Studying homeless students

The number of homeless students in Michigan has increased 66 percent in the past four years.
Krystle Wagner
Apr 6, 2013


The number of homeless students has also increased in Northwest Ottawa County, though not as dramatically, said Cindy Benson, information services specialist and homeless liaison for Grand Haven Area Public Schools.

There were 103 students in the Grand Haven school district classified as "homeless" in the fall of 2010. That number has grown to 153 this past fall, Benson said.

Being classified as "homeless" doesn’t necessarily mean living on park benches. Families fall into that category if they lack a regular and adequate nightly residence; live in an emergency or transitional center, car, public space, motel, hotel or campground; or share a home because of economic hardship, Benson said.

Schools aren't the only ones seeing an increased need in services for homeless students. Todd Krygsheld, associate director of the Holland Rescue Mission, said more Ottawa County residents are using their emergency shelter services, along with the women and children's shelter.

"We've seen a little increase with the economy and loss of jobs," he said.

Although Benson said she thinks the homeless issue is driven by the economy, she believes shelters are helping more people because the community and schools are doing a better job of identifying people in need.

To read more of this story, see Saturday’s print or e-edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.



The number of homeless students in Michigan has increased 66 percent in the past four years. FOUR YEARS? What happened 4 years ago to explain this? Oh right - same thing that happened to cause food stamps to sky rocket; same thing that caused poverty to explode to higher than the 60's; same thing that caused medical insurance costs to go through the roof. Funny about all the bad things that have happened in the past 4 years!

Must be that the evil Boosh's policies are finally working . . . .




Oh dear. Good point. A 3 dram problem if I ever heard one. If only the reporter had said 4 years 4 months!!! Probably an ex-Fox News reporter. I hear they're cutting back due to falling ratings - even gave Sarah the pink slip :(. You've missed an opportunity here, tho. Think about it - many of these homeless children are teenagers who never knew their fathers, their mothers split long ago, and they divide their time between various relatives/ friends and jail. Teenagers! - born during the Clinton years. What a serendipitous connection. You are too focused on Boosh/Obama - think big!

Hopefully our homeless Michigan student problem will be solved with Madam President Hillary in office.


Hah - it getting almost too easy to bring out the Chrissy Matthews of the Tribune Branch of MSNBC - just note how failure seems to follow The Chosen One's every footstep and the subject must be changed - Fox News, Sarah Palin, and for God's sake, Hillary (I guess when one idol falls, another must take his place).

And Hillary looking good? You may be way short of 65 Lanny, but apparently you have the eyesight of an octogenarian! Hillary used to roam the hallowed halls of the U.S. Capitol always surrounded by an entourage sufficiently numerous so the photographers couldn't record the number of axe handles following her.

Comparing Tammy Whine-ette to Sarah Palin is like comparing Obama to Mitch McGary - one actually has game, admits to his imperfections, and his college records are available to all to see. The other, not so much. Sarah Palin did not come by her qualifications through injection - she got them the old fashioned way - she earned them.

Hillary - the desperation is mounting!


Busted!! You are so right about changing the subject. Boosh/Obama, Obama/Boosh, blah, blah....I feel liked I've milked this thing all the way to Tuesday already. Obama's set for life, probably will get his face engraved on Mt. Rushmore, the economy's improving, the Dow's way, way up, money is rolling in, corporate profits are at an all-time high, the Repubs are scrambling for relevancy, (stumbled onto Lindsey Graham this a.m. talking about Mitt's campaign, for the love of all things Holy). It's getting a wee bit boring, I'm sure you agree.

Maybe you could offer up one of your cool YouTube videos that could be studied to gather data to be gleaned for research to prep for our next debate. Pretty please?

Ah Sarah - Just what are the qualifications that were gotten the old fashioned way via earning of which you speak with such certitude? Such liminality? Such desperation even?

I brought up Hillary because she's next in line, of course, but I'm game for another qualified candidate. Just let's not drag my hero Mitch McGary into this (although the guy could probably be president some day)!


Ah, the old "if changing the subject doesn't work, bring out the old Jimmy Messina talking points" to distract. "the economy's improving, the Dow's way, way up, money is rolling in, corporate profits are at an all-time high, the Repubs are scrambling for relevancy," _ who are you going to believe, Jemima Messina or your lying eyes?

But glad you're off the Obama band wagon and blame everything on Bush and Cheney; it was indeed getting boring, not to say ridiculous.

Per your request: and;

You're welcome!


Disappointed the 2nd one "can't be found". The first reminded me of Dick Cheney snarling at Patrick Leahy. Either that or Sarah taking a big swig of a Big Gulp - oh wait, that shot taken at CPAC was supposed to highlight her qualifications and credentials. But thanks for the effort.

I'm absolutely positive Ken Mailman used talking points, as well as Jiminy Messina. Yes, glad we agree on something finally - frankly, it was tiring to constantly compare Obama's achievements to Bush/Cheney's failures, even though there is a treasure trove of both to pirate, I think we just about exhausted the gold mine, for the moment, at least. "You go to war with the army you have, and not the army you wish you had", Donald Rumsfeld.

