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.

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.

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.

Nearly 11.3 thousand people in Russia were homeless, based on the population census data from 2021. The number of homeless residents decreased by 82 percent compared to 2010. The largest share of homeless people in the country lived in urban areas, at around 95 percent in 2021.

this graph was created in PowerBi,R and Loocker studio:

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Ff21bb298c472dbc4bed21ef6dda71d5e%2Fgraph1.jpg?generation=1715375554075996&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Fea25ef2b4f987b1c37d85ce0b24180ce%2Fgraph2.jpg?generation=1715375559925771&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F69022bdb532b6b315c2ac7261d211868%2Fgraph3.png?generation=1715375565218326&alt=media" alt="">

This topic page studies available data and empirical evidence on homelessness, focusing specifically on how it affects people in high-income countries. Homeless people are among the most vulnerable groups in high-income countries.

You can read our topic page on Extreme Poverty if you are interested in a broader perspective on economic deprivation and a perspective beyond high-income countries.

Homeless people in the US What data is available? One of the most common ways to measure homelessness is through so-called 'point-in-time' counts of people who are sleeping in shelters or on the streets. These are figures that are intended to reflect the number of people who are homeless 'on any given night'.

The main source of point-in-time estimates in the US is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which releases the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHARC). They calculate 'point-in-time' estimates by counting homeless people in late January of each year.

The main underlying sources of data used to produce the figures published in the AHARC are (i) registries from shelters and (ii) counts and estimates of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons provided by care organizations, as part of their applications for government funding.

The counts from the care organizations (called 'Continuums of Care' in the US) come from active counts that are undertaken at the community level, by walking around the streets, using pre-established methodologies.1

In these figures, 'Sheltered Homelessness' refers to people who are staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, or safe havens. 'Unsheltered Homelessness', on the other hand, refers to people whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not designated for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for people – for example, the streets, vehicles, or parks.2

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) were among the most likely to contract the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many PEH utilized high-density public places to satisfy their basic needs (e.g., soup kitchens for sustenance, public libraries for restrooms). This made it difficult for them to limit close contact with others and put them at increased risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19. Furthermore, it was difficult to follow recommended protective measures--such as handwashing and social distancing--when living in shelters or on the streets. PEH were at higher risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization and death than the rest of the population. The poor living conditions of PEH accelerated aging, leading them to experience geriatric conditions and medical complications more typical of individuals 10-20 years older. They were also at increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease, HIV/AIDS, and diabetes, all conditions that increase vulnerability to serious COVID-19-related complications and death. These risks were compounded by the fact that PEH also faced significant barriers to accessing quality health care. In the absence of protective action, it was estimated that more than 21,000 PEH would require hospitalization due to COVID-19, more than 7,000 would require critical care, and nearly 3,500 would die. Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic made housing and health care for PEH one of the top priorities for the U.S. health care and public health systems. State and local governments across the country used federal relief funds to allocate private hotel rooms as protective shelter for vulnerable PEH. In Los Angeles County (LAC), which contains the largest unsheltered homeless population in the nation, 2,400 PEH were placed in hotels. COVID-19 response plans included accommodating up to 15,000 PEH in hotels who would then be moved to permanent housing in 90 days. This rapid push into housing amid a pandemic necessitated a delicate balance between social distancing and maintaining patients' basic needs, continuity of existing care, and personal and social well-being. Permanent supportive housing (PSH)--programs that provide immediate access to independent living situations coupled with support services--is the most effective approach for serving PEH. Numerous studies have demonstrated PSH's effectiveness in improving housing retention, quality of life, and HIV outcomes. Though evidence concerning its impact on other health outcomes, health behaviors, and health care utilization is limited, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has nonetheless recognized PSH as extremely beneficial for PEH's health. COVID-19 was what this organization termed a "housing-sensitive condition"--one whose transmissibility, course, and medical management are particularly influenced by homelessness. Consequently, the National Alliance to End Homelessness recommended the use of PSH as part of its framework to address COVID-19 and homelessness. However, significant questions remain about what types of PSH programs can best address COVID-19-related risk and promote patient-centered outcomes at a time of social and community disruption. There are two distinct approaches to implementing PSH: place-based (PB) PSH, or single-site housing placement in a congregate residence with on-site services, and scattered-site (SS) PSH, which uses apartments rented from a private landlord to house clients while providing mobile case management services. The strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches remain largely unknown but may have direct implications for adherence to COVID-19 prevention protocols and other health-related outcomes.

