In 2023, there were about ******* homeless people estimated to be living in the United States, the highest number of homeless people recorded within the provided time period. In comparison, the second-highest number of homeless people living in the U.S. within this time period was in 2007, at *******. How is homelessness calculated? Calculating homelessness is complicated for several different reasons. For one, it is challenging to determine how many people are homeless as there is no direct definition for homelessness. Additionally, it is difficult to try and find every single homeless person that exists. Sometimes they cannot be reached, leaving people unaccounted for. In the United States, the Department of Housing and Urban Development calculates the homeless population by counting the number of people on the streets and the number of people in homeless shelters on one night each year. According to this count, Los Angeles City and New York City are the cities with the most homeless people in the United States. Homelessness in the United States Between 2022 and 2023, New Hampshire saw the highest increase in the number of homeless people. However, California was the state with the highest number of homeless people, followed by New York and Florida. The vast amount of homelessness in California is a result of multiple factors, one of them being the extreme high cost of living, as well as opposition to mandatory mental health counseling and drug addiction. However, the District of Columbia had the highest estimated rate of homelessness per 10,000 people in 2023. This was followed by New York, Vermont, and Oregon.

When analyzing the ratio of homelessness to state population, New York, Vermont, and Oregon had the highest rates in 2023. However, Washington, D.C. had an estimated ** homeless individuals per 10,000 people, which was significantly higher than any of the 50 states. Homeless people by race The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development performs homeless counts at the end of January each year, which includes people in both sheltered and unsheltered locations. The estimated number of homeless people increased to ******* in 2023 – the highest level since 2007. However, the true figure is likely to be much higher, as some individuals prefer to stay with family or friends - making it challenging to count the actual number of homeless people living in the country. In 2023, nearly half of the people experiencing homelessness were white, while the number of Black homeless people exceeded *******. How many veterans are homeless in America? The  number of homeless veterans in the United States has halved since 2010. The state of California, which is currently suffering a homeless crisis, accounted for the highest number of homeless veterans in 2022. There are many causes of homelessness among veterans of the U.S. military, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse problems, and a lack of affordable housing.

The graph displays the top 15 states by an estimated number of homeless people in the United States for the year 2025. The x-axis represents U.S. states, while the y-axis shows the number of homeless individuals in each state. California has the highest homeless population with 187,084 individuals, followed by New York with 158,019, while Hawaii places last in this dataset with 11,637. This bar graph highlights significant differences across states, with some states like California and New York showing notably higher counts compared to others, indicating regional disparities in homelessness levels across the country.

The graph displays the estimated number of homeless people in the United States from 2007 to 2024. The x-axis represents the years, ranging from 2007 to 2023, while the y-axis indicates the number of homeless individuals. The estimated homeless population varies over this period, ranging from a low of 57,645 in 2014 to a high of 771,000 in 2024. From 2007 to 2013, there is a general decline in numbers from 647,258 to 590,364. In 2014, the number drops significantly to 57,645, followed by an increase to 564,708 in 2015. The data shows fluctuations in subsequent years, with another notable low of 55,283 in 2018. From 2019 onwards, the estimated number of homeless people generally increases, reaching its peak in 2024. This data highlights fluctuations in homelessness estimates over the years, with a recent upward trend in the homeless population.

In 2023, there were about ****** homeless youth living in California, the most out of any U.S. state. New York had the second-highest number of homeless youth in that year, at *****.

In 2023, there were an estimated ******* white homeless people in the United States, the most out of any ethnicity. In comparison, there were around ******* Black or African American homeless people in the U.S. How homelessness is counted The actual number of homeless individuals in the U.S. is difficult to measure. The Department of Housing and Urban Development uses point-in-time estimates, where employees and volunteers count both sheltered and unsheltered homeless people during the last 10 days of January. However, it is very likely that the actual number of homeless individuals is much higher than the estimates, which makes it difficult to say just how many homeless there are in the United States. Unsheltered homeless in the United States California is well-known in the U.S. for having a high homeless population, and Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego all have high proportions of unsheltered homeless people. While in many states, the Department of Housing and Urban Development says that there are more sheltered homeless people than unsheltered, this estimate is most likely in relation to the method of estimation.

