9月16日,美国第一巡回上诉法院为美国住房和城市发展部(HUD)推进亟需的住房改革扫清了障碍。此前,由“无家可归者权益组织”(Homeless Industrial Complex)提起的多次诉讼一直试图阻止这些改革措施的实施;如今这一裁决终于允许HUD重新定义“改革成功的标准”,并优先资助那些真正能够帮助无家可归者实现康复、重返社会并实现自给自足的项目。这一决定来得正是时候。
On Sept. 16, the First Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to move forward with desperately needed reforms to the nation’s homelessness system. After months of litigation by the Homeless Industrial Complex to repeatedly block these reforms, the decision allows HUD to redefine success and fund the programs that generate the greatest success in moving the homeless toward recovery, restoration and self-sufficiency.
特朗普希望帮助全国14.6万名患有精神疾病的无家可归者;而民主党人则试图阻止他实施这些改革。十多年来,联邦政府的无家可归者援助政策一直侧重于为无家可归者提供永久性住房;然而,用于界定和统计无家可归者数量的指标往往掩盖了那些真正需要帮助的人与那些已经通过相关项目获得帮助的人之间的重要差异。
And not a moment too soon. TRUMP WANTS TO HELP 146,000 MENTALLY ILL WHO ARE HOMELESS. DEMOCRATS WANT TO STOP HIM For more than a decade, federal homelessness policy has centered heavily on permanent housing placement, while the measures used to define and count homelessness have often obscured important differences between who is counted as homeless and who is being served through homelessness programs.
未来的改革成功标准将取决于无家可归者是否真的得到了改善:他们是否恢复了健康、重新找到了工作、重新融入了社会,并重新开始了自己的生活。
Success will now be measured by whether people are getting better: recovering, working, reconnecting and reclaiming their lives.
要实现这一目标,HUD官员必须摒弃那些维持旧有住房援助体系的虚假承诺和误导性指标——那些将“成功”定义为“为无家可归者提供住房”或“扩大援助体系规模”的指标,实际上与美国街头无家可归者的真实状况截然不同。
Getting here required that HUD officials confront a series of gimmicks that helped sustain the old system — promises, definitions and measures of success that painted a very different picture than what was happening on America’s streets.
西雅图市长表示:新设立的无家可归者收容所将不再要求受助者保持清醒状态第一个问题出现在2013年:时任总统巴拉克·奥巴马宣布将“住房优先”(Housing First)政策作为联邦政府的核心援助策略,承诺通过优先为无家可归者提供永久性住房来在十年内解决无家可归问题,同时并不要求他们接受治疗或保持清醒状态。然而这一承诺从未实现。到2025年,尽管政府用于无家可归者援助的财政支出增加了151%,但无家可归者的数量却增加了27%,长期无家可归者的比例更是上升了81%,达到了美国历史上最高的水平。
SEATTLE MAYOR SAYS SOBRIETY WON'T BE REQUIRED AT NEW HOMELESS SHELTER The first gimmick was in 2013 when President Barack Obama declared Housing First the predominant federal approach, promising to end homelessness in a decade by prioritizing permanent housing placement without requiring treatment, sobriety or other preconditions. The promised end never came. By 2025, despite a 151% increase in taxpayer-funded beds, homelessness surged 27% and chronic homelessness by 81% — reaching the highest levels ever recorded in our nation’s history. The problem was that we defined success as housing placements and system growth rather than recovery, self-sufficiency and restored lives.
问题的根源在于:我们错误地将“成功”定义为“为无家可归者提供住房”或“扩大援助体系规模”,而非帮助他们实现康复、实现自给自足和重建生活。
Spending soared, the system expanded and homelessness grew with it.
支出激增,相关住房项目不断扩张,但随之而来的却是无家可归人数的增加。
LETITIA JAMES FACES SCRUTINY AFTER NEW YORK CITY SPENDS $81,700 PER HOMELESS PERSON AMID SHELTER SCANDALS That brings us to gimmick No. 2: housing people and then removing them from the homelessness count.
