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.

"Ratio of Homeless Population to General Population in major US Cities in 2012. *This represents a list of large U.S. cities for which DHS was able to confirm a recent estimate of the unsheltered population. Unsheltered estimates are from 2011 except for Seattle and New York City (2012) and Chicago (2009). All General Population figures are from the 2010 U.S. Census enumeration."

This data set shows the location of Baltimore City's Tansitional and Emergency "Homeless" Shelter Facilities. However, this is not a complete list. It is the most recent update (2008), and is subjected to change. The purpose of this data set is to aid Baltimore City organizations to best identify facilities to aid the homeless population. The data is broken down into two categories: Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing. Please find the two definitions below. The first is simply ��_��_��_shelter��_�� and the second is a more involved program that is typically a longer stay. Emergency Shelter: Any facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the primary purpose of which is to provide temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of homeless persons. The length of stay can range from one night up to as much as six months. Transitional Housing: a project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate support services to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months. These data set was provided by Greg Sileo, Director of the Mayor's Office of Baltimore Homeless Services.

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.

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.

Context

This database contains the data reported in the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR). It represents a point-In-time count (PIT) of homeless individuals, as well as a housing inventory count (HIC) conducted annually.

The data represent the most comprehensive national-level assessment of homelessness in America, including PIT and HIC estimates of homelessness, as well as estimates of chronically homeless persons, homeless veterans, and homeless children and youth.

These data can be trended over time and correlated with other metrics of housing availability and affordability, in order to better understand the particular type of housing resources that may be needed from a social determinants of health perspective.

HUD captures these data annually through the Continuum of Care (CoC) program. CoC-level reporting data have been crosswalked to county levels for purposes of analysis of this dataset.

Querying BigQuery tables

You can use the BigQuery Python client library to query tables in this dataset in Kernels. Note that methods available in Kernels are limited to querying data. Tables are at bigquery-public-data.sdoh_hud_pit_homelessness

Sample Query

What has been the change in the number of homeless veterans in the state of New York’s CoC Regions since 2012? Determine how the patterns of homeless veterans have changes across the state of New York

homeless_2018 AS ( SELECT Homeless_Veterans AS Vet18, CoC_Name
FROM bigquery-public-data.sdoh_hud_pit_homelessness.hud_pit_by_coc WHERE SUBSTR(CoC_Number,0,2) = "NY" AND Count_Year = 2018 ),

veterans_change AS ( SELECT homeless_2012.COC_Name, Vet12, Vet18, Vet18 - Vet12 AS VetChange FROM homeless_2018 JOIN homeless_2012 ON homeless_2018.CoC_Name = homeless_2012.CoC_Name )

SELECT * FROM veterans_change

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.

This database contains the data reported in the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR). It represents a point-In-time count (PIT) of homeless individuals, as well as a housing inventory count (HIC) conducted annually. The data represent the most comprehensive national-level assessment of homelessness in America, including PIT and HIC estimates of homelessness, as well as estimates of chronically homeless persons, homeless veterans, and homeless children and youth. These data can be trended over time and correlated with other metrics of housing availability and affordability, in order to better understand the particular type of housing resources that may be needed from a social determinants of health perspective. HUD captures these data annually through the Continuum of Care (CoC) program. CoC-level reporting data have been crosswalked to county levels for purposes of analysis of this dataset. For more information about these data, please see here .