In 2024/25, there were ***** rough sleepers reported in Westminster, making it the London borough with the highest number of rough sleepers in that year. Other boroughs which also had a high number of homeless people included, Camden, Ealing, and Southwark.

A survey of the homeless in two settlements of the part of town is archived under ZA Study No. 2579.

The social situation of the homeless in a Cologne suburb. Topics: Most important problems in the settlement; problems in the relationship between the settlement and surroundings; plans to leave; length of residence in the settlement and year of first utilization of a city shelter; reason for admission into a city shelter; type of quarters on first admission and before admission; frequency of moving into such accomodations and settlements; perceived deterioration from the move; number of rooms; possession of durable economic goods; defects in residence; number of children and schools attended or kindergarten; attitude to establishment of a special school in the part of town; perceived discrimination of one´s children in school; regular pocket-money for the children; place of leisure time of one´s children; contacts of one´s children outside of the settlement; person raising the children; perceived discrimination of the homeless; exercise of an honorary activity in the settlement; attitude to a self-help committee in the settlement; interest in participation in such a committee; assumed effectiveness of a community of interests of the homeless; most important tasks of such a community of interests; most important institutions as contact to improve the situation of the homeless; location of place of work; frequency of change of job; change of occupation; satisfaction with place of work; shopping place; possession of savings; manager of family income; decision-maker for expenditures; debts; eating main meal together; leisure activities in the settlement; contact persons in leisure time; leisure contacts outside the settlement; neighborhood contacts in the settlement; contacts with non-homeless; establishing these contacts on leisure time or through work; identification as Cologne resident or resident of the part of town; desire to move to another part of town; favorite part of town in Cologne; intensity of contact with the population in the part of town; contacts with residents of another settlement; participation in meetings of the Poll Buergerverein; assumed representation of interests of the homeless through this organization; most influencial personalities in the part of town; persons making a particular effort for the homeless; most important differences between the residents of one´s own settlement and another settlement in the part of town; knowledge of press reports and television reports about the homeless and judgement on validity; most important reasons for homelessness; most important measures to prevent homelessness; perceived differences between the homeless; filing a complaint against the city to obtain better housing; experiences with contacts with authorities; satisfaction with the manager of the settlement; most important task of a manager; anomy (scale); comparison of personal housing situation with that of parents; social origins; social mobility compared with father and father-in-law; contacts with relatives; judgement of relatives about living in this settlement; relatives likewise living in emergency shelters; personal condition of health; number of sick family members and type of illnesses; recommendations on dealing with the homeless; society or the individual as responsible for one´s own homelessness; desire for integration in a normal residential area; personal extent of commiting crimes and conviction; type of offenses; perceived improvement in living conditions in the emergency shelter; comparison of the situation between the settlement and a temporary shelter; place of birth; length of residence in Cologne; re-married; religiousness; club memberships; extent of club activity; party preference; assumed effectiveness of this survey on the situation of the homeless. Interviewer rating: name sign on door; description of residential furnishings regarding family pictures, other pictures, knick-knacks, religious figures and possession of books; condition of windows, wallpaper and furniture; length of interview; number of persons present during interview; carrying out house work by the person interviewed during the interview; conduct of other persons present during the conversation; willingness of respondent to cooperate.

This data set shows the location of Baltimore City's Tansitional and Emergency "Homeless" Shelter Facilities. However, this is not a complete list. It is the most recent update (2008), and is subjected to change. The purpose of this data set is to aid Baltimore City organizations to best identify facilities to aid the homeless population. The data is broken down into two categories: Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing. Please find the two definitions below. The first is simply ��_��_��_shelter��_�� and the second is a more involved program that is typically a longer stay. Emergency Shelter: Any facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the primary purpose of which is to provide temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of homeless persons. The length of stay can range from one night up to as much as six months. Transitional Housing: a project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate support services to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months. These data set was provided by Greg Sileo, Director of the Mayor's Office of Baltimore Homeless Services.

