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.

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

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.

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.

In 2024/25, ****** men were reported to be sleeping rough in London with a further ***** women, and ** non-binary people. Since 2010/11 there has been an increase in the number of people reported to be sleeping rough in London, increasing from almost ***** in 2010/11 to more than ****** by 2022/23. Throughout this time period, the majority of people seen to be sleeping rough in London have been men. Characteristics of homeless people in London Of the rough sleepers seen in London in 2023/24, the most common age group were those aged between 36 and 45, at *****. In terms of nationality, most rough sleepers were from the United Kingdom at ***** people, with Romanian being the second-highest nationality, at *** people. The London Borough which had the highest number of people sleeping rough was Westminster, at ***** people, while the borough of Sutton had the fewest rough sleepers, at **. Tragic implications of homelessness In 2021, *** homeless people in London lost their lives, which was the highest number of homeless deaths per region in England and Wales. In terms of the homeless death rate, the worst region was also London, at **** deaths per million people in 2021. North West England had the second-highest deaths per million people, at **. Between 2013 and 2019, the number of homeless deaths in England and Wales increased from 392 to ***, before falling to *** in 2020 and *** in 2021.

Information These published reports present information from the multi-agency database Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN), about people seen rough sleeping by outreach teams in London. CHAIN, which is commissioned and funded by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and managed by Homeless Link, represents one of the UK’s most detailed and comprehensive sources of information about rough sleeping. Services that record information on CHAIN include outreach teams, assessment centres, accommodation projects, day centres and other specialist projects. The system allows users to share information about work done with people sleeping rough and about their needs, ensuring that they receive the most appropriate support and that efforts are not duplicated. In these reports, people are counted as having been seen rough sleeping if they have been encountered by a commissioned outreach worker bedded down on the street, or in other open spaces or locations not designed for habitation, such as doorways, stairwells, parks or derelict buildings. The report does not include people from “hidden homeless” groups such as those “sofa surfing” or living in squats, unless they have also been seen bedded down in one of the settings outlined above. Separate reports are produced for London as a whole and for individual boroughs, and these are published each quarter. There are also annual reports that contain aggregated information for each full year. Interactive Visualisation Tool Quarterly Data Tool Annual Data Tool A suite of online interactive charts and maps based on CHAIN data is available by clicking the above links. The data available via these tools mirrors that presented in the published PDF documents, with the addition of filters and other enhancements to allow users to interrogate the data. The Quarterly Data Tool shows data from the last eight quarters, and the Annual Data Tool shows data from the last five years. Organisations Using CHAIN A list of the organisations which have signed the CHAIN Data Protection Agreement and are able to access the live CHAIN system is also available to download. PDF Reports & Data tables As of January 2024, published CHAIN PDF reports are accompanied by an OpenDocument Spreadsheet file providing the underlying data in an accessible aggregated tabular format. The file includes data at local authority level, and for London overall, including comparative data for previous periods. There is also an accompanying explanatory notes document, which provides important contextual information about the data. Please click the links below to download a zip file containing the PDF reports and OpenDocument Spreadsheet for the corresponding timeframe. Publication Schedule Reports are published 1 month after the end of each quarter and one quarter after the end of each year. The linked document below provides details of forthcoming publications Quarterly and Annual Report Schedule 2025/26 2025/26

