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.

INTRODUCTION: As California’s homeless population continues to grow at an alarming rate, large metropolitan regions like the San Francisco Bay Area face unique challenges in coordinating efforts to track and improve homelessness. As an interconnected region of nine counties with diverse community needs, identifying homeless population trends across San Francisco Bay Area counties can help direct efforts more effectively throughout the region, and inform initiatives to improve homelessness at the city, county, and metropolitan level. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this research is to compare the annual Point-in-Time (PIT) counts of homelessness across San Francisco Bay Area counties between the years 2018-2022. The secondary objective of this research is to compare the annual Point-in-Time (PIT) counts of homelessness among different age groups in each of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties between the years 2018-2022. METHODS: Two datasets were used to conduct research. The first dataset (Dataset 1) contains Point-in-Time (PIT) homeless counts published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Dataset 1 was cleaned using Microsoft Excel and uploaded to Tableau Desktop Public Edition 2022.4.1 as a CSV file. The second dataset (Dataset 2) was published by Data SF and contains shapefiles of geographic boundaries of San Francisco Bay Area counties. Both datasets were joined in Tableau Desktop Public Edition 2022.4 and all data analysis was conducted using Tableau visualizations in the form of bar charts, highlight tables, and maps. RESULTS: Alameda, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties consistently reported the highest annual count of people experiencing homelessness across all 5 years between 2018-2022. Alameda, Napa, and San Mateo counties showed the largest increase in homelessness between 2018 and 2022. Alameda County showed a significant increase in homeless individuals under the age of 18. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this research reveal both stark and fluctuating differences in homeless counts among San Francisco Bay Area Counties over time, suggesting that a regional approach that focuses on collaboration across counties and coordination of services could prove beneficial for improving homelessness throughout the region. Results suggest that more immediate efforts to improve homelessness should focus on the counties of Alameda, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Mateo. Changes in homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic years of 2020-2022 point to an urgent need to support Contra Costa County.

Updated every Thursday People experiencing homelessness are at risk for infection through community spread of COVID-19. The data below describes impacts of COVID-19 on individuals who are experiencing homelessness, whether they are able to access a congregate shelter or unsheltered (sleeping outside or in places not meant for human habitation).

For COVID-19 investigation purposes, people experiencing homelessness are defined as those who have lived on the streets or stayed in a shelter, vehicle, abandoned building, encampment, tiny house village/tent city, or supportive housing program (transitional or permanent supportive) at any time during the 12 months prior to COVID-19 testing, without evidence that they were otherwise permanently housed. Public Health, the Department of Community and Human Services, homeless service providers, healthcare providers, and the City of Seattle have partnered for increased testing in this community.

Homelessness is a social crisis in the United States of America. According to McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act, homeless people are those who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. "Ratio of Homeless Population to General Population in major US Cities in 2012.

The primary goal of this study was to develop an understanding of the role of violence in the lives of homeless women and men. The objectives were to determine how many women and men have experienced some form of violence in their lives either as children or adults, the factors associated with experiences of violence, the consequences of violence, and the types of interactions with the justice system. The survey sample was comprised of about 200 face-to-face interviews with homeless women in each of four Florida cities (Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa). In all, 737 women were interviewed. In addition, 91 face-to-face interviews with homeless men were also conducted only in Orlando. For Part 1 (Female Interviews), the data include information related to the respondent's living conditions in the past month, as well as experiences with homelessness, childhood violence, adult violence, forced sexual situations, and stalking. Additional variables include basic demographic information, a self-report of criminal history, information related to how the respondent spent her days and evenings, and the physical environment surrounding the respondent during the day and evening. For Part 2 (Male Interviews), the data include much of the same information as was collected in Part 1. Information from Part 1 not included in Part 2 primarily includes questions pertaining to experience with forced sexual situations, and questions related to pregnancy and children.

This dataset represents the number of persons who successfully exit from homelessness in a given fiscal year in the Austin/Travis County Continuum of Care (CoC). This measure is comprised of Metric 7b1 and 7b2 from the HUD System Performance Measures. Data Source: The data for this measure was reported to the City of Austin by the Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO). Each year, ECHO, as the homeless Continuum of Care Lead Agency (CoC Lead), aggregates and reports community wide data (including this measure) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This data is referred to as System Performance Measures as they are designed to examine how well a community is responding to homelessness at a system level. View more details and insights related to this data set on the story page: https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/xtip-he7k

The number individuals experiencing homelessness in Hamilton and their length of homelessness. Individuals depicted are shown as being homeless for six months or less, or for more than months. Includes those who have had a shelter stay in the past 90 days. This gives a more fulsome picture of individuals experiencing homelessness who may access shelters in one month and not the next.Data is collected by homeless-serving shelters through the Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS).