National Statistics on Homelessness. Data on households found to be homeless. Contains most useful or most popular data, presented by type and other variables, including by geographical area or as a time series.

In 2022, about ****** veterans living in California were homeless, the most out of all U.S. states.

ABSTRACT In this paper I present results of a project that, in the context of critical discourse studies and the interdiscursive analysis of public policies, focused on representations in online journalism regarding public policies aimed at the homeless population. The research project (CAPES 88881.172032/2018-01) was developed at the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain. Considering the main newspaper of the city of São Paulo, in its digital platform, we have compiled a comprehensive corpus of news about homeless situation published in a period of three years. The choice to specifically address data from Folha de S Paulo is justified because it is the city with the largest homeless population in Brazil. Also, because our previous study has shown that this is the vehicle, among those studied, that publishes more news related to territorial issues, our focus of interest to investigate via the discursive categories of metaphor and representation of social actors.

DCLG collects information on the number of households with or expecting dependent children, who are, at the end of each quarter, in any of the following types of temporary accommodation: • Bed and Breakfast (B&B) - typically involves the use of privately managed hotels where households share at least some facilities and meals are provided; • Annexe accommodation - is also generally paid on a nightly basis, privately managed but may not be part of a B&B hotel and may not involve shared facilities. A distinction is made on the basis of whether at least some facilities are shared or there is exclusive use of all facilities; • Hostel accommodation - hostels assumes shared accommodation, owned or leased and managed by either a local authority, housing association or non-profit making organisation; includes reception centres and emergency units; • Private sector accommodation - dwellings may be leased from the private sector, either directly, or by a local authority or a Registered Social Landlord; • Other - includes mobile homes, such as caravans, ‘demountables’, ‘portacabins’ and ‘transposables.’ The last 20 years have seen a rapid increase in homelessness, with the numbers of officially homeless families peaking in the early 1990s. In 1997 102,000 were statutory homeless, i.e. they met the definition of homelessness laid down in the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Other homeless people included rough sleepers - those without any accommodation at all - and hostel users. In 1997, fifty eight per cent of statutory homeless households had dependent children, and a further 10 per cent had a pregnant household member, compared to 51% and 10% respectively in 2003. Poor housing environments contribute to ill health through poor amenities, shared facilities and overcrowding, inadequate heating or energy inefficiency. The highest risks to health in housing are attached to cold, damp and mouldy conditions. In addition, those in very poor housing, such as homeless hostels and bedsits, are more likely to suffer from poor mental and physical health than those whose housing is of higher quality. People living in temporary accommodation of the bed and breakfast kind have high rates of some infections and skin conditions and children have high rates of accidents. Living in such conditions engenders stress in the parents and impairs normal child development through lack of space for safe play and exploration. Whilst cause and effect are hard to determine, at the very least homelessness prevents the resolution of associated health problems. Legacy unique identifier: P01088

