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.

A survey of homeless adults in California found that around 66 percent reported they currently suffered from some mental health condition. This statistic shows the percentage of homeless adults in California who currently suffered from select mental health conditions as of 2022.

Homelessness Report April 2025. Published by Department of Housing, Local Government, and Heritage. Available under the license Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA-4.0).Homelessness data Official homelessness data is produced by local authorities through the Pathway Accommodation and Support System (PASS). PASS was rolled-out nationally during the course of 2013. The Department’s official homelessness statistics are published on a monthly basis and refer to the number of homeless persons accommodated in emergency accommodation funded and overseen by housing authorities during a specific count week, typically the last full week of the month. The reports are produced through the Pathway Accommodation & Support System (PASS), collated on a regional basis and compiled and published by the Department. Homelessness reporting commenced in this format in 2014. The format of the data may change or vary over time due to administrative and/or technology changes and improvements. The administration of homeless services is organised across nine administrative regions, with one local authority in each of the regions, “the lead authority”, having overall responsibility for the disbursement of Exchequer funding. In each region a Joint Homelessness Consultative Forum exists which includes representation from the relevant State and non-governmental organisations involved in the delivery of homeless services in a particular region. Delegated arrangements are governed by an annually agreed protocol between the Department and the lead authority in each region. These protocols set out the arrangements, responsibilities and financial/performance data reporting requirements for the delegation of funding from the Department. Under Sections 38 and 39 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 a statutory Management Group exists for each regional forum. This is comprised of representatives from the relevant housing authorities and the Health Service Executive, and it is the responsibility of the Management Group to consider issues around the need for homeless services and to plan for the implementation, funding and co-ordination of such services. In relation to the terms used in the report for the accommodation types see explanation below: PEA - Private Emergency Accommodation: this may include hotels, B&Bs and other residential facilities that are used on an emergency basis. Supports are provided to services users on a visiting supports basis. STA - Supported Temporary Accommodation: accommodation, including family hubs, hostels, with onsite professional support. TEA - Temporary Emergency Accommodation: emergency accommodation with no (or minimal) support....

In 2023, there were an estimated ****** homeless people with chronic substance abuse problems living in emergency shelters in the United States. A further ****** homeless people with chronic substance abuse problems were unsheltered in that year.

Homeless Camp information from myKCMO, dating back to March 2021. Note that there was a change in reporting structure in October 2022, when various sub-issues were consolidated under the main heading 'Homeless Camp'.

For older data from PS CRM, please see https://data.kcmo.org/311/311-Call-Center-Service-Requests-2007-March-2021/7at3-sxhp

Homelessness data Official homelessness data is produced by local authorities through the Pathway Accommodation and Support System (PASS). PASS was rolled-out nationally during the course of 2013. The Department’s official homelessness statistics are published on a monthly basis and refer to the number of homeless persons accommodated in emergency accommodation funded and overseen by housing authorities during a specific count week, typically the last full week of the month. The reports are produced through the Pathway Accommodation & Support System (PASS), collated on a regional basis and compiled and published by the Department. Homelessness reporting commenced in this format in 2014. The format of the data may change or vary over time due to administrative and/or technology changes and improvements. The administration of homeless services is organised across nine administrative regions, with one local authority in each of the regions, “the lead authority”, having overall responsibility for the disbursement of Exchequer funding. In each region a Joint Homelessness Consultative Forum exists which includes representation from the relevant State and non-governmental organisations involved in the delivery of homeless services in a particular region. Delegated arrangements are governed by an annually agreed protocol between the Department and the lead authority in each region. These protocols set out the arrangements, responsibilities and financial/performance data reporting requirements for the delegation of funding from the Department. Under Sections 38 and 39 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 a statutory Management Group exists for each regional forum. This is comprised of representatives from the relevant housing authorities and the Health Service Executive, and it is the responsibility of the Management Group to consider issues around the need for homeless services and to plan for the implementation, funding and co-ordination of such services. In relation to the terms used in the report for the accommodation types see explanation below: PEA - Private Emergency Accommodation: this may include hotels, B&Bs and other residential facilities that are used on an emergency basis. Supports are provided to services users on a visiting supports basis. STA - Supported Temporary Accommodation: accommodation, including family hubs, hostels, with onsite professional support. TEA - Temporary Emergency Accommodation: emergency accommodation with no (or minimal) support.

Novel and comprehensive cross-sectional datasets were developed to document and measure city level homeless policies across issue area. The dataset is comprised of the 100 largest cities in the United States, including FIPS identifiers and matched Continuum of Care (CoC) level identifiers by CoC number associated with the city. The datasets include city-level homeless policies in the 100 largest cities across the issues of homeless plans; housing plans with mentions of homelessness; homeless outreach teams; and the role of sanitation in homeless policy. Each dataset includes sub-codes to evaluate the governance structure and policy goals of each type of city-level homeless policy. Primary data were collected in 2021 and 2022. Please see the attached publications for complete methodology and data collection procedures for each policy type.