Community integration of homeless in a Cologne suburb. Topics: Characterization of the suburb Poll; closeness with the suburb or with the city of Cologne; length of residence in the suburb; previous place of residence and moving frequency; rent costs; size of household and number of rooms; possession of durable economic goods; year of construction of building; satisfaction with residence; moving plans; possible destination of moving; particular advantages of the residential area in Poll; favorite part of town of Cologne; familial relations in the part of town or in the entire city; frequency of contact with parents, grandparents, children, siblings and the rest of the relatives; distribution of circle of friends about the part of town and the other parts of the city; contacts with neighbors and colleagues; location of place of work; frequency of change of place of work; occupational mobility; desire for remaining in the part of town given a change of occupation; shopping habits; frequency of trips downtown; leisure activities and place of these leisure activities; club membership; time extent of club activity; participation in activities of the Poll Buergerverein; significance of this organization; judgement on the moving of schools; most influencial personalities in the suburb; most important integration factors in the part of town; influence of the part of town on the entire city; anomy (scale); evaluation of despicability of selected crimes; most important reasons for development of so-called Rocker groups; most effective measures to reduce crime; perceived differences in the old and new part of town; identification of areas that belong together in the part of town and assignment of different social groups to the parts of town; assignment of social groups to the homeless settlement; significance of the homeless problem and preferred measures to eliminate it; measures to prevent homelessness; attitude to differential treatment of the homeless and the rest of the population; recommendations on treatment of the homeless; judgement on the proportion of homeless in the part of town; personal contacts with the homeless; intensity of contacts; fear of contact and social distance to the homeless; preferred measures in view of the two homeless settlements in Poll; perceived differences among the homeless; typical characteristics with which one can recognize the homeless; judgement on a media report about the homeless in Poll; judgement on the municipal facilities in the part of town; personal importance of the existence of such facilities; religiousness. Interviewer rating: residential building size and willingness of respondent to cooperate. Gemeindliche Integration von Obdachlosen in einem Kölner Vorort. Themen: Charakterisierung des Vororts Poll; Verbundenheit mit dem Vorort oder mit der Stadt Köln; Wohndauer im Vorort; vorheriger Wohnort und Umzugshäufigkeit; Mietkosten; Haushaltsgröße und Anzahl der Räume; Besitz langlebiger Wirtschaftsgüter; Baujahr des Hauses; Zufriedenheit mit der Wohnung; Umzugspläne; mögliches Umzugsziel; besondere Vorzüge der Wohnlage in Poll; beliebtester Stadtteil von Köln; verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen im Stadtteil bzw. in der gesamten Stadt; Kontakthäufigkeit mit den Eltern, Großeltern, Kindern, Geschwistern und den übrigen Verwandten; Verteilung des Bekanntenkreises über den Stadtteil und die übrigen Teile der Stadt; Kontakte zu Nachbarn und Arbeitskollegen; Ortslage der Arbeitsstätte; Häufigkeit des Wechselns der Arbeitsstätte; berufliche Mobilität; Wunsch nach Verbleiben im Stadtteil bei Berufswechsel; Einkaufsgewohnheiten; Besuchshäufigkeit in der City; Freizeitaktivitäten und Ort dieser Freizeitaktivitäten; Vereinsmitgliedschaft; zeitlicher Umfang von Vereinstätigkeit; Teilnahme an Aktivitäten des Poller Bürgervereins; Bedeutung dieses Vereins; Beurteilung der Verlegung von Schulen; einflußreichste Persönlichkeiten im Vorort; wichtigste Integrationsfaktoren im Stadtteil; Einfluß des Stadtteils auf die ganze Stadt; Anomie (Skala); Bewertung der Verwerflichkeit von ausgewählten Straftaten; wichtigste Ursachen für das Entstehen sogenannter Rockergruppen; wirksamste Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung der Kriminalität; perzipierte Unterschiede im alten und neuen Stadtteil; Identifizierung zusammengehörender Gebiete im Stadtteil und Zuordnung unterschiedlicher sozialer Gruppen zu den Stadtteilen; Zuordnung sozialer Gruppen zur Obdachlosensiedlung; Bedeutung des Obdachlosenproblems und präferierte Maßnahmen zur Beseitigung; vorbeugende Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung von Obdachlosigkeit; Einstellung zur differenzierten Behandlung von Obdachlosen und der übrigen Bevölkerung; Vorschläge zur Behandlung von Obdachlosen; Beurteilung des Obdachlosenanteils im Stadtteil; eigene Kontakte zu Obdachlosen; Intensität der Kontakte; Berührungsängste und soziale Distanz zu Obdachlosen; präferierte Maßnahmen im Hinblick auf die beiden Obdachlosensiedlungen in Poll; perzipierte Unterschiede bei den Obdachlosen; charakteristische Merkmale, an denen man Obdachlose erkennen kann; Beurteilung eines Medienberichts über die Obdachlosen in Poll; Beurteilung der kommunalen Einrichtungen im Stadtteil; persönliche Wichtigkeit der Existenz solcher Einrichtungen; Religiosität. Demographie: Alter; Familienstand; Kinderzahl; Kirchgangshäufigkeit; Schulbildung; Berufstätigkeit; Einkommen; Haushaltsgröße. Interviewerrating: Wohnhausgröße und Kooperationsbereitschaft des Befragten.