In 2024/25, 13,231 people who were seen to be sleeping rough in London compared with 11,993 in the previous reporting year, and the most reported during this time period. The number of people reported to be sleeping rough has steadily increased throughout this time period, with the dip in 2020/21, and 2022/23, likely related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographics of London's homeless As of the most recent reporting year, over 2,000 of London's rough sleepers were in the borough of Westminster, the most of any London borough. In terms of gender, the majority of rough sleepers are male, with more than 10,000 men seen to be sleeping rough, compared with 2,149 women, and 18 non-binary people. The most common age group was among those aged between 36 and 45 years old, at more than 3,900, compared with 1,411 25 and under, 3,580 aged between 26 and 34, 2,860 aged 45 and 55, and around 1,578 over 55s. Homelessness in the U.S. Homelessness is also an important social issue in several other countries. In the United States, for example, there were estimated to be approximately 653,104 people experiencing homelessness in 2023. This was a noticeable increase on the previous year, and the highest number between 2007 and 2023. When looking at U.S. states, New York had the highest homelessness rate, at 52 individuals per 10,000 population, followed by Vermont at 51.

BackgroundAddressing Citizen’s perspectives on homelessness is crucial for the design of effective and durable policy responses, and available research in Europe is not yet substantive. We aim to explore citizens’ opinions about homelessness and to explain the differences in attitudes within the general population of eight European countries: France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.MethodsA nationally representative telephone survey of European citizens was conducted in 2017. Three domains were investigated: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices about homelessness. Based on a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), a generalized linear model for clustered and weighted samples was used to probe the associations between groups with opposing attitudes.ResultsResponse rates ranged from 30.4% to 33.5% (N = 5,295). Most respondents (57%) had poor knowledge about homelessness. Respondents who thought the government spent too much on homelessness, people who are homeless should be responsible for housing, people remain homeless by choice, or homelessness keeps capabilities/empowerment intact (regarding meals, family contact, and access to work) clustered together (negative attitudes, 30%). Respondents who were willing to pay taxes, welcomed a shelter, or acknowledged people who are homeless may lack some capabilities (i.e. agreed on discrimination in hiring) made another cluster (positive attitudes, 58%). Respondents living in semi-urban or urban areas (ORs 1.33 and 1.34) and those engaged in practices to support people who are homeless (ORs > 1.4; p<0.005) were more likely to report positive attitudes, whereas those from France and Poland (p<0.001) were less likely to report positive attitudes.ConclusionThe majority of European citizens hold positive attitudes towards people who are homeless, however there remain significant differences between and within countries. Although it is clear that there is strong support for increased government action and more effective solutions for Europe’s growing homelessness crisis, there also remain public opinion barriers rooted in enduring negative perceptions.

In 2011, about ** percent of the total population in India was homeless. Urban areas witnessed more homelessness in comparison to the rural areas of the country. Homelessness is a growing issue in India that leads to various other problems like violence and drug addiction among others.

IntroductionHomelessness has been considered one of the most vulnerable situations worldwide, alongside people private of liberty (incarceration) and country displacement (refugees). Structural inequality and exposure to diseases such as leptospirosis may be aggravated by individual issues including drug addiction, mental disorders and improper healthcare.MethodsThe present study has accessed persons experiencing homelessness to Leptospira spp. exposure by microscopic agglutination test (MAT) for 30 serovars. This study was conducted in São Paulo city in southeastern Brazil and São José dos Pinhais city, belonging the eighth biggest metropolitan area of Brazil in Southern region.ResultsIn total, 21/243 (8.6%; 95% CI = 5.6–13.1%) persons experiencing homelessness were seropositive in the MAT. Location, condom use, and flea infestations were identified as statistically significant associated risk factors for exposure.DiscussionThe presence of multiple Leptospira spp. serovars may indicate bacterial diversity, even in urban settings. The results herein found for persons experiencing homelessness were not a surprise, as Brazil has been historically recognized as an endemic country for leptospirosis, with 3,810 leptospirosis cases on average per year and the majority living in densely populated urban areas. Multidisciplinary efforts and integrated policies may be crucial to mitigate leptospirosis and other infectious diseases in persons experiencing homelessness, as social neglection may impact on their fundamental rights to dignity and access to personal health.