Gemeindliche Integration von Obdachlosen in einem Kölner Vorort. Themen: Charakterisierung des Vororts Poll; Verbundenheit mit demVorort oder mit der Stadt Köln; Wohndauer im Vorort; vorheriger Wohnortund Umzugshäufigkeit; Mietkosten; Haushaltsgröße und Anzahl der Räume;Besitz langlebiger Wirtschaftsgüter; Baujahr des Hauses; Zufriedenheitmit der Wohnung; Umzugspläne; mögliches Umzugsziel; besondere Vorzügeder Wohnlage in Poll; beliebtester Stadtteil von Köln;verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen im Stadtteil bzw. in der gesamtenStadt; Kontakthäufigkeit mit den Eltern, Großeltern, Kindern,Geschwistern und den übrigen Verwandten; Verteilung desBekanntenkreises über den Stadtteil und die übrigen Teile der Stadt;Kontakte zu Nachbarn und Arbeitskollegen; Ortslage der Arbeitsstätte;Häufigkeit des Wechselns der Arbeitsstätte; berufliche Mobilität;Wunsch nach Verbleiben im Stadtteil bei Berufswechsel;Einkaufsgewohnheiten; Besuchshäufigkeit in der City;Freizeitaktivitäten und Ort dieser Freizeitaktivitäten;Vereinsmitgliedschaft; zeitlicher Umfang von Vereinstätigkeit;Teilnahme an Aktivitäten des Poller Bürgervereins; Bedeutung diesesVereins; Beurteilung der Verlegung von Schulen; einflußreichstePersönlichkeiten im Vorort; wichtigste Integrationsfaktoren imStadtteil; Einfluß des Stadtteils auf die ganze Stadt; Anomie (Skala);Bewertung der Verwerflichkeit von ausgewählten Straftaten; wichtigsteUrsachen für das Entstehen sogenannter Rockergruppen; wirksamsteMaßnahmen zur Reduzierung der Kriminalität; perzipierte Unterschiede imalten und neuen Stadtteil; Identifizierung zusammengehörender Gebieteim Stadtteil und Zuordnung unterschiedlicher sozialer Gruppen zu denStadtteilen; Zuordnung sozialer Gruppen zur Obdachlosensiedlung;Bedeutung des Obdachlosenproblems und präferierte Maßnahmen zurBeseitigung; vorbeugende Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung vonObdachlosigkeit; Einstellung zur differenzierten Behandlung vonObdachlosen und der übrigen Bevölkerung; Vorschläge zur Behandlung vonObdachlosen; Beurteilung des Obdachlosenanteils im Stadtteil; eigeneKontakte zu Obdachlosen; Intensität der Kontakte; Berührungsängste undsoziale Distanz zu Obdachlosen; präferierte Maßnahmen im Hinblick aufdie beiden Obdachlosensiedlungen in Poll; perzipierte Unterschiede beiden Obdachlosen; charakteristische Merkmale, an denen man Obdachloseerkennen kann; Beurteilung eines Medienberichts über die Obdachlosen inPoll; Beurteilung der kommunalen Einrichtungen im Stadtteil;persönliche Wichtigkeit der Existenz solcher Einrichtungen;Religiosität. Demographie: Alter; Familienstand; Kinderzahl; Kirchgangshäufigkeit;Schulbildung; Berufstätigkeit; Einkommen; Haushaltsgröße. Interviewerrating: Wohnhausgröße und Kooperationsbereitschaft desBefragten. Community integration of homeless in a Cologne suburb. Topics:Characterization of the suburb Poll; closeness with the suburb or withthe city of Cologne; length of residence in the suburb; previous placeof residence and moving frequency; rent costs; size of household andnumber of rooms; possession of durable economic goods; year ofconstruction of building; satisfaction with residence; moving plans;possible destination of moving; particular advantages of theresidential area in Poll; favorite part of town of Cologne; familialrelations in the part of town or in the entire city; frequency ofcontact with parents, grandparents, children, siblings and the rest ofthe relatives; distribution of circle of friends about the part of townand the other parts of the city; contacts with neighbors andcolleagues; location of place of work; frequency of change of place ofwork; occupational mobility; desire for remaining in the part of towngiven a change of occupation; shopping habits; frequency of tripsdowntown; leisure activities and place of these leisure activities;club membership; time extent of club activity; participation inactivities of the Poll Buergerverein; significance of thisorganization; judgement on the moving of schools; most influencialpersonalities in the suburb; most important integration factors in thepart of town; influence of the part of town on the entire city; anomy(scale); evaluation of despicability of selected crimes; most importantreasons for development of so-called Rocker groups; most effectivemeasures to reduce crime; perceived differences in the old and new partof town; identification of areas that belong together in the part oftown and assignment of different social groups to the parts of town;assignment of social groups to the homeless settlement; significance ofthe homeless problem and preferred measures to eliminate it; measuresto prevent homelessness; attitude to differential treatment of thehomeless and the rest of the population; recommendations on treatmentof the homeless; judgement on the proportion of homeless in the part oftown; personal contacts with the homeless; intensity of contacts; fearof contact and social distance to the homeless; preferred measures inview of the two homeless settlements in Poll; perceived differencesamong the homeless; typical characteristics with which one canrecognize the homeless; judgement on a media report about the homelessin Poll; judgement on the municipal facilities in the part of town;personal importance of the existence of such facilities; religiousness.Interviewer rating: residential building size and willingness ofrespondent to cooperate.