According to a study conducted between 2021 and 2022, ** percent of people experiencing homelessness in California left their last housing in the United States due to conflict among residents. A further ** percent said that they left their last housing because they didn't want to impose or because they wanted their own space.

Homelessness has been a consistent problem for the city of Louisville for decades now. Despite efforts from the city government and local nonprofits, homelessness increased 139% last year alone. The Covid-19 pandemic significantly worsened the crisis, but the risk factors that contribute to homelessness are still endemic across the city: lack of affordable housing, lack of access to physical and mental healthcare, stagnant wages, etc. Homelessness has negative effects on mortality, personal health of the homeless, and public health in general (also see here, no paywall). When I recently attended a strategy meeting for the Louisville Downtown Partnership, one of the top issues voted by attendees was the rise of homelessness downtown. This could come from genuine care or that many Americans associate homeless people with crime. Everyone benefits when the issues that cause homelessness are addressed effectively, and a vital part of that is knowing what areas are most at-risk.The app above was made to map certain risk factors across Jefferson County. The risk factors include percent of households with 50%+ income going to rent, persons without health insurance coverage, percent of households at or below the poverty line, percent of households using public assistance, percent of persons reporting extensive physical and mental distress, unemployment, along with other economic and health-based factors. This doesn’t include every possible factor that could cause homelessness, but many that have strong effects. A dummy census tract was made with all the worst possible outcomes for risk factors, which was then used to rank the similarity of every census tract in Jefferson County; the lower the rank, the more at-risk the tract is. The app allows you to click through every tract in the county and see the ten most at-risk ones.The most at-risk places tend to line up with the west end and areas of the city that were historically redlined. These areas also saw mass amounts of “urban renewal” in the 60s and 70s. They also tend to line up with areas of the city that face the highest eviction rates (thanks to Ryan Massey for pointing this out).

The web map shows map about homelessness service requests over the 30 days and it has three main layers.One of the layers contains service requests for both open and closed status and the other two contain open and closed status respectively.The web map also contains base maps.This Map feeds this dashboard: https://dallasgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ccd41f0d795f407a94ae17e2c27bf073

A survey of homeless adults in California found that around 82 percent reported they had experienced some mental health condition at some point in their lifetime. This statistic shows the percentage of homeless adults in California with select mental health conditions at some point in life as of 2022.

🇮🇪 아일랜드 English Homelessness data Official homelessness data is produced by local authorities through the Pathway Accommodation and Support System (PASS). Pass was rolled-out nationally during the course of 2013. The Department’s official homelessness statistics are published on a monthly basis and Refer to the number of homeless persons accommodated in emergency accommodation funded and overseen by housing authorities during a specific count week, typically the last full week of the month. The reports are produced through the Pathway Accommodation & Support System (PASS), collated on a regional basis and compiled and published by the Department. Homelessness reporting in this format in 2014. The format of the data may change or vary over time due to administrative and/or technology changes and improvements. The administration of homeless services is organised across nine administrative regions, with one local authority in each of the regions, “the lead authority”, having overall responsibility for the disbursement of Exchequer funding. In each region a Joint Homelessness Consultative Forum exists which includes from the relevant State and non-governmental organisations involved in the delivery of homeless services in a particular region. Delegated arrangements are governed by an annually agreed Protocol between the Department and the lead authority in each region. These protocols set out the arrangements, responsibilities and financial/performance data reporting requirements for the delegation of funding from the Department. Under Sections 38 and 39 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 a statutory Management Group exists for each regional forum. This is comprised of representatives from the relevant housing authorities and the Health Service Executive, and it is the responsibility of the Management Group to consider issues around the need for homeless services and to plan for the implementation, funding and co-ordination of such services. In relation to the terms used in the report for the accommodation types see explanation below: Pea — Private Emergency Accommodation: this may include hotels, B & Bs and other residential facilities that are used on an emergency basis. Supports are provided to services users on a visiting supports basis. STA — supported Temporary Accommodation: accommodation, including family hubs, hostels, with OnSite professional support. Heat — Temporary Emergency Accommodation: emergency accommodation with no (or minimal) support

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.