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. A comparative study of the causes of new episodes of homelessness among people aged 50 or more years was undertaken in Boston, Massachusetts (USA), Melbourne, Australia, and four English cities. The aims were to make a substantial contribution to the predominantly American debate on the causes of homelessness, and to make practice recommendations for the improvement of prevention. The study had several objectives. It aimed to collect information about the antecedents, triggers and risk factors for becoming homeless in later life and about the national and local policy and service contexts. Furthermore, the researchers aimed to analyse and interpret the findings with reference to an integrated model of the causes of homelessness that represented structural and policy factors, including housing, health and social service organisation and delivery factors, and personal circumstances, events, problems and dysfunctions. The aim was to do this collaboratively, by drawing on the project partners' experience and knowledge. Finally, it was hoped to develop recommendations for housing, primary health care and social welfare organisations for the prevention of homelessness. This was to be done by identifying the common sequences and interactions of events that precede homelessness and their markers (or 'early warning' indicators) and by holding workshops in England with practitioners and their representative organisations on new ways of working. By the study of contrasting welfare and philanthropic regimes in a relatively homogeneous category of homeless incidence (i.e. recent cases among late middle-aged and older people), it was hoped that valuable insights into the relative contributions of the policy, service and personal factors would be obtained. The study focused on older people who had recently become homeless, purposely to gather detailed and reliable information about the prior and contextual circumstances. To have included people who had been homeless for several years would have reduced the quality of the data because of 'recall' problems. Users should note that data from the Australian sample for the study are not included in this dataset. Main Topics: The data file includes information about the English respondents and those from Boston. It was compiled in two stages. The first stage involved each project partner entering the pre-coded responses into the file. All partners then identified themes and created codes for the open-ended responses, and the resulting variables were added. Data quality-control procedures included blind checks of the data coding and keying. The first 200 variables pertain to information collected from the respondents. They comprise descriptive variables of the circumstances prior to homelessness, including housing tenure during the three years prior to the survey, previous homelessness, employment history, income, health and addiction problems, and contacts with family, friends and formal services. The respondents were asked to rate whether specific factors were implicated in becoming homeless, and where appropriate, a following open-ended question sought elaboration. The remaining variables comprise information collected from the respondents' 'key workers' about their understanding of the events and states that led to their clients becoming homeless. No sampling frame was available. The sample profiles have been compared with those of all homeless people (not just the recently homeless) in the study locations, most effectively in London and Boston. No gross biases were revealed. The samples represent a large percentage of the clients who presented to the collaborating organisations during the study period and who gave their informed consent to participate. Agreed definitions of homelessness were: sleeping on the streets or in temporary accommodation such as shelters; being without accommodation following eviction or discharge from prison or hospital; living temporarily with relatives or friends because the person has no accommodation, but only if the stay had not exceeded six months, and the person did not pay rent and was required to leave. People who had been previously homeless were included in the survey if they had been housed for at least 12 months prior to the current episode of homelessness. Face-to-face interview Self-completion the 'key workers' (case managers) completed questionnaires about their assessments of the respondents’ problems and of the events and states that led to homelessness. Further clarifications and checks were made by telephone.

