You can take away the question mark from the post title.

Credit must be given where it's due.

This is one case where Bush sat by and let a good appointee do his job. Perhaps it's because it's a marginal issue which Bush doesn't care about.

Time Magazine is ahead of you on this. They already reported that most of the decrease results from how they counted who was homeless, rather than an actual substantial reduction in homelessness.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1827876,00.html

Indeed, credit is due to the Bush admin, mostly for the appointment of an intelligent, committed person in Mangano. But more credit is due to the community of supportive housing providers and advocates who have for three decades now proven that housing with services is the cost effective solution to chronic homelessness.

More generaly, though, homelessness is a product of family incomes not keeping up with housing costs. The solutions to that - increased federal funding for affrodable housing and redistributive policies - have of course not been on the agenda of the Bush Administration.

It doesn't matter what the details are. It happened on Bush's watch and he will get credit for it just as Clinton received credit for the economic state at the time.

Jared: Time Magazine got it wrong. The decrease is based on an apples to apples comparison of numbers of chronically homeless people as currently defined over the time period. The decline is not due to a narrower definition, as that has remained the same since Mangano was appointed years ago. You'll have to find another excuse to ignore the fact that progress indeed is being made.

Ed: you got a cite on that? Because here's what the article says:

According to a report given to Congress on Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), overall homeless numbers, taken from a one-day national count in January, were down 12% from 2005 to 2007, to just under 672,000 people, most of whom were on the streets only temporarily. Chronic homelessness is down even more, almost 30% lower than in 2005, from 175,000 to fewer than 125,000.

There is a rather large asterisk on the new data, however, the result of an ongoing effort to more narrowly define who is actually considered homeless. This is the third annual national HUD count, and in previous years, some cities had been counting families who were living two families to an apartment, for example, or those living in RVs, as homeless. This year, they weren't. This count, say the report's authors, is the most successful to date in tallying only those who were actually in shelters or on the streets — the official HUD definition of a homeless person.

While I agree that the change in definition makes sense, the fact is that it does make it an apples-to-oranges comparison. And since this is only the third year they've done the count, any definitional changes during the count's lifetime happened after Mangano was appointed - and during the period that the numbers dropped.

It seems pretty clear to me. It's possible that Time could be clearly wrong, but I'd need to see some evidence.

Ed :

I would be very happy if homelessness declined during the Bush administration. Its not as if I need that issue to declare the Bush presidency a disaster. I certainly hope the program that Mr. Mangano launches is successful. However, there is real danger in all poverty related issues of declaring victory before true results are reached. Surely, isn't it a conservative principal to demand that social programs prove their effectiveness?

Jared: Niether Mangano nor HUD are "declaring victory." They concede the fact that homelessness still exists. What makes the effort newsworthy even if one discounts any decrease is that even a plateauing of the numbers is remarkable given the decades of nothing but increases in numbers of homeless people.

Also, no count methodology will ever be perfect. What matters is that (1) we now know how to end the homelessness of the most seemingly intractable homeless people and are starting to do it; and (2) That the statistical margin of error in tracking progress is steadily being reduced and will continue to be over time.

Regarding the efficacy of the programs - the average housing retention rates among chronically homeless people after 1 year using this "Housing First" model is 80 to 85% and in some cases as high as 95% and those figures have held firm over the past number of years. It's also interesting to note that this approach has been central to the documented reductions reported by a well known Mayor of conservative repute, Gavin Newsom of San Francisco!

Conservatives like Housing First because not only is it successful, but it is also proven to be cost effective--
www.endhomelessness.org/files/1200_file_Supportivehousingsaves.pdf -

Pathways to Housing began Housing First in 1992 in NYC, and the Pathways' Housing First model was named an evidence-based practice by SAMHSA.

This model has already begun to be implemented for families as well. I think everyone agrees that there is more work to be done.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073001237.html

The report says homelessness decreased between 2005 and 2007. What happened between 2001 and 2005? Anyone got those numbers?

The problem is I've heard several Republicans argue that the economy all the way into 1998 was due to Reagan! So according to "Republican" logic, Clinton got those homeless off the streets in 2005-2007.