Information These published reports present information from the multi-agency database Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN), about people seen rough sleeping by outreach teams in London. CHAIN, which is commissioned and funded by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and managed by Homeless Link, represents one of the UK’s most detailed and comprehensive sources of information about rough sleeping. Services that record information on CHAIN include outreach teams, assessment centres, accommodation projects, day centres and other specialist projects. The system allows users to share information about work done with people sleeping rough and about their needs, ensuring that they receive the most appropriate support and that efforts are not duplicated. In these reports, people are counted as having been seen rough sleeping if they have been encountered by a commissioned outreach worker bedded down on the street, or in other open spaces or locations not designed for habitation, such as doorways, stairwells, parks or derelict buildings. The report does not include people from “hidden homeless” groups such as those “sofa surfing” or living in squats, unless they have also been seen bedded down in one of the settings outlined above. Separate reports are produced for London as a whole and for individual boroughs, and these are published each quarter. There are also annual reports that contain aggregated information for each full year. Interactive Visualisation Tool Quarterly Data Tool Annual Data Tool A suite of online interactive charts and maps based on CHAIN data is available by clicking the above links. The data available via these tools mirrors that presented in the published PDF documents, with the addition of filters and other enhancements to allow users to interrogate the data. The Quarterly Data Tool shows data from the last eight quarters, and the Annual Data Tool shows data from the last five years. Organisations Using CHAIN A list of the organisations which have signed the CHAIN Data Protection Agreement and are able to access the live CHAIN system is also available to download. PDF Reports & Data tables As of January 2024, published CHAIN PDF reports are accompanied by an OpenDocument Spreadsheet file providing the underlying data in an accessible aggregated tabular format. The file includes data at local authority level, and for London overall, including comparative data for previous periods. There is also an accompanying explanatory notes document, which provides important contextual information about the data. Please click the links below to download a zip file containing the PDF reports and OpenDocument Spreadsheet for the corresponding timeframe. Publication Schedule Reports are published 1 month after the end of each quarter and one quarter after the end of each year. The linked document below provides details of forthcoming publications Quarterly and Annual Report Schedule 2024/25 2024/25 Q3 2024/25 Greater London 2024/25 Q3 Borough Reports 2024/25 Q3 Quarterly Data Tables 2024/25 Q3 Q2 2024/25 Greater London 2024/25 Q2 Borough Reports 2024/25 Q2 Quarterly Data Tables 2024/25 Q2 Q1 2024/25 Greater London 2024/25 Q1 Borough Reports 2024/25 Q1 Quarterly Data Tables 2024/25 Q1 2023/24 Greater London Bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Annual Data Tables Quarterly Reports and Data Tables (for Q3 and Q4 only) 2022/23 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2021/22 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2020/21 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2019/20 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2018/19 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2017/18 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2016/17 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2015/16 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2014/15 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports Pre-2014/15 For earlier reports please see the end of this page. This dataset is one of the Greater London Authority's measures of Economic Fairness. Click here to find out more.

Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts (financial year). Homelessness provision made by local authorities in London, 2004/05 to 2017/18.

Source: DCLG P1E Homelessness returns (quarterly)

Households "Excludes cases for whom a duty was owed but no accommodation was being secure" are those accepted as owed a main duty, or awaiting a decision on their application, but able to remain in their existing accommodation for the immediate future.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-homelessness

This dataset is one of the Greater London Authority's measures of Economic Fairness. Click here to find out more.

These reports present information about people seen rough sleeping by outreach teams in London. Information in the report is derived from the Combined Homelessness and Information Network (CHAIN), a multi-agency database recording information about rough sleepers and the wider street population in London. CHAIN, which is commissioned and funded by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and managed by St Mungo’s, represents the UK’s most detailed and comprehensive source of information about rough sleeping. Services that record information on CHAIN include outreach teams, accommodation projects, day centres and specialist projects such as the GLA-commissioned No Second Night Out (NSNO). The system allows users to share information about work done with rough sleepers and about their needs, ensuring that they receive the most appropriate support and that efforts are not duplicated. In these reports, people are counted as having been seen rough sleeping if they have been encountered by a commissioned outreach worker bedded down on the street, or in other open spaces or locations not designed for habitation, such as doorways, stairwells, parks or derelict buildings. The report does not include people from “hidden homeless” groups such as those “sofa surfing” or living in squats, unless they have also been seen bedded down in one of the settings outlined above. Separate reports are produced for London as a whole and for individual boroughs, and these are published each quarter. There are also annual reports that contain aggregated information for all four quarters of the year. The reports listed below cover the period from 1 April 2014 onwards. Earlier reports can be found on the St Mungo’s website. 2017/18 Quarterly and Annual Reports and Schedule May 2017-18 Quarter 1 Reports Quarter 2 Reports Quarter 3 Reports 2016/17 Greater London bulletin Greater London full report Borough Annual Reports Quarterly Reports 2015/16 Quarterly Reports Borough Annual Reports Greater London full report Greater London bulletin 2014/15 Quarterly Reports Borough Annual Reports CHAIN Greater London full report CHAIN Greater London bulletin

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of New London Grassroots Homeless Coalition And Ministry

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of New London Homeless Hospitality Center Inc.

The research, entitled Homelessness during COVID-19: Homeless Migrants in a Global Crisis, took a biographical life story approach to understand the experiences of 43 non-UK nationals who experienced homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase of the project, and in order to gain insight into the homelessness sector, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 people across nine homelessness organisations. The focus of the interviews was on migrant homelessness before and during the pandemic. Due to ethical reasons, we are not able to upload data from the life story interviews that we conducted with migrants experiencing homelessness. However, the data from the semi-structured interviews with staff in the homelessness sector that we have submitted to the UK Data Service helped us to frame our research and provided much-needed contextual information during the pandemic.