The number of homeless people in Portugal continuously increased from 2018 to 2023, though the number of unhoused persons contracted in 2021. In 2023, there were ****** homeless individuals in the country. Unsheltered individuals outnumbered the unhoused by more than ***** homeless persons.

PurposeHomeless persons have a high risk for tuberculosis. The prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection and the risk for a progression to active tuberculosis is higher in the homeless than in the general population. The objective was to assess the prevalence and risk factors of tuberculosis/latent tuberculosis infection in a homeless population in Germany.MethodsHomeless individuals (n = 150) were enrolled in a cross-sectional study at three shelters in Münster, Germany (October 2017–July 2018). All participants were screened using an ELISPOT interferon-γ release assay (IGRA). Those participants tested positive/borderline by IGRA provided three sputa for microbiological analysis (line probe assay, microscopy, culture) and underwent a chest X-ray to screen for active pulmonary TB. Risk factors for tuberculosis/latent tuberculosis infection were analysed using a standardized questionnaire.ResultsOf the 142 evaluable IGRA, 21 (15%) were positive and two (1%) were borderline. No participant with a positive/borderline IGRA had an active tuberculosis as assessed by chest X-ray and microbiology. A negative IGRA was associated with a citizenship of a low-incidence country for tuberculosis (according to WHO, p = 0.01), low-incidence country of birth (p<0.001) or main residence in a low-incidence country in the past five years (p = 0.002).ConclusionsThe prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection (diagnosed by a positive/borderline IGRA) was 16%; no active tuberculosis was detected. The highest risk for latent tuberculosis infection was found in patients from high-incidence countries. This population at risk should be either treated for latent tuberculosis infection or need to be monitored to early detect a progression into active disease.

Background: Homeless people are a socially excluded group whose health reflects exposures to intersecting social determinants of health. The aim of this study was to describe and compare the demographic composition, certain social determinants of health, and self-reported health among homeless people in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2006 and 2018.Methods: Analysis of data from face-to-face interviews with homeless people in Stockholm 2006 (n = 155) and 2018 (n = 148), based on a public health survey questionnaire adapted to the group, including the EQ-5D-3L instrument. The chi-squared test was employed to test for statistical significance between groups and the independent t-test for comparison of mean scores and values. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, with Robust Standard Errors (RSE) was performed on merged 2006 and 2018 data with mean observed EQ VAS score as outcome variable.Results: In 2018 more homeless people originated from countries outside Europe, had temporary social assistance than long-term social insurance, compared to in 2006. In 2018 more respondents reported lack of social support, exposure to violence, and refrained from seeking health care because of economic reasons. Daily smoking, binge drinking, and use of narcotic drugs was lower 2018 than 2006. In 2018 a higher proportion reported problems in the EQ-5D-3L dimensions, the mean TTO index value and the VAS index value was significantly lower than in 2006. In the regression analysis of merged data there was no significant difference between the years.Conclusions: Homeless people are an extremely disadvantaged group, have high rates of illness and disease and report poor health in all EQ-5D-3L dimensions. The EQ VAS score among the homeless people in 2018 is comparable to the score among persons aged 95–104 years in the general Swedish population 2017. The EQ-5D-3L instrument was easily administered to this group, its use allows comparison with larger population groups. Efforts are needed regarding housing, but also intensified collaboration by public authorities with responsibilities for homeless people's health and social welfare. Further studies should evaluate the impact of such efforts by health and social care services on the health and well-being of homeless people.

The Directorate-General Employment of the European Commission commissioned a survey that examines public opinion about poverty and exclusion in the European Union. Between the 14th of February and the 18th of March 2007, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium formed by TNS and EOS Gallup Europe interviewed 26,466 EU citizens aged 15 and over living in the 27 European Union Member States and 1,000 residents of Croatia. This report studies the following issues related to poverty and exclusion covered by the survey. ♦ First of all, we focus on the perceived existence of poverty in the European Union: to what extent are Europeans themselves affected by poverty and to what extent do they see poverty in the area in which they live? In this chapter we furthermore look at attitudes towards poverty: is it an inherited or acquired condition, what causes poverty and why do people live in need? ♦ The second part of the report focuses on one of the most extreme forms of exclusion, homelessness: why do people become homeless, what is the perceived risk of becoming homeless oneself and what do Europeans do to help homeless people? ♦ In the final part we examine what Europeans regard necessary in order to have a decent standard of living with regards to financial means, housing needs, ownership of durable goods, basic necessities and social integration. We also look specifically at people’s views concerning the requirements and the needs of children to live and develop well. We end the report with an examination of how people’s attitudes towards poverty relate to what they consider necessary for a decent standard of living.