在纽约市因“为每位无家可归者提供81,700美元的救助资金”而引发丑闻后,莱蒂西亚·詹姆斯(Letitia James)受到了公众的严厉批评。这引出了第二个问题:政府虽然为无家可归者提供了住房,却随后将他们从官方的无家可归者统计名单中剔除。
HUD’s Point-in-Time count excludes people already living in taxpayer-funded permanent housing for the homeless even though roughly 83% of HUD’s homelessness resources are devoted to housing them. That exposes a fundamental contradiction: If they are no longer counted as homeless, why does the nation’s largest homelessness agency continue devoting the majority of its resources to housing them?
美国住房与城市发展部(HUD)的实时统计数据显示,那些已经居住在由纳税人资助的永久性住房中的无家可归者并未被计入统计范围——尽管HUD用于帮助无家可归者的资源中约有83%实际上都是用于为他们提供住房的。这揭示了一个根本性的矛盾:如果这些人不再被视为无家可归者,那么这个全国最大的无家可归者救助机构为何仍会继续将大部分资源用于为他们提供住房呢?
SEATTLE CLEANED UP FOR THE WORLD CUP BUT ONLY WHILE THE WORLD WAS WATCHING, COMMENTATOR SAYS Then came another statistical sleight of hand: rapid rehousing.
一位评论员指出:“西雅图为世界杯进行了大规模的整治,但这一切仅仅是在世界杯期间而已。”随后,政府又采用了另一种统计手段:通过“快速重新安置”无家可归者的方式来改变统计数据。HUD将这种“快速重新安置”措施归类为“永久性住房”,但实际上这种住房的租金援助仅持续24个月;如果将一个家庭安置在这种住房中,他们就会从官方统计名单中消失;但如果将同一个家庭安置在过渡性住房中(过渡性住房的援助期限同样为24个月),他们仍会被官方认定为无家可归者。
HUD classified rapid rehousing as permanent housing even though its rental assistance is time-limited to 24 months. Move a family into rapid rehousing, and they disappear from the point-in-time count. Move that same family into transitional housing — which can also last up to 24 months — and they remain officially homeless. TAXPAYER-FUNDED 'METH MANSION' UNDER FIRE AS CRIME CONCERNS MOUNT AROUND HOMELESS CAMPUS Same potential 24-month horizon. Two radically different statistical outcomes. And the distinction mattered. As HUD steered communities away from transitional housing and toward rapid rehousing, HUD itself attributed declines in reported family homelessness in 2018 "largely" to that shift.
随着无家可归者聚居区犯罪问题的日益严重,这些由纳税人资助的住房项目也受到了舆论的强烈批评。同样的24个月援助期限,却导致了截然不同的统计结果。HUD将2018年无家可归者人数的下降主要归因于这种“从过渡性住房向快速重新安置”的转变。
FURIOUS RESIDENTS CONFRONT HOMELESS HOUSING LEADERS AS POPULAR BEACH COMMUNITY HITS BREAKING POINT Put the populations together and the picture changes dramatically: 1,456,923 Americans were either homeless or living in taxpayer-subsidized housing in 2025 — nearly twice the 745,652 captured by the headline point-in-time count.
当一个热门的海滨社区不堪重负、居民们愤怒地与无家可归者住房项目的负责人对峙时,整个情况变得更加复杂:2025年,美国共有1,456,923人处于无家可归状态或居住在由纳税人补贴的住房中——这一数字几乎是官方统计数字(745,652人)的两倍。
That is one of the flaws in defining success primarily through housing status: The statistic can improve the moment someone crosses into a program classified as permanent housing, long before we know whether that person has achieved lasting stability or self-sufficiency.
这就是仅通过住房状况来定义“成功”的一个主要缺陷:一旦某人被纳入被归类为“永久性住房”的项目,相关统计数据就会立即上升;然而,我们却还远不清楚这个人是否真正实现了长期的稳定生活或经济自给自足。
Housing matters, but recovery, stability, and self-sufficiency must be the finish line. Then there is the "chronic" definition gimmick.
住房确实很重要,但真正的目标应该是个人的康复、生活稳定以及经济上的自给自足。
Under 12 years of Housing First rule, HUD has repeatedly changed how it defines and calculates chronic homelessness, making apples-to-apples comparisons across years increasingly difficult. Some changes temporarily altered who qualified as chronically homeless and therefore who appeared in federal statistics.