Table of homeless population by Year (for years 2009 through 2012)

City staff and community partners work together to survey people experiencing homelessness in Ottawa. So far, the City has led two counts:April 2018October 2021Oct 2024The survey is conducted to gather information about people experiencing homelessness. The goal of this work is to guide new approaches to address homelessness at a local level and help in the planning and delivery of services.Date created: 28 April 2022Update frequency: As needed.Accuracy: Convenience sampling was used to recruit survey respondents. This method of recruiting respondents to answer the survey does not rely on a random selection process. Instead, surveyors approach potential respondents if they are close by at the time the surveyor is delivering the questionnaire. Many factors could determine participation in the survey including:Number of community partners involved in the PiT countLocation of surveyors and their physical proximity to potential respondentsNumber of engagement eventsSeason the survey was conductedDifferences in results between PiT count years may be due to changes within the homeless population and shifts in methodology. For comparisons of emergency shelter use over time, visit the Temporary Emergency Accommodations Dashboard. An analysis of factors related to housing and homelessness during COVID-19 provides context for unique housing market conditions during the pandemic.Results shown in the Survey results: Point-in-Time count dashboard are presented by sector. The name and definition of each sector are below:All: All respondents who answered the surveySingle adult: Respondents aged 25 years or older and not accompanied by anyoneUnaccompanied youth: Respondents under 25 years old and not accompanied by anyoneFamily: Respondents accompanied by children under 18 years oldAttributes:Question: The question that was asked in the surveyTopic: The classification of the survey question by themSector: Refers to the population (total, family, unaccompanied youth, single adults)Period: Month the Point-in-Time count was conductedResponse: Response category of the survey questionNumeratorDenominatorPercentage Author: Housing ServicesAuthor email: pitcount_denombrementponctuel@ottawa.ca

City expenditures related to Homelessness efforts in the City of LA starting with fiscal year 2024. Data populated by City departments who code and map expenses to homeless project categories. (Not all departments are included due to the way the department maps homeless expenditures)

"Ratio of Homeless Population to General Population in major US Cities in 2011. *This represents a list of large U.S. cities for which DHS was able to confirm a recent estimate of the unsheltered population. A 2011 result is available for Seattle, WA, Miami, FL, and Boston, MA.. 2011 results are not yet available for the other cities, and their 2009 data are displayed in this chart. General population figures are 2010 estimates in New York, San Francisco, and Chicago, and 2009 estimates elsewhere."

As of 2023, there were about ****** unsheltered homeless people living in Los Angeles, compared to ****** sheltered homeless people.

This statistic depicts the rate of homeless individuals in the United States in 2017, by metropolitan area. In 2017, the rate of homelessness per 10,000 individuals was highest in New York City, at ****.

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 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. Die soziale Situation von Obdachlosen in einem Kölner Vorort. Themen: Wichtigste Probleme in der Siedlung; Probleme im Verhältnis zwischen Siedlung und Umgebung; Auszugspläne; Wohndauer in der Siedlung und Jahr der ersten Inanspruchnahme einer städtischen Unterkunft; Grund für die Einweisung in eine städtische Unterkunft; Unterkunftstyp bei der ersten Einweisung und vor der Einweisung; Umzugshäufigkeit in solchen Unterkünften und Siedlungen; empfundene Verschlechterung durch den Umzug; Wohnraumzahl; Besitz langlebiger Wirtschaftsgüter; Schäden in der Wohnung; Kinderzahl und besuchte Schulen bzw. Kindergärten; Einstellung zur Einrichtung einer Sonderschule im Stadtteil; empfundene Diskriminierung der Kinder in der Schule; regelmäßiges Taschengeld für die Kinder; Freizeitort der Kinder; Kontakte der Kinder außerhalb der Siedlung; Erziehungsperson für die Kinder; empfundene Diskriminierung der Obdachlosen; Ausüben einer ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeit in der Siedlung; Einstellung zu einem Selbsthilfekomitee in der Siedlung; Interesse an der Beteiligung in einem solchen Komitee; vermutete Wirksamkeit einer Interessengemeinschaft der Obdachlosen; wichtigste Aufgaben einer solchen Interessengemeinschaft; wichtigste Institutionen als Ansprechpartner zur Verbesserung der Situation der Obdachlosen; Ortslage der Arbeitsstätte; Häufigkeit von Arbeitsplatzwechsel; Berufswechsel; Zufriedenheit mit der Arbeitsstelle; Einkaufsort; Besitz von Ersparnissen; Verwalter des Familieneinkommens; Entscheider über Ausgaben; Schulden; gemeinsame Einnahme der Hauptmahlzeit; Freizeitaktivitäten in der Siedlung; Kontaktpersonen in der Freizeit; Freizeitkontakte außerhalb der Siedlung; Nachbarschaftskontakte in der Siedlung; Kontakte zu Nichtobdachlosen; Aufnahme dieser Kontakte in der Freizeit oder durch die Arbeit; Identifikation als Kölner oder Bewohner des Stadtteils; Umzugswunsch in einen anderen Stadtteil; beliebtester Stadtteil in Köln; Intensität des Kontaktes zur Bevölkerung im Stadtteil; Kontakte zu Bewohnern einer anderen Siedlung; Beteiligung an Versammlungen des Poller Bürgervereins; vermutete Interessenvertretung der Obdachlosen durch diesen Verein; einflußreichste Persönlichkeiten im Stadtteil; Personen, die sich besonders für die Obdachlosen einsetzen; wichtigste Unterschiede zwischen den Bewohnern der eigenen Siedlung und einer weiteren Siedlung im Stadtteil; Kenntnis von Presseberichten und Fernsehberichten über die Obdachlosen und Beurteilung des Wahrheitsgehaltes; wichtigste Gründe für Obdachlosigkeit; wichtigste Vorbeugungsmaßnahmen zur Verhinderung von Obdachlosigkeit; perzipierte Unterschiede zwischen Obdachlosen; Beschwerdeführung gegen die Stadt zur Bereitstellung einer besseren Wohnung; Erfahrungen mit Behördenkontakten; Zufriedenheit mit dem Verwalter der Siedlung; wichtigste Aufgabe eines Verwalters; Anomie (Skala); Vergleich der eigenen Wohnsituation mit der der Eltern; soziale Herkunft; soziale Mobilität gegenüber dem Vater und dem Schwiegervater; Verwandtschaftskontakte; Urteil der Verwandtschaft über das Wohnen in dieser Siedlung; Verwandte, die ebenfalls in Notunterkünften leben; eigener Gesundheitszustand; Zahl der erkrankten Familienmitglieder und Art der Krankheiten; Vorschläge zur Behandlung von Obdachlosen; Gesellschaft oder Individuum als Verantwortlicher für die eigene Obdachlosigkeit; Wunsch nach Integration in eine normale Wohngegend; 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 der Obdachlosen. Demographie: Alter; Geschlecht; Familienstand; Kirchgangshäufigkeit; Schulbildung; Berufstätigkeit; Einkommen. Interviewerrating: Namensschild an der Tür; Beschreibung der Wohnungseinrichtung bezüglich Familienbilder, sonstiger Bilder, Nippfiguren, religiöser Figuren und Bücherbesitz; Zustand der Fenster, Tapeten und Möbel; Interviewdauer; Anzahl der anwesenden Personen beim Interview; Erledigung von Haushaltsarbeiten der befragten Person während des Interviews; Verhalten der übrigen Anwesenden während des Gesprächs; Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten.