The most recent rate of homelessness is calculated using ACS population estimates from the previous year, unless otherwise noted.

Data Source: HUD's Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) Point-in-Time (PIT) Estimates by State and American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates

Why this MattersSafe, adequate, and stable housing is a human right and essential for the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities.People who experience homelessness also struggle to maintain access to healthcare, employment, education, healthy relationships, and other basic necessities in life, according to the DC Interagency Council on Homelessness Strategic Plan.BIPOC populations are disproportionately affected by homelessness due to housing discrimination, mass incarceration, and other policies that have limited socioeconomic opportunities for Black, Latino, and other people of color.

The District's Response Strategic investments in proven strategies for driving down homelessness, including the Career Mobility Action Plan (Career MAP) program, operation of non-congregate housing, and expansion of the District’s shelter capacity.Homelessness prevention programs for at-risk individuals and families, such as emergency rental assistance, targeted affordable housing, and permanent supporting housing.Programs and services to enhance resident’s economic and employment security and ensure access to affordable housing.

The Street Needs Assessment (SNA) is a survey and point-in-time count of people experiencing homelessness in Toronto on April 26, 2018. The results provide a snapshot of the scope and profile of the City's homeless population. The results also give people experiencing homelessness a voice in the services they need to find and keep housing. The 2018 SNA is the City's fourth homeless count and survey and was part of a coordinated point-in-time count conducted by communities across Canada and Ontario. The results of the 2018 Street Needs Assessment were summarized in a report and key highlights slide deck. During the course of the night, a 23 core question survey was completed with 2,019 individuals experiencing homelessness staying in shelters (including provincially-administered Violence Against Women shelters), 24-hour respite sites (including 24-hour women's drop-ins and the Out of the Cold overnight program open on April 26, 2018), and outdoors. The SNA includes individuals experiencing absolute homelessness but does not capture hidden homelessness (i.e., people couch surfing or staying temporarily with others who do not have the means to secure permanent housing). This dataset includes the SNA survey results; it does not include the count of people experiencing homelessness in Toronto. The SNA employs a point-in-time methodology for enumerating homelessness that is now the standard for most major US and Canadian urban centres. While a consistent methodology and approach has been used each year in Toronto, changes were made in 2018, in part, as a result of participation in the national and provincial coordinated point-in-time count. As a result, caution should be made in comparing these results to previous SNA survey results. Key changes included: administering the survey in a representative sample (rather than census) of shelters; administering the survey in all 24-hour respite sites and a sample of refugee motel programs added to the homelessness service system since the 2013 SNA; and a standard set of core survey questions that communities were required to follow to ensure comparability. In addition, in 2018, surveys were not conducted in provincially-administered health and treatment facilities and correctional facilities as was done in 2013. The 2018 survey results provide a valuable source of information about the service needs of people experiencing homelessness in Toronto. This information is used to improve the housing and homelessness programs provided by the City of Toronto and its partners to better serve our clients and more effectively address homelessness. Visit https://www.toronto.calcity-government/data-research-maps/research-reports/housing-and-homelessness-research-and-reports/

Background: Homelessness is an increasing problem in Western European countries. In the Netherlands, policy reforms and austerity measures induced an urgent need for management information on local homeless citizens. Municipal authorities initiated cross-sectional reviews of Homeless Service (HS) users. The resulting Homeless People Treatment and Recovery (HOP-TR) study developed a health and needs assessment strategy over different domains to comprehensively assess individuals and care networks with the perspective on recovery.Methods: Dutch HS users were selected using a naturalistic meta-snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews provided the primary data source. The interview content was partly derived from the InterRAI Community Mental Health questionnaire and the “Homelessness Supplement.” Using the raw interview data, algorithmic summary scores were computed and integrating clinical parameters assessed. The data describe health and needs in a rights-based, recovery-oriented frame of reference. The mental health approach is transdiagnostic. The positive health framework is used for structuring health and needs aspects in relation to the symptomatic (physical and mental health), social (daily living, social participation), and personal (quality of life, meaning) dimensions of recovery.Results: Recruitment (between 2015 and 2017) resulted in a saturated sample of 436 HS users in 16 facilities and seven cities. Most participants were long-term or intermittently homeless. The sample characteristics reveal the multi domain character of needs and the relevance of a broad, comprehensive approach. Local authorities used the reports to reflect and discuss needs, care provision, access, and network cooperation. These dialogs incited to improve the quality of care at various ecosystem levels.Discussion: This paper describes new recruitment strategies and data collections of comprehensive data domains, to improve our knowledge in the field of homelessness. Traditional epidemiological literature on homelessness is often domain specific and relies on administrative sources. The HOP-TR study uses an analytical epidemiological approach. It shifts the assessment focus from problem-centered marginalization processes toward a comprehensive, three-dimensional recovery-oriented vision of health. Different perspectives are integrated to explore the interaction of homeless people with care networks.

