a "special disabled veteran applies for a career conditional position and is selected as the best candidate they will be hired for that position."
Guess what: the words—as written—are not the way the OPM (under Kay Coles James) and the MSPB interpret that statement. They say it means: "it's so they can hire the right person." That cryptic answer put me out of the loop and I applied for over 150 positions 75 of which I was quite qualified for. The number of reasons for NOT hiring me ranged from—unreadable college transcripts, not holding the next lower grade in fed service, unwilling to allow me take time off for my therapy, to lack of training in one particular software package (OPM prohibits passing over a qualified veteran based on one software package… except if there is no one able to teach that package due to personnel constraints). The number of Special Disabled Vets hired within the Executive Branch climbed 0.2 of one percent since 9/11 despite the enactment of USRRA and VEOA.
How to solve the problem? Force OPM to follow the enacted laws, VEOA et cetera. A vet working doesn't need to hit the VA for health care, they have a program through their job. I'm not feeling sorry for myself, I'm hoping only to inform the public of the gaping hole in the federal hiring practices. Why didn't anyone step into this fray to assist my claim? I picked the wrong congresswoman for my district: Darleen Hooley's staff told me 1) I couldn't do the task. 2) she (Hooley) enacts legislation, doesn't enforce it. 3) from her vets staffer: what do you want us to do?
Well, I will now be a statistic and I will cost the taxpayers more money, lots more. I lived in the woods long enough when I was in the military. I won't do it now.
So, please let Darleen Hooley know what you think about her inaction in regards to federal hiring practices and her lazze faire attitude to disabled veterans.

Darleen Hooley
415 N State St Ste 132
Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3243
(503) 723-0100

I was heart-broken by how I was treated after I seperated from the Army. I expected that so long as I presented my abilities and myself in a professional manner I should have a high chance of success in getting a decent job...

Boy was I wrong....Its brutal out here...this whole "We support the troops" is just crap until they actually put their damn money where their mouth is...

quote:

Originally posted by Aco275RGR:
I was heart-broken by how I was treated after I seperated from the Army. I expected that so long as I presented my abilities and myself in a professional manner I should have a high chance of success in getting a decent job...

Boy was I wrong....Its brutal out here...this whole "We support the troops" is just crap until they actually put their damn money where their mouth is...

I'm sorry about your situation. When my high school buddy got out in Ft. Lewis, he took advantage of unemployment for a few months so that he could find a place to live and a job. He stayed in the Tacoma area for several years with same job he found, then moved back down here in southern California. Got back into the company he was in before he left. Small family owned company, I worked there too and am still friends with (boss did a stint during Vietnam). As for my current job, boss is a Korea era vet (no deployment), and the younger doctor's dad flew B-29 heavy in WWII. Not only do I feel that they're military friendly, they just wanted to hire a guy for a change (women are total flakes and B-Sers).
I place the fault on the a-holes doing the interviews, maybe they never served or are jealous that you actually did something that they never could. How may times have qualified candidates been turned away because some low-life's friend applied for same job?
Chin up, Ranger.