The results by volumes are distributed as follows:

• Volume A: Countries
• Volume AA: Groups of countries
• Volume A' (AP): Trends
• Volume AA' (AAP): Trends of groups of countries
• Volume B: EU/socio-demographics
• Volume B' (BP) : Trends of EU/ socio-demographics
• Volume C: Country/socio-demographics ---- Researchers may also contact GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences: https://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer

This dataset is extracted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population. Context: There s a story behind every dataset and heres your opportunity to share yours.Content: What s inside is more than just rows and columns. Make it easy for others to get started by describing how you acquired the data and what time period it represents, too. Acknowledgements:We wouldn t be here without the help of others. If you owe any attributions or thanks, include them here along with any citations of past research.Inspiration: Your data will be in front of the world s largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?

This poll, fielded January 6-8, 1992, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George H.W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, and the economy. Respondents were asked to list the most important problem facing the country, which candidate they would vote for if the election for president were being held that day, and whether they were likely to vote in the Democratic or Republican presidential primary or caucus. Several questions asked for respondents' opinions of the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, which candidates they would like to see win the nominations for president, and what issues they would like to see the candidates emphasize in their campaigns. Opinions were collected on how much George H.W. Bush cared about the general public, whether he distributed his time properly between foreign policy problems and problems at home, and whether his visits to countries in Asia would increase the number of jobs in the United States. A series of questions addressed the causes of homelessness, whether it was something the government could do a lot about, and whether respondents had personally seen a lot of homeless people in their community. Additional questions asked respondents to rate the condition of the national economy, whether they would be better off financially if George H.W. Bush was re-elected president, whether recession was something a president could do a lot about, and whether George H.W. Bush was healthy enough to be an effective president for a second term. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, household income, education level, political party affiliation, political philosophy, and voter registration status.

In 2024/25, approximately 5,462 of the 13,231 people seen to be sleeping rough in London were from the UK, the most-common nationality that year. The second-most common nationality was Romanian, at 828 people.

Abstract

Statistical information on all aspects of the population is vital for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of economic and social development plan and policy issues. Labor force survey is one of the most important sources of data for assessing the role of the population of the country in the economic and social development process. It is useful to indicate the extent of available and unutilized human resources that must be absorbed by the national economy to ensure full employment and economic wellbeing of the population. Statistics on the labor force further present the economic activity status and its relationship to other social and economic characteristics of the population. Seasonal and other variations as well as changes over time in the size, distribution, and characteristics of employed and unemployed population can be monitored using up-to-date information from labor force surveys. It serves as an input for assessing the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Furthermore, labor force data is also useful as a springboard for monitoring and evaluation of the five years growth and transformation plan of the country.

Geographic coverage

The 2012 Urban Employment and Unemployment Survey (UEUS) covered all urban parts of the country except three zones of Afar, Six zones of Somali, where the residents are pastoralists.

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

This survey follows household approach and covers households residing in conventional households and thus, population residing in the collective quarters such as universities/colleges, hotel/hostel, monasteries, and homeless population etc., were not covered by this survey.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The list of households obtained from the 2007 population and housing census was used to select EAs. A fresh list of households from each EA was prepared at the beginning of the survey period. The list was then used as a frame to select 30 households from sample EAs.

The country was divided into two broad categories - major urban centers and other urban center categories.

Category I: In this category all regional capitals and five other major urban centers that have a high population size as compared to others were included. Each urban center in this category was considered as a reporting level. This category has a total of 16 reporting levels. To select the sample, a stratified two-stage cluster sample design was implemented. The primary sampling units were EAs of each reporting level.

Category II: Urban centers other than those under category I were grouped into this category. A stratified three stage cluster sample design was adopted to select samples from this category. The primary sampling units were urban centers and the second stage sampling units were EAs.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The survey questionnaire was organized into seven sections. Section 1 - Area identification of the selected household Section 2 - Particulars of household members Section 3 - Economic activity status during the last seven days Section 4 - Unemployment rate and characteristics of unemployed persons Section 5 - Economic activity status the population during the last six months Section 6 - Employment in the informal sector of Employment Section 7 - Economic activity of children aged 5-17 years

A structured questionnaire was used to solicit the required data in the survey. The draft questionnaire was tested by undertaking a pretest in selected kebeles (lower administrative unit) in Addis Ababa. Based on the pretest, the content, logical flow, layout and presentation of the questionnaire was amended. The questionnaire used in the field for data collection was prepared in Amharic language. Most questions have pre coded answers and column numbers were assigned for each question.