Homelessness and Hidden Homelessness in Rural and Northern Ontario is the first study of its kind to empirically challenge these popular perceptions. In fact, as the analysis of data from the recent Canadian Social Survey demonstrates, compared to city dwellers, a higher percentage of people from rural Ontario reported that they had experienced homelessness or hidden homelessness at some point in their lives. The research carried out for this report was based on a survey of service providers (with responses from 204 service providers and 30 service managers), focus groups (with 76 key sector stakeholders), and interviews (with 40 people who had experience of homelessness or hidden homelessness) in 10 communities in northwestern, northeastern, southwestern, and southeastern Ontario. This was augmented by an analysis of Ontario data from Canada’s General Social Survey. The causes of homelessness in rural and northern Ontario were found to be similar to those in big cities: poverty, mental illness and addictions, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence. The study also revealed that many Indigenous peoples are at risk of homelessness and hidden homelessness, particularly those living in northern areas of the province.

Gemeindliche Integration von Obdachlosen in einem Kölner Vorort. Themen: Charakterisierung des Vororts Poll; Verbundenheit mit demVorort oder mit der Stadt Köln; Wohndauer im Vorort; vorheriger Wohnortund Umzugshäufigkeit; Mietkosten; Haushaltsgröße und Anzahl der Räume;Besitz langlebiger Wirtschaftsgüter; Baujahr des Hauses; Zufriedenheitmit der Wohnung; Umzugspläne; mögliches Umzugsziel; besondere Vorzügeder Wohnlage in Poll; beliebtester Stadtteil von Köln;verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen im Stadtteil bzw. in der gesamtenStadt; Kontakthäufigkeit mit den Eltern, Großeltern, Kindern,Geschwistern und den übrigen Verwandten; Verteilung desBekanntenkreises über den Stadtteil und die übrigen Teile der Stadt;Kontakte zu Nachbarn und Arbeitskollegen; Ortslage der Arbeitsstätte;Häufigkeit des Wechselns der Arbeitsstätte; berufliche Mobilität;Wunsch nach Verbleiben im Stadtteil bei Berufswechsel;Einkaufsgewohnheiten; Besuchshäufigkeit in der City;Freizeitaktivitäten und Ort dieser Freizeitaktivitäten;Vereinsmitgliedschaft; zeitlicher Umfang von Vereinstätigkeit;Teilnahme an Aktivitäten des Poller Bürgervereins; Bedeutung diesesVereins; Beurteilung der Verlegung von Schulen; einflußreichstePersönlichkeiten im Vorort; wichtigste Integrationsfaktoren imStadtteil; Einfluß des Stadtteils auf die ganze Stadt; Anomie (Skala);Bewertung der Verwerflichkeit von ausgewählten Straftaten; wichtigsteUrsachen für das Entstehen sogenannter Rockergruppen; wirksamsteMaßnahmen zur Reduzierung der Kriminalität; perzipierte Unterschiede imalten und neuen Stadtteil; Identifizierung zusammengehörender Gebieteim Stadtteil und Zuordnung unterschiedlicher sozialer Gruppen zu denStadtteilen; Zuordnung sozialer Gruppen zur Obdachlosensiedlung;Bedeutung des Obdachlosenproblems und präferierte Maßnahmen zurBeseitigung; vorbeugende Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung vonObdachlosigkeit; Einstellung zur differenzierten Behandlung vonObdachlosen und der übrigen Bevölkerung; Vorschläge zur Behandlung vonObdachlosen; Beurteilung des Obdachlosenanteils im Stadtteil; eigeneKontakte zu Obdachlosen; Intensität der Kontakte; Berührungsängste undsoziale Distanz zu Obdachlosen; präferierte