Hey - now Don would be a great new source of material for future debates! My eyes see crystal clear.


And for future discussions: Green energy lobbyists, investors, and speculators and their ties to the Obama and Clinton administrations. (word verification "SUCSW" how appropriate.


LOL - I had a previous word verification - SH6Tq - I kid you not. Really? Is this some kind of subliminal message they're giving us?

As for your link, it does make sense of the situation, and puts the topic into proper perspective. Of course, Green Energy lobbyists, investors, etc have ties to the Obama/Clinton administrations, as they are the supporters of renewable energy sources for the future. The Repubs have the dwindling Big Oil/Coal and big growth Gun/Ammo industries tied up by way of lobbyists, investors, and speculators - have for years, way before Clinton, in fact.


Can't wait for Sarah Palin and Stand by her man to square off in a debate. Now that's entertainment. Sqreeeech, hissssss. That's just the sound of Hillary getting into her pant suit;)


Sorry, Wing. Ain't gonna happen. Sarah is much too busy prepping for her photo shoot with her army of Alaskan bears and assault weapon aimed towards Russia (just off her front porch you know), with Putin in her crosshairs (he is quite a dude, no?), patriotically protecting those who contribute to SarahPac....I mean all those idiotic Americ....I mean patriotic Americans...o well, you catch the drift. Plus she's too busy flying around the country hobnobbing with the Tea Party Elite to give two toots about something as important as the rise of homeless children in our country. I mean - they don't have any money to donate to SarahPac, now do they?

I can only hope I look as good as Hillary at 65 (which, btw, is a long way off). Have you seen her latest new "do"? Experimenting with hair styles is maybe the only thing these two gals have in common.


Btw, Wing - I grudgingly admit your screech hiss comment does make one..Laugh Till You Cry, Faydee Ft Lazy J.


Focus people...thought I should bring the class back to order and point out the topic we are discussing is the poor and homeless. Which I believe the war on poverty started back in 1964 when we had around 19% of Americans living in poverty. Well here we are 49 years later with U.S. poverty levels at around 14-15%.

Seems to me we should pull out of this war as it seems to be a stalemate. Why just think about how much money we would save and then have to pour into developing pond scum into usable energy! I hear there are even some solar panels lying around that we could stand around the ponds an focus the heat of the sun onto the scum to dry it up into usable form. Heck, bet Obama would have enough left over money to take a way overdue vacation!

Now before class is dismissed please sit in a circle, join hands and sing Kumbaya.


Your stats are interesting, Wing, but otherwise you're about as much fun as a substitute teacher. Forget about you and me, I think you and winggirl would make a great couple.....just sayin'....


Stats are facts. Nearly 50 yrs. and $15 trillion spent. The lowest the poverty rate has been is about 10.5%. California now has the highest poverty rate of about 23.5%. Ole governor Moon Beam is doing a fantastic job out there.

The lowest years of poverty coincide, get this, during I'm sure a favorite President of yours, Richard M. Nixon! In fact, poverty rates fall during Republican Presidencies. Isn't that just the funniest thing, mean ole Repubs who only worry about the rich have the best track record for reducing poverty!

Maybe we need a substitute President in the form of a Republican to help out the poor.

Funny there is a winggirl out there and I'm sure my wife would not appreciate your humor. Now if we could only find a Laniguy for you since we are over.


Actually, I thought winggirl might have been your wife. But if not, you have my full assurance that my intent is not to cause trouble, but only expound on whoever made the stupid comment in the first place. You will notice I did not define "couple" - couple of....?(fill in the blanks). You chose to take it from there. And I have my very own Laniguy, so it's all good.

Your selection of stats is deceiving. California recently became #1 due to changes in poverty formulation. Prior to that, you could just take a swipe across the southern states, with Mississippi #1. These states have the highest levels of poverty as well as the highest levels of federal dollars flowing into the state per federal taxes being paid. They also happen to be red states - talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I think it's important when discussing statistics that we remember there are real people behind those numbers. An aftermath of the recession that started in 2007, with joblessness rising and subsequent loss of income, homes, cars, health insurance, the number of children living in households with less than $2/day in income rose to 2.8 million. Some of those children live right here in GH.

It's easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and scoff at the problem, and justify turning suffering and misery into a political corn maze of statistics, prejudice, and resentment. What a bummer that all that money is "wasted" on attempts to reduce poverty and alleviate suffering when it could be spent so much more productively on (non-hunting) guns, ammo, violent video games and movies, wars - you know, all that fun stuff.


What stands out the most in your reply is the glaring omission and retort to the reduction in poverty every time we have a Republican president. You need to realize that when we Americans are having fun buying all those fun things you disdain about to entertain ourselves, it's not because we are cold hearted and forgetting about the poor, its because our jobs are paying well. There are plenty of them and more people have them. See that's the proven theory Libs just keep ignoring, when business have money they reinvest in their business and expand to keep up with demand. (It's so stupid having to explain this all the time.) Expanding business means more jobs, more jobs means less people in poverty and needing government assistance.