Abstract

The Household Living Conditions Survey has been carried out annually since 1999 by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine (formerly the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine). The survey is based on generally accepted international standards and depicts social and demographic situation in Ukraine.

From 2002, items of consumer money and aggregate expenditures have been developed in line with the International Classification of Individual Consumption of Goods and Services (COICOP-HBS), recommended by Eurostat.

From 2004, the State Statistics Service of Ukraine has been implementing a new system of household sample survey organization and delivery. A unified interviewer network was established to run simultaneously three household surveys: Household Living Conditions Survey, households' economic activity survey and the survey of household farming in rural areas. A new national territorial probability sampling was introduced to deliver the three sampling surveys in 2004-2008.

Geographic coverage

National, except some settlements within the territories suffered from the Chernobyl disaster.

Analysis unit

• Households,
• Individuals.

A household is a totality of persons who jointly live in the same residential facilities of part of those, satisfy all their essential needs, jointly keep the house, pool and spend all their money or portion of it. These persons may be relatives by blood, relatives by law or both, or have no kinship relations. A household may consist of one person (Law of Ukraine "On Ukraine National Census of Population," Article 1). As only 0.50% households have members with no kinship relations (0.65% total households if bachelors are excluded), the contemporary concepts "household" and "family" are very close.

Universe

Whole country, all private households. The survey does not cover collective households, foreigners temporarily living in Ukraine as well as the homeless.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

12,977 households representing all regions of Ukraine (including 8,975 in urban areas and 4,002 in rural areas) are selected for this survey. Grossing up sample survey results to all households of Ukraine is done by the statistic weighting method.

Building a territorial sample, researchers excluded settlements located in the excluded zone (Zone 1) and unconditional (forced) resettlement zone (Zone 2) within the territories suffered from the Chernobyl disaster.

Computing the number of population subject to surveying, from the number of resident population researchers excluded institutional population - army conscripts, persons in places of confinement, residents of boarding schools and nursing homes, - and marginal population (homeless, etc).

The parent population was stratified so that the sample could adequately represent basic specifics of the administrative and territorial division and ensure more homogeneous household populations. To achieve this objective, the parent population was divided into strata against the regions of Ukraine. In each stratum three smaller substrata were formed: urban settlements (city councils) having 100,000 or more inhabitants (big cities), urban settlements (city councils) having less than 100,000 inhabitants (small towns) and all districts (except city districts), i.e. administrative districts in rural areas. Sample size was distributed among strata and substrata in proportion to their non-institutional resident population.

Detailed information about selecting primary territorial units of sampling (PTUS) and households is available in the document "Household Living Conditions Survey Methodological Comments" (p. 4-7).

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The HLCS uses the following survey tools:

1) Main interviews

Main interview questionnaires collect general data on households, such as household composition, housing facilities, availability and use of land plots, cattle and poultry, characteristics of household members: anthropometric data, education, employment status. Interviewing of households takes place at the survey commencement stage. In addition, while interviewing, the interviewer completes a household composition check card to trace any changes during the entire survey period.

2) Observation of household expenditures and incomes

For the observation, two tools are used: - Weekly diary of current expenditures. It is completed directly by a household twice a quarter. In the diary respondents (households) record all daily expenditures in details (e.g. for purchased foodstuffs - product description, its weight and value, and place of purchase). In addition, a household puts into the diary information on consumption of products produced in private subsidiary farming or received as a gift.

