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.

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 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.

Legacy unique identifier: P01088

This collection includes data downloaded from the National Center for Homeless Education's (NCHE) state profiles website.Infographic profiles cover school year 2019-'20 through '21-'22. PDFs of data from Section 1.9 of the Consolidated State Performance Reports covers FY 2005-'06 (or for some states, FY '06-'07) up to '16-'17.NationalNational homeless education overview infographic saved as a PDF.Spreadsheet of McKinney‐Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Actual State Funding Allocations by year for all states in a dedicated subfolder.By StatePDFs with homeless education overview for each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education.PDFs of data from Section 1.9 of the Consolidated State Performance Reports.State-based data is stored in folders named for each state, with the infographic overview stored in a subfolder named 'profile'.One CSV file that contains most of the data published in the profiles, scraped from the PDFsDocumentation on how the NCHE data was collected is included.

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.

COVID-19 homeless impact

*Note: Beginning March 1, 2020, all existing reports publicly accessible on web pages belonging to the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) must comply with the CDSS Data De-identification Guidelines in order to more fully protect the identities of the vulnerable clients we serve. Communities with data values of less than 11 have been removed to comply with the CDSS Data De-identification Guidelines.*

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

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

In 2024/25, ***** people who were seen to be sleeping rough in London were aged between 36 and 45 years old, the most common age group in that year. In this same year, ***** people seen to be homeless were aged 25 or under, and a further ***** were aged over 55.

The research contributes to understandings about the causes of, and solutions to, multiple exclusion homelessness in policy relevant ways by comparing and contrasting the priorities and agendas of single, multiply excluded homeless people (MEHP) with those of a variety of agencies that support or interact with them. MEHP are individuals who compound a current or recent experience of homelessness (i.e. rough sleeping, or living in emergency or insecure accommodation), with one or more other indicators of multiple or deep social exclusion, such as; poverty, long-term unemployment, chronic mental or physical ill- health, problematic substance use, and/or problematic transitions in institutional public duties of care e.g. local authority, prison.

A key aim was to consider the extent to which, and how, the potentially differing priorities of MEHP and agencies may sustain or alleviate multiple exclusion homelessness. The project also explored MEHP journeys into homelessness to illuminate the relationship between background factors, personal circumstances and agency practices in people's homelessness stories.

This study explores how far multiple exclusion homelessness might be explained by inconsistencies between the priorities of homeless people and those of supporting agencies. It aims to: (1) explore the relationship between homelessness and other factors in generating 'deep' social exclusion; (2) investigate the priorities and aspirations of multiply excluded homeless people in addressing the problems they face; (3) compare and contrast the priorities of multiply excluded homeless people with those of agencies that provide support services to multiply excluded homeless people; (4) examine the role of these potentially incompatible priorities in explaining multiple exclusion homelessness; (5) explore the ways in which place and gender may mediate these incompatible priorities; (6) validate the accounts of homeless people and their priorities by fully involving a team of formerly homeless volunteers in the design, conduct and outputs of this study; (7) disseminate findings among support agencies and policy makers so that policy and practice accords more closely with the priorities of multiply excluded homeless people. The project will be underpinned by an a user participatory methodology that utilises qualitative techniques (focus groups and semi-structured interviews) with 20 support agencies and 100 multiply excluded homeless people in Nottingham and London.

This covers all downloadable and backing information available at the NCHE data page. This includes PDF forms (profiles) breaking out statistics by state and year up to SY 16- 17, and summaries by state combining SY 19- 20 through 21- 22 (the latter are web page snapshots). The archive also includes a national fiscal summary, and a PDF snapshot of the web page summarizing national statistics. Finally, the archive bundles the HTML of each state s web page (redundant with PDF snapshots), and the script used for downloading the pages and original PDF files in bulk. As data published directly by a US Government department, this is in the public domain. NCHE Website:

In 2023, the resident population of California was ***** million. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, with ***** million people in 2022. This makes it the most populous state in the U.S. Californian demographics Along with an increase in population, California’s gross domestic product (GDP) has also been increasing, from *** trillion U.S. dollars in 2000 to **** trillion U.S. dollars in 2023. In the same time period, the per-capita personal income has almost doubled, from ****** U.S. dollars in 2000 to ****** U.S. dollars in 2022. In 2023, the majority of California’s resident population was Hispanic or Latino, although the number of white residents followed as a close second, with Asian residents making up the third-largest demographic in the state. The dark side of the Golden State While California is one of the most well-known states in the U.S., is home to Silicon Valley, and one of the states where personal income has been increasing over the past 20 years, not everyone in California is so lucky: In 2023, the poverty rate in California was about ** percent, and the state had the fifth-highest rate of homelessness in the country during that same year, with an estimated ** homeless people per 10,000 of the population.

In the winter of 2023/24, around *** homeless people died due to freezing temperatures in Germany. This was unchanged compared to the the previous year. There are no official statistics on cold deaths from the federal, state and local governments. The BAG W bases its count on media reports. The association assumes a high number of unreported cases both in terms of the number of people living on the streets and of frozen homeless people, so the numbers can only be estimated. Some cities offer emergency shelters or cold buses during the winter to protect those in need from the cold.

Note: This Dataset is updated nightly and contains all downloadable Medical Examiner-Coroner records, January 1, 2018 to current, related to deaths that occurred in the County of Santa Clara under the Medical Examiner-Coroner’s jurisdiction and those deaths reportable to the Medical Examiner-Coroner (non-jurisdictional cases/NJA) but in which the office did not assume jurisdiction.

The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner- Coroner’s Office determines cause and manner of death for those deaths that fall under the jurisdiction of the Medical Examiner-Coroner, as defined by California Government code 27491.

The Medical Examiner-Coroner will not be responsible for data verification, interpretation or misinformation once data has been downloaded and manipulated from the dashboard.

Refer to the following document to know more of which deaths are reportable: https://medicalexaminer.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb986/files/Reportable%20Death%20Chart%202018.pdf.

The Family Options Study is a multi-site random assignment experiment designed to study the impact of various housing and services interventions for homeless families. HUD launched the Family Options Study in 2008 in response to Congressional direction and with the goal of learning more about the effects of different housing and services interventions for homeless families. Between September 2010 and January 2012, a total of 2,282 families (including over 5,000 children) were enrolled into the study from emergency shelters across twelve communities nationwide and were randomly assigned to one of four interventions: 1) subsidy-only – defined as a permanent housing subsidy with no supportive services attached, typically delivered in the form of a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV); 2) project-based transitional housing – defined as temporary housing for up to 24 months with an intensive package of supportive services offered on-site; 3) community-based rapid re-housing – defined as temporary rental assistance, potentially renewable for up to 18 months with limited, housing-focused services; or 4) usual care – defined as any housing or services that a family accesses in the absence of immediate referral to the other interventions.Families were followed for three years following random assignment, with extensive surveys of families conducted at baseline and again approximately 20 and 37 months after random assignment. In addition to collecting data about the well-being of families and children at different points in time following random assignment, extensive cost data on each of the interventions studied was also collected, in order to calculate the fiscal costs of achieving the outcomes that were documented. While the primary outcome of interest is housing stability, and, in particular, preventing families from returning to homelessness, additional outcomes of interest include family preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, and self-sufficiency.The Family Options Study is an important research effort that has yielded significant results to date. At both the 20-month and 37-month points of observation, significant positive impacts were observed in both the adults and the children of the families offered a voucher, and these impacts extended beyond housing stability. Families in the subsidy-only group experienced significant reductions in family separations, substance use, exposure to intimate partner violence, and psychological distress. Children had fewer school moves, were absent less and had fewer behavior problems, and families were more food secure. Based on these finding, HUD is currently preparing to launch a 12-Year Followup effort, through which HUD hopes to gather updated information about the well-being of the original study families.