Sitting in my comfy home doesn't mean I don't care. I'm actively engaged in helping people, training people, and helping them get jobs. Sitting in your comfy home saying we we shouldn't be comfy doesn't help a fricken thing. Drives me crazy that libs just have to show the "feel" so sorry for homeless then do nothing to correct the situation, or choose to just give them something which does not help them out of poverty. It just makes the giver "feel' good about themselves. That statement may not fit your situation but it sure does for a lot of the all feeling arm chair libs out there.

Throw out all the stats if you want, there are always going to be people that live in poverty. Some of them truly need our assistance as they are not able to help themselves. What is really pissing me and many conservatives off is the gubment keeps people on assistance by rewarding them to not work because they can make more on assistance. There are people out there who are choosing NOT to take assistance and work two jobs with a degree on the wall. They still can't make ends meet because the economy is not expanding and they cannot find jobs in there chosen field. That is the travesty that is ignored. What adds salt to this wound is then politicians pit Americans against each other thru class warfare.

We need to solve the root cause of poverty, lack of economic growth and nanny state dependancy. When you really understand that last statement its sickening to think how politicians keep people in poverty to gain their votes and power. Just plain sick! Throw in low information voters and (scratch my head) highly engaged voters putting these fools in office it becomes mind numbing in the "corn maze" of discussion.

Your statement implying we should not be able to by nice things that make us happy is a because there are people in poverty is a stunning position. Maybe you should send that note to Odrama before he takes his next vacation!


Bravissimo - don't know if anyone has said it better. And did you dig the statistic "the number of children living in households with less than $2/day in income rose to 2.8 million"? Only a libtard could throw that out and expect it to be believed. I guess we really do need to end our war on poverty, if we are spending so much for so little. Oh, I guess all of our "contributions" to these folks don't count as income - my bad.


Illogically, inexplicably, I enjoy our occasional political repartee, however predictable it becomes. The problem lies in my failure at placing standards just too high.

The National Poverty Center has released a new report that examines poverty trends between 1996 and 2011. The number of households with children who are in extreme poverty in a given month—living at $2 or less in income per person per day—in 2011 totaled roughly 1.46 million households, including 2.8 million kids. This number is up from 636,000 households in 1996, nearly a 130 percent increase. From University of Michigan.


The figures you quoted are based on self reporting by the individuals in question and do not include the following sources of income to individuals and families:

Direct welfare payments, food stamps, free health care, subsidized housing, subsidized utilities, free cell phone, subsidized transportation in the big cities, free lunch for their children, free breakfast for their children in many cities, free Christmas presents for their children, free school supplies in many cities. This doesn’t even count the benefits that come from private charities like free children’s clothes, free baby supplies, and more.

By some calculations "Poor" Households Getting $168 in Welfare Per Day from Taxpayers


If you believe corporations invest new money, you are a fool. They hide money from the government so they don't pay taxe, and they sure don't hire new people.
I believe you training people for a job would be like Boosh & Cheney telling the truth about 911.
Yes, people are suck your teat...not the damn corporations!


So get the fricken gubment out of their pockets so they don't hide their money! ! Come on, your smart enough to see that BD!


divert, good one WM. I blew you5r theory out of the water, and that is your comeback? REALLY? These corporations pay NOTHING but make millions, SEEMS like you are smart enough to read this (or did you do a knee jerk without reading the link provided?). NOTHING, NO TAXES PAID by Pfizer, Microsoft, Citibank, over 60 of the largest US (multinational) corporations have over $1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS hidden in accounts offshore not paying taxes, and you have the gall to complain about individuals who are down on their luck and need a helping hand. Your colors are showing bright red, just like the states that have the highest poverty levels and are taking more than they are paying. Funny how that works, huh?


While you posted your link I was writing my reply. No diversion, besides I don't need to see any more left dribble video to watch. Guess you missed the correlation I made between low poverty rates and Republican presidencies too. Funny how when the economy is humming because business is doing good the poverty rate goes down..huh!

Wonder what politicians are invested in those companies you list. Why don't you spend some time researching that 'cus I'm tired of doing your homework!


Report by independent news agencies are only left leaning to imbeciles. show me a link to your right leaning views of how this is good, you have blinders and I hope you have the extra $$ to pay more taxes because of these thieves. Just don't complain because someone needs $300/month to feed their kids because there are NO JOBS HERE, when this shat is happening. Your defense of this crap is obtuse.


I like turtles!


15. Pfizer

Income taxes paid: $2.94 billion


Income taxes paid: $2.94 billion

Total revenue: $67.4 billion

Net income: $10 billion

Effective tax rate: 31.5%

Data: Thomson Reuters Fundamentals via FactSet Research Systems.

The link also has the top tax paying corporations, with facts, unlike the bogus USPIRG article. If you want to argue U.S. taxes on corporations should be higher (even if they are already the highest in the world) - fine - make the argument without resorting to fake statistics (and watch more jobs and tax dollars fly overseas). By the by, Obama, Reid and Peloli held all power for 2 years but continued to permit corporate deductions (referred to by the left as "loopholes" like the home mortgage deduction is a loophole.



Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.