Households are evenly distributed among rotation groups, who complete diaries in different week days of every quarter. Assuming that the two weeks data are intrinsic for the entire quarter, the single time period of data processing (quarter) is formed by means of multiplying diary data by ratio 6.5 (number of weeks in a quarter divided on the number of weeks when diary records were made). Inclusion of foodstuffs for long-time consumption is done based on quarterly interview data.

• Quarterly questionnaire. It is used to interview households in the first month following the reporting quarter. Researchers collect data on large and irregular expenditures, in particular those relating to the purchase of foodstuffs for long-time consumption (e.g. sacks, etc.), and also data on household incomes. Since recalling all incomes and expenditures made in a quarter is uneasy, households make records during a quarter in a special quarterly expenditures log.

The major areas for quarterly observation are the following: - structure of consumer financial expenditures for goods and services; - structure of other expenditures (material aid to other households, expenditures for private subsidiary farming, purchase of real estate, construction and major repair of housing facilities and outbuildings, accumulating savings, etc); - importance of private subsidiary farming for household welfare level (receipt and use of products from private subsidiary farming for own consumption, financial income from sales of such products, etc.); - structure of income and other financial sources of a household. We separately study the income of every individual household member (remuneration of labor, pension, scholarship, welfare, etc.) and the income in form payments to a household as a whole (subsidies for children, aid of relatives and other persons, income from - sales of real estate and property, housing and utility subsidies, use of savings, etc.).

3) Single-time topical interviews

Single-time topical interviews questionnaires are used quarterly and cover the following topics: - household expenditures for construction and repair of housing facilities and outbuilding - availability of durable goods in a household - assessment by households members of own health and accessibility of selected medical services - self-assessment by a household of adequacy of its income - household's access to Internet

Response rate

10,622 households took part in the 2008 survey (83.3% sampled addresses excluding nonresidential buildings). The response rate of rural households (95.5%) was higher than the similar parameter in urban areas (77.5%).

The highest response rate of the 2008 survey was in Trans-Carpathians (98.4%), Chernivtsi (98.3%), Rivno (97.6%), Sumy (96.3%), Volyn (96.0%), Cherkassy (95.4%), Ternopil and Chernivtsi (95.1% in each) regions, the lowest rate - in Odessa region (59.8%), Kiev City (61.1%) and Donetsk region (63.5%). In most regions this parameter fluctuated from 73.4% to 94.7%.