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 purpose of the San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey is to gather and analyze information to help us understand who is homeless in our community, why they are homeless and what interventions they need to end their homelessness. This data forms the basis for effective planning to solve this complex and longstanding problem. The San Mateo County Human Services Agency’s Center on Homelessness the San Mateo County Continuum of Care Steering Committee were responsible for overseeing this data collection effort, with assistance from a broad group of community partners, including non-profit social service providers, city and town governments, and homeless and formerly homeless individuals. The Census and Survey was designed to meet two related sets of data needs. The first is the requirement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that communities applying for McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance funds (also known as Continuum of Care or “CoC” funds) must conduct a point-in-time count of homeless people a minimum of every two years. These counts are required to take place in the last ten days of January.

This dataset represents the number of persons who are experiencing homelessness for the first time in a fiscal year (October 1 - September 30) in the Austin/Travis County Continuum of Care (CoC). Data Source: The data for this measure was reported to the City of Austin by the Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO). Each year, ECHO, as the homeless Continuum of Care Lead Agency (CoC Lead), aggregates and reports community wide data (including this measure) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This data is referred to as System Performance Measures as they are designed to examine how well a community is responding to homelessness at a system level. View more details and insights related to this data set on the story page: https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/wk3t-h5qe

OverviewThese are the Homeless Counts for 2020 as provided by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach. The majority of this data comes from LAHSA using tract-level counts; the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach did not have tract-level counts available. The purpose of this layer is to depict homeless density at a community scale. Please read the note from LAHSA below regarding the tract level counts. In this layer LAHSA's tract-level population count was rounded to the nearest whole number, and density was determined per square mile of each community. It should be noted that not all of the sub-populations captured from LAHSA (eg. people living in vans, unaccompanied minors, etc.) are not captured here; only sheltered, unsheltered, and total population. Data generated on 12/2/20.Countywide Statistical AreasLos Angeles County's 'Countywide Statistical Areas' layer was used to classify the city / community names. Since this is tract-level data there are several times where a tract is in more than one city/community. Whatever the majority of the coverage of a tract is, that is the community that got coded. The boundaries of these communities follow aggregated tract boundaries and will therefore often deviate from the 'Countywide Statistical Area' boundaries.Note from LAHSALAHSA does not recommend aggregating census tract-level data to calculate numbers for other geographic levels. Due to rounding, the census tract-level data may not add up to the total for Los Angeles City Council District, Supervisorial District, Service Planning Area, or the Los Angeles Continuum of Care.The Los Angeles Continuum of Care does not include the Cities of Long Beach, Glendale, and Pasadena and will not equal the countywide Homeless Count Total.Street Count Data include persons found outside, including persons found living in cars, vans, campers/RVs, tents, and makeshift shelters. A conversion factor list can be found at https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-count/Please visit https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-count/home to view and download data.Last updated 07/16/2020