People experiencing homelessness are disproportionately impacted by coronavirus. Despite government efforts to place rough sleepers in hotels to contain the spread of the disease, many migrants sleeping rough with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) have been left behind at the height of a global pandemic. This project, involving researchers from University of Portsmouth, University of Sussex and St Mungo's, the homeless charity, will produce an 18-month qualitative-based study of migrant homelessness framed by the wider global and national context. Working with two of St Mungo's migrant services, Street Legal, St Mungo's legal team and Routes Home, a service supporting people sleeping rough from outside of the UK, a particular focus of the study will be the experience of non-UK nationals and their attempts, during the crisis, to resolve their immigration status. Many of these migrants are at the sharpest end of homelessness: almost 1,000 rough sleepers housed in emergency accommodation in London have NRPF (Heath, 2020).

Most migrant homeless clients are faced with multiple everyday challenges; they experience the hostility and aggression directed toward homeless people, compounded with often intense experiences of racism. Migrant homeless clients are also likely to be afraid of 'authorities' for various reasons including fear of deportation by the Home Office and personal histories of violent persecution by state actors in their original countries of belonging. During the pandemic, increased numbers of police on the streets have created high anxiety for refugees/asylum seekers and destitute migrants who report being retriggered with PTSD symptoms, with no access to NHS mental health services that are now delivered primarily remotely and are restricted access except to those patients who have access to free or cheap wifi, or unlimited phone credit (Munt 2020). A cultural miasma of fear and anxiety due to pandemic can affect such vulnerable minority groups particularly forcefully, with public attitudes generating direct aggression toward perceived 'outsiders' as harbingers of disease. Historically, the discourse of the 'stranger' (Ahmed 1991) or foreigner as bringer of disease has been well recognised within cultural sociology (Munt 2007), and as cultural suspicion grows under such conditions, feelings of alienation and estrangement amongst vulnerable groups intensifies.

The project will innovate by examining the biographical and life history narratives of St Mungo's clients in London in relation to their experiences of homelessness during the coronavirus crisis. Alongside semi-structured interviews, we will use participatory research methods including peer research, autoethnographic diaries, mobile phone photo-ethnographies and life history narratives in order to capture the rich and emotive narratives of those experiencing crisis. In doing so, we will examine the intersection of personal histories, complex global processes and the dynamics of the particular situation (Stewart, 2012, 2013). Researching vulnerable groups requires ethical sensitivity. It carries the danger of risking more disappointment among the respondents and exacerbating intense feelings of loneliness and isolation. To avoid this, and to make a positive intervention, we will seek to engage clients with services and support as part of the research project. Based on its findings, and working with St Mungo's partners, the project will make recommendations for measures that can be taken across the UK and elsewhere to support the homeless, particularly those most vulnerable, during times of crisis.

A key objective of the project was to compare and contrast the priorities and agendas of multiply excluded homeless people (MEHP) with those of a diverse range of agencies which support, or routinely come into contact with MEHP, in order to better understand the causes and potential solutions to multiple exclusion homelessness. Several strategies to ensure user participation were built into the project. Specifically, two teams (four people in Nottingham and six in London), of former homeless people who had previously made use of services provided by Framework and Thames Reach (two housing associations that provide a wide range of accommodation and support services for homeless people), were recruited and trained to work as co-researchers on the project. Purposive, non random sampling was used to identify suitable fieldwork participants. Semi structured interviews were conducted in the city of Nottingham (55) and the London Boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham (53) with a total of 108 single multiply excluded homeless people (74 men, 34 women). Homeless participants were recruited from a range of organisations. They included people who used, (or who had recently used), an assortment of services provided by Framework and Thames Reach and also users of various services offered by a number of other statutory and voluntary agencies. Additionally, semi structured interviews with 44 key informants (24 Nottingham, 20 London) from 40 statutory and voluntary sector agencies which routinely come into contact with MEHP, were conducted.

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.

🇬🇧 영국 English Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts (financial year). Homelessness provision made by local authorities in London, 2004/05 to 2017/18. Source: DCLG P1E Homelessness returns (quarterly) Households "Excludes cases for whom a duty was owed but no accommodation was being secure" are those accepted as owed a main duty, or awaiting a decision on their application, but able to remain in their existing accommodation for the immediate future. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-homelessness This dataset is one of the Greater London Authority's measures of Economic Fairness. Click here to find out more.

The London Community Profile, providing information on Homelessness, Housing and Social Assistance data.

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.