Die soziale Situation von Obdachlosen in einem Kölner Vorort. Themen: Wichtigste Probleme in der Siedlung; Probleme im Verhältniszwischen Siedlung und Umgebung; Auszugspläne; Wohndauer in der Siedlungund Jahr der ersten Inanspruchnahme einer städtischen Unterkunft; Grundfür die Einweisung in eine städtische Unterkunft; Unterkunftstyp beider ersten Einweisung und vor der Einweisung; Umzugshäufigkeit insolchen Unterkünften und Siedlungen; empfundene Verschlechterung durchden Umzug; Wohnraumzahl; Besitz langlebiger Wirtschaftsgüter; Schädenin der Wohnung; Kinderzahl und besuchte Schulen bzw. Kindergärten;Einstellung zur Einrichtung einer Sonderschule im Stadtteil; empfundeneDiskriminierung der Kinder in der Schule; regelmäßiges Taschengeld fürdie Kinder; Freizeitort der Kinder; Kontakte der Kinder außerhalb derSiedlung; Erziehungsperson für die Kinder; empfundene Diskriminierungder Obdachlosen; Ausüben einer ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeit in derSiedlung; Einstellung zu einem Selbsthilfekomitee in der Siedlung;Interesse an der Beteiligung in einem solchen Komitee; vermuteteWirksamkeit einer Interessengemeinschaft der Obdachlosen; wichtigsteAufgaben einer solchen Interessengemeinschaft; wichtigste Institutionenals Ansprechpartner zur Verbesserung der Situation der Obdachlosen;Ortslage der Arbeitsstätte; Häufigkeit von Arbeitsplatzwechsel;Berufswechsel; Zufriedenheit mit der Arbeitsstelle; Einkaufsort; Besitzvon Ersparnissen; Verwalter des Familieneinkommens; Entscheider überAusgaben; Schulden; gemeinsame Einnahme der Hauptmahlzeit;Freizeitaktivitäten in der Siedlung; Kontaktpersonen in der Freizeit;Freizeitkontakte außerhalb der Siedlung; Nachbarschaftskontakte in derSiedlung; Kontakte zu Nichtobdachlosen; Aufnahme dieser Kontakte in derFreizeit oder durch die Arbeit; Identifikation als Kölner oder Bewohnerdes Stadtteils; Umzugswunsch in einen anderen Stadtteil; beliebtesterStadtteil in Köln; Intensität des Kontaktes zur Bevölkerung imStadtteil; Kontakte zu Bewohnern einer anderen Siedlung; Beteiligung anVersammlungen des Poller Bürgervereins; vermutete Interessenvertretungder Obdachlosen durch diesen Verein; einflußreichste Persönlichkeitenim Stadtteil; Personen, die sich besonders für die Obdachloseneinsetzen; wichtigste Unterschiede zwischen den Bewohnern der eigenenSiedlung und einer weiteren Siedlung im Stadtteil; Kenntnis vonPresseberichten und Fernsehberichten über die Obdachlosen undBeurteilung des Wahrheitsgehaltes; wichtigste Gründe fürObdachlosigkeit; wichtigste Vorbeugungsmaßnahmen zur Verhinderung vonObdachlosigkeit; perzipierte Unterschiede zwischen Obdachlosen;Beschwerdeführung gegen die Stadt zur Bereitstellung einer besserenWohnung; Erfahrungen mit Behördenkontakten; Zufriedenheit mit demVerwalter der Siedlung; wichtigste Aufgabe eines Verwalters; Anomie(Skala); Vergleich der eigenen Wohnsituation mit der der Eltern;soziale Herkunft; soziale Mobilität gegenüber dem Vater und demSchwiegervater; Verwandtschaftskontakte; Urteil der Verwandtschaft überdas Wohnen in dieser Siedlung; Verwandte, die ebenfalls inNotunterkünften leben; eigener Gesundheitszustand; Zahl der erkranktenFamilienmitglieder und Art der Krankheiten; Vorschläge zur Behandlungvon Obdachlosen; Gesellschaft oder Individuum als Verantwortlicher fürdie eigene Obdachlosigkeit; Wunsch nach Integration in eine normaleWohngegend; eigene Straffälligkeit und Verurteilung; Art der Delikte;empfundene Verbesserung der Lebensbedingungen in der Notunterkunft;Vergleich der Situation zwischen der Siedlung und einem Übergangshaus;Geburtsort; Wohndauer in Köln; wiederverheiratet; Religiosität;Vereinsmitgliedschaften; Umfang der Vereinstätigkeit; Parteipräferenz;vermutete Wirksamkeit dieser Befragung auf die Situation derObdachlosen. Demographie: Alter; Geschlecht; Familienstand; Kirchgangshäufigkeit;Schulbildung; Berufstätigkeit; Einkommen. Interviewerrating: Namensschild an der Tür; Beschreibung derWohnungseinrichtung bezüglich Familienbilder, sonstiger Bilder,Nippfiguren, religiöser Figuren und Bücherbesitz; Zustand der Fenster,Tapeten und Möbel; Interviewdauer; Anzahl der anwesenden Personen beimInterview; Erledigung von Haushaltsarbeiten der befragten Personwährend des Interviews; Verhalten der übrigen Anwesenden während desGesprächs; Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten. The social situation of the homeless in a Cologne suburb. Topics: Mostimportant problems in the settlement; problems in the relationshipbetween the settlement and surroundings; plans to leave; length ofresidence in the settlement and year of first utilization of a cityshelter; reason for admission into a city shelter; type of quarters onfirst admission and before admission; frequency of moving into suchaccomodations and settlements; perceived deterioration