This indicator presents available data at national level on the number of people reported by public authorities as homeless. Data are drawn from the OECD Questionnaire on Affordable and Social Housing (QuASH 2021, QuASH 2019, QuASH 2016) and other available sources. Overall, homelessness data are available for 36 countries (Table HC 3.1.1 in Annex I). Further discussion of homelessness can be found in the 2020 OECD Policy Brief, “Better data and policies to fight homelessness in the OECD”, available online (and in French). Discussion of national strategies to combat homelessness can be found in indicator HC3.2 National Strategies for combating homelessness. Comparing homeless estimates across countries is difficult, as countries do not define or count the homeless population in the same way. There is no internationally agreed definition of homelessness. Therefore, this indicator presents a collection of available statistics on homelessness in OECD, EU and key partner countries in line with definitions used in national surveys (comparability issues on the data are discussed below). Even within countries, different definitions of homelessness may co-exist. In this indicator, we refer only to the statistical definition used for data collection purposes. Detail on who is included in the number of homeless in each country, i.e. the definition used for statistical purposes, is presented in Table HC 3.1.2 at the end of this indicator. To facilitate comparison of the content of homeless statistics across countries, it is also indicated whether the definition includes the categories outlined in Box HC3.1, based on “ETHOS Light” (FEANTSA, 2018). Homelessness data from 2020, which are available for a handful of countries and cover at least part of the COVID-19 pandemic, add an additional layer of complexity to cross-country comparison. The homeless population estimate in this case depends heavily on the point in time at which the count took place in the year, the method to estimate the homeless (through a point-in-time count or administrative data, as discussed below), the existence, extent and duration of emergency supports introduced in different countries to provide shelter to the homeless and/or to prevent vulnerable households from becoming homeless (such as eviction bans). Where they are available, homeless data for 2020 are thus compared to data from the previous year in order to facilitate comparison with other countries.

Percent distribution of homeless individuals by duration of homelessness, according to selected characteristics, Nipissing District, Ontario 2021.

Analysis of ‘Homelessness Report November 2021’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/https-data-usmart-io-org-ae1d5c14-c392-4c3f-9705-537427eeb413-dataset-viewdiscovery-datasetguid-71f447da-d9ab-4ca4-ae11-03cbeacaf812 on 16 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Homelessness data

Official homelessness data is produced by local authorities through the Pathway Accommodation and Support System (PASS). PASS was rolled-out nationally during the course of 2013.

The Department’s official homelessness statistics are published on a monthly basis and refer to the number of homeless persons accommodated in emergency accommodation funded and overseen by housing authorities during a specific count week, typically the last full week of the month. The reports are produced through the Pathway Accommodation & Support System (PASS), collated on a regional basis and compiled and published by the Department. Homelessness reporting commenced in this format in 2014. The format of the data may change or vary over time due to administrative and/or technology changes and improvements.

The administration of homeless services is organised across nine administrative regions, with one local authority in each of the regions, “the lead authority”, having overall responsibility for the disbursement of Exchequer funding. In each region a Joint Homelessness Consultative Forum exists which includes representation from the relevant State and non-governmental organisations involved in the delivery of homeless services in a particular region. Delegated arrangements are governed by an annually agreed protocol between the Department and the lead authority in each region. These protocols set out the arrangements, responsibilities and financial/performance data reporting requirements for the delegation of funding from the Department.

Under Sections 38 and 39 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 a statutory Management Group exists for each regional forum. This is comprised of representatives from the relevant housing authorities and the Health Service Executive, and it is the responsibility of the Management Group to consider issues around the need for homeless services and to plan for the implementation, funding and co-ordination of such services.

In relation to the terms used in the report for the accommodation types see explanation below: PEA - Private Emergency Accommodation: this may include hotels, B&Bs and other residential facilities that are used on an emergency basis. Supports are provided to services users on a visiting supports basis. STA - Supported Temporary Accommodation: accommodation, including family hubs, hostels, with onsite professional support. TEA - Temporary Emergency Accommodation: emergency accommodation with no (or minimal) support

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Percent distribution of homeless individuals by episodes of homelessness, according to selected characteristics, Nipissing District, Ontario 2021.

Adjusted odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) from binary logistic regression of ever experiencing barriers to housing by selected characteristics among homeless individuals (N = 207), Nipissing District, Ontario 2021.

The data was extracted into a CSV file from the Homelessness Services Resource Directory which can be found here. Homelessness is a broader issue as it encompasses lots of factors ranging from accommodation needs of an individual, health issues, money and legal advice, employment and so on. These issues are all addressed in a holistic and integrated way to prevent homelessness occurring. Everyone has a right to access health services that meet their needs and the dataset included here explores various services for homeless people. This consists of GPs, Homeless Families Healthcare service, Podiatry, Dietician, Occupational Therapy, Dentists (NHS) and Addiction Services. The fields in the dataset include contact details - office address, email, telephone number, fax, opening hours and additional information on services offered. Data uploaded 2014-07-10T16:43:02 Data supplied by Glasgow City Council Licence: None health.json - https://dataservices.open.glasgow.gov.uk/Download/Organisation/de0f1bfc-ed16-429a-b03c-6a63a178efb1/Dataset/6c463347-ffbd-482c-ace7-0e0ae74291cb/File/9d88b5c1-c4e4-4f06-88e8-92b9f7548a93/Version/654fb874-c959-4348-a9db-3f707c32dd37

In 2020, surveys conducted among people experiencing homelessness in King County, Washington found that 47 percent suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Around 44 percent of respondents also said they had substance abuse problems at that time. This statistic shows the percentage of homeless persons in King County, Washington who stated they had select health conditions from 2017 to 2020.