此外,还有另一个关于“长期无家可归者”定义的欺骗性做法:在《住房优先计划》(Housing First)实施后的12年里,美国住房与城市发展部(HUD)多次更改了对“长期无家可归者”的定义和计算方法,这使得跨年度的数据对比变得越来越困难。这些变化暂时改变了哪些人符合“长期无家可归者”的标准,进而影响了联邦统计数据的准确性。
Under 12 years of Housing First rule, HUD has repeatedly changed how it defines and calculates chronic homelessness, making apples-to-apples comparisons across years increasingly difficult. Some changes temporarily altered who qualified as chronically homeless and therefore who appeared in federal statistics. But this year, this HUD administration did the calculation and reports chronic homelessness is 81% higher than it was in 2013. Perhaps the most consequential gimmick, however, involves homeless children and families.
然而,今年美国住房与城市发展部的统计数据显示,长期无家可归者的比例比2013年上升了81%。
In 2011, HUD made the decision to apply a far narrower standard than the Congress-codified McKinney-Vento definition to identify homeless children and youth in our nation’s schools. The result is a stunning federal contradiction: a child can be officially homeless under federal law while at school, yet that same child and family is moved into the shadows under HUD’s narrow definition simply because, after losing their housing, they are sleeping on someone else’s couch, or in a motel room the government is not funding.
或许最具有严重后果的欺骗性做法是那些针对无家可归儿童和家庭的措施:2011年,美国住房与城市发展部采用了比国会制定的《麦金尼-文托法案》(McKinney-Vento Act)中更为严格的标准来识别学校中的无家可归儿童和青少年。这一做法导致了联邦政府数据上的严重矛盾:根据联邦法律,一个孩子即使在学校里也可能被认定为无家可归者;但根据美国住房与城市发展部的狭隘定义,如果这个孩子和家人失去了住所后只能暂时住在别人的沙发上或政府不提供资助的汽车旅馆里,他们就会被重新归类为“无家可归者”。这种定义上的差异实在令人震惊。
In 2011, HUD made the decision to apply a far narrower standard than the Congress-codified McKinney-Vento definition to identify homeless children and youth in our nation’s schools. The result is a stunning federal contradiction: a child can be officially homeless under federal law while at school, yet that same child and family is moved into the shadows under HUD’s narrow definition simply because, after losing their housing, they are sleeping on someone else’s couch, or in a motel room the government is not funding. The definition disparity is staggering.
在2023-24学年,美国教育部统计出约有150万名K-12年级的学生处于无家可归状态(这一数字仅包括学生本人,未包括他们的父母、尚未入学的弟弟妹妹或其他同样面临无家可归问题的家庭成员)。如果采用更为保守的统计方法进行估算,实际面临无家可归问题的美国家庭人数可能会超过230万。
The Department of Education identified roughly 1.5 million homeless K–12 students in the 2023–24 school year, a number that includes only students. It does not count their parent(s), younger siblings not yet enrolled in school or other family members experiencing homelessness alongside them. Applying a conservative household adjustment suggests those students could represent more than 2.3 million Americans experiencing homelessness within families.
其结果是,大多数无家可归的家庭被排除在住房和城市发展部(HUD)的无家可归者统计之外,而这些被排除的家庭也不符合获得HUD资助的无家可归援助的资格。HUD通过重新定义,将他们从本应支持他们的体系中排除在外。将他们推入阴影之中,其后果将世代回响。
The result is that most homeless families are excluded from HUD’s homelessness count, and those excluded families do not qualify for HUD-funded homelessness assistance. HUD simply defined them out of the system that was supposed to support them. Pushing them into the shadows will have consequences reverberate for generations.
点击此处阅读更多福克斯新闻观点。在特朗普政府任内,HUD如今承认了一个基本事实:美国不能通过不断缩小定义范围,让数百万人从统计数据中消失,或者仅仅根据某人睡在哪里就宣称成功,来解决无家可归问题。
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION Under the Trump administration, HUD now recognizes a basic truth: America cannot solve homelessness by narrowing definitions until millions disappear from the numbers — or by declaring success based simply on where someone sleeps.
依靠统计手段玩弄花招和降低期望值的时代必须终结。是时候去衡量真正重要的东西了:那些被挽救、被恢复并重新实现自给自足的生命。
The era of statistical gimmicks and lowered expectations must end. It is time to measure what matters: lives recovered, restored and returned to self-sufficiency.