from the move;number of rooms; possession of durable economic goods; defects inresidence; number of children and schools attended or kindergarten;attitude to establishment of a special school in the part of town;perceived discrimination of one´s children in school; regularpocket-money for the children; place of leisure time of one´s children;contacts of one´s children outside of the settlement; person raisingthe children; perceived discrimination of the homeless; exercise of anhonorary activity in the settlement; attitude to a self-help committeein the settlement; interest in participation in such a committee;assumed effectiveness of a community of interests of the homeless; mostimportant tasks of such a community of interests; most importantinstitutions as contact to improve the situation of the homeless;location of place of work; frequency of change of job; change ofoccupation; satisfaction with place of work; shopping place; possessionof savings; manager of family income; decision-maker for expenditures;debts; eating main meal together; leisure activities in the settlement;contact persons in leisure time; leisure contacts outside thesettlement; neighborhood contacts in the settlement; contacts withnon-homeless; establishing these contacts on leisure time or throughwork; identification as Cologne resident or resident of the part oftown; desire to move to another part of town; favorite part of town inCologne; intensity of contact with the population in the part of town;contacts with residents of another settlement; participation inmeetings of the Poll Buergerverein; assumed representation of interestsof the homeless through this organization; most influencialpersonalities in the part of town; persons making a particular effortfor the homeless; most important differences between the residents ofone´s own settlement and another settlement in the part of town;knowledge of press reports and television reports about the homelessand judgement on validity; most important reasons for homelessness;most important measures to prevent homelessness; perceived differencesbetween the homeless; filing a complaint against the city to obtainbetter housing; experiences with contacts with authorities;satisfaction with the manager of the settlement; most important task ofa manager; anomy (scale); comparison of personal housing situation withthat of parents; social origins; social mobility compared with fatherand father-in-law; contacts with relatives; judgement of relativesabout living in this settlement; relatives likewise living in emergencyshelters; personal condition of health; number of sick family membersand type of illnesses; recommendations on dealing with the homeless;society or the individual as responsible for one´s own homelessness;desire for integration in a normal residential area; personal extent ofcommiting crimes and conviction; type of offenses; perceivedimprovement in living conditions in the emergency shelter; comparisonof the situation between the settlement and a temporary shelter; placeof birth; length of residence in Cologne; re-married; religiousness;club memberships; extent of club activity; party preference; assumedeffectiveness of this survey on the situation of the homeless.Interviewer rating: name sign on door; description of residentialfurnishings regarding family pictures, other pictures, knick-knacks,religious figures and possession of books; condition of windows,wallpaper and furniture; length of interview; number of persons presentduring interview; carrying out house work by the person interviewedduring the interview; conduct of other persons present during theconversation; willingness of respondent to cooperate. Mündliche Befragung mit standardisiertem Fragebogen Oral survey with standardized questionnaire Bewohner von zwei Obdachlosensiedlungen (Rolshover Hof und Am grauen Stein) The residents of two homeless settlements (Rolshover Hof and Am grauen Stein) Auswahlverfahren Kommentar: Totalerhebung

In New York City, the most common medical condition self-reported at intake or assessment among single adults experiencing homelessness and living in a single adults shelter was hypertension/high blood pressure. This statistic depicts the most common medical conditions self-reported at intake or assessment among adults experiencing homelessness in New York City and living in shelters in 2022, by shelter type.

In New York City, the most common behavioral health condition self-reported at intake or assessment among single adults experiencing homelessness and living in a single adults shelter was depression. This statistic depicts the most common behavioral health conditions self-reported at intake or assessment among adults experiencing homelessness in New York City and living in shelters in 2022, by shelter type.