They count them differently.Volunteers must now go out at night and physically see them where they are sleeping to be considered officially homeless. I know because I spent many nights going into dark wilderness areas trying to find these people to be counted in the census. They aren't counted just showing up at shelters and soup kitchens.Look at the housing crisis and the unemployment rates and ask yourself if this makes any sense.This is just a new way of not counting the actual homeless and saying we made improvements.

Sorry i lost this post but I'm posting it again.This is pure unmitigated B.S.
I've been on the front lines for years trying to go out and count the homeless because under the Bush administration the only way you could count them was if they were actually seen where they were living. Not if they showed up at a shelter, or soup kitchen but actually living in the streets. For volunteers like me, that meant going out all night with a census form and trying to interview the people living outside. They hide well, and well, sometimes we didn't feel safe going into dark gullies and wildlife areas in the middle of the night.These are the new rules on how the homeless are counted. look at the housing crisis , the unemployment figures, and this administartions track record and ask yourself if this makes sense. They are lying.

It is absolutely true. As unbelievable as it may sound, the Bush homelessness policy, directed from the WH by Phil Mangano, I greeted with even more skepticism when I was working with the Mayor's San Francisco Ten Year Planning Council, Angela Alioto Chair.

Housing first works. That will gall Bush-haters of which I count myself second to none.

I say this also as a long-time volunteer with SF Homeless Connect, now a national model in over 180 cities, thanks in part to the Interagency Council on Homelessness and Phil Mangano

Put the homeless in housing and you get less homelessness. Duh!!!!! The definition of a homeless person is someone who has no housing, so of course homeless will go sown if you provide housing. Back in the 80"s when I was a homeless advocate with the Union of the Homeless teh main message we got across was that homeless resulted from a lack of affordable housing...and in some cities a lack of housing at all (i.e. less than 1% vacancy rate in Los Angeles at that time). Homelessness came about in the first place, in part, because of the Regan administration taking money away from HUD, which reduced the rate of new housing when the population was exploding. Wake up people and acknowledge the obvious!

"Governing" magazine flagged this about two years ago as a promising wait-and-see.

My name is Brian O'Reilly I live in Boston. In 2004 I worked for Partners healthcare at Massachusetts general hospital as a computer technician,I received a phone call from president George Bush JR at the whitehouse,I was told to leave my job, pay my bills, change my name, and leave the area,and never mention a word of this to anyone,9 people I worked with were there when the president called, People I worked with kept asking me If I knew him,and asked me why he called,I then contacted my manager and submitted a transfer to the Charlestown facility that M.G.H has,I was so scared after receiving that phone call from Bush I left my job and left the state,and ended up homeless,all because of a phone call from the whitehouse that I had no explanation for,president George Bush Jr turned me into a homeless person on purpose.and used his position as president to do so I have witnesses to verify he called.I also found out after I left the state of MA,I received a phonecall from a former co-worker about a incident at my mother house 5 min prior to the phonecall,I then knew I was under surveillance,most likely I was also under surveillance when I was employed by Partners Healthcare.I need legal advice as to if this is legal to do to me,considering that I don't work for the whitehouse or the president.

THANK YOU,
Brian O'Reilly
The Pine Street Inn
(617) 892-9100

I know because I spent many nights going into dark wilderness areas trying to find these people to be counted in the census. They aren't counted just showing up at shelters and soup kitchens.Look at the housing crisis and the unemployment rates and ask yourself if this makes any sense.

THE PRESIDENTS PHONECALL
My name is Brian O'Reilly I worked at Massachusetts General Hospital as a computer technician,I received a phone call from President George Bush JR at the whitehouse,I was told to leave my job, pay my bills, change my name, and leave the area,and never mention a word of this to anyone, people I worked with were there when the president called, People I worked with kept asking me If I knew him,and asked me why he called,I then contacted my manager and submitted a transfer to the Charlestown facility that M.G.H has,I was so nervous after receiving that phone call from Bush I left my job and left the state,and ended up homeless,all because of a phone call from the whitehouse that I had no explanation for,president George Bush Jr turned me into a homeless person on purpose.and used his position as president to do so, I have witnesses to verify he called.this is wrong considering that I don't work for the whitehouse or the president,I am sure that no one would like this done to them,he had no right to do this to me,I also found out I was under Surveillance, I am making sure everyone knows that BUSH did this,including the press,I want justice....please send this to other people,thank you.
brian o'reilly,the pine street inn shelter,444 harrison ave,Boston,MA