Cleaning operations

The filled-in questionnaires that were retrieved from the field were first subjected to manual editing and coding. During the fieldwork the field supervisors and the heads of branch statistical offices have checked the filled-in questionnaires and carried out some editing. However, the major editing and coding operation was carried out at the head office. All the edited questionnaires were again fully verified and checked for consistency before they were submitted to the data entry by the subject matter experts.

Using the computer edit specifications prepared earlier for this purpose, the entered data were checked for consistencies and then computer editing, or data cleaning was made by referring back to the filled-in questionnaire. This is an important part of data processing operation in attaining the required level of data quality. Consistency checks and re-checks were also made based on frequency and tabulation results. This was done by senior programmers using CSPro software in collaboration with the senior subject experts from Manpower Statistics Team of the CSA.

Response rate

Response rate was 99.68%.

Poverty and social exclusion, social services, climate change, and the national economic situation and statistics.

Topics: 1. Poverty and social exclusion: own life satisfaction (scale); satisfaction with family life, health, job, and satisfaction with standard of living (scale); personal definition of poverty; incidence of poverty in the own country; estimated proportion of the poor in the total population; poor persons in the own residential area; estimated increase of poverty: in the residential area, in the own country, in the EU, and in the world; reasons for poverty in general; social and individual reasons for poverty; population group with the highest risk of poverty; things that are necessary to being able to afford to have a minimum acceptable standard of living (heating facility, adequate housing, a place to live with enough space and privacy, diversified meals, repairing or replacing a refrigerator or a washing machine, annual family holidays, medical care, dental care, access to banking services as well as to public transport, access to modern means of communication, to leisure and cultural activities, electricity, and running water); perceived deprivation through poverty in the own country regarding: access to decent housing, education, medical care, regular meals, bank services, modern means of communication, finding a job, starting up a business of one’s own, maintaining a network of friends and acquaintances; assessment of the financial situation of future generations and current generations compared to parent and grandparent generations; attitude towards poverty: necessity for the government to take action, too large income differences, national government should ensure the fair redistribution of wealth, higher taxes for the rich, economic growth reduces poverty automatically, poverty will always exist, income inequality is necessary for economic development; perceived tensions between population groups: rich and poor, management and workers, young and old, ethnic groups; general trust in people, in the national parliament, and the national government (scale); trust in institutions regarding poverty reduction: EU, national government, local authorities, NGOs, religious institutions, private companies, citizens; reasons for poverty in the own country: globalisation, low economic growth, pursuit of profit, global financial system, politics, immigration, inadequate national social protection system; primarily responsible body for poverty reduction; importance of the EU in the fight against poverty; prioritized policies of the national government to combat poverty; assessment of the effectiveness of public policies to reduce poverty; opinion on the amount of financial support for the poor; preference for governmental or private provision of jobs; attitude towards tuition fees; increase of taxes to support social spending; individual or governmental responsibility (welfare state) to ensure provision; attitude towards a minimum wage; optimism about the future; perceived own social exclusion; perceived difficulties to access to financial services: bank account, bank card, credit card, consumer loans, and mortgage; personal risk of over-indebtedness; attitude towards loans: interest free loans for the poor, stronger verification of borrowers by the credit institutions, easier access to start-up loans for the unemployed, free financial advice for the poor, possibility to open a basic bank account for everyone; affordable housing in the residential area; extent of homelessness in the residential area, and recent change; adequacy of the expenditures for the homeless by the national government, and the local authorities; assumed reasons for homelessness: unemployment, no affordable housing, destruction of the living space by a natural disaster, debt, illness, drug or alcohol addiction, family breakdown, loss of a close relative, mental health problems, lack of access to social services and support facilities, lack of identity papers, free choice of this life; probability to become homeless oneself; own support of homeless people: monetary donations to charities, volunteer work in a charity, help find access in emergency shelters and with job search, direct donations of clothes to homeless people, buying newspapers sold by homeless people, food donations; sufficient household income, or difficulties to make ends meet; ability to afford the heating costs, a week’s holiday once a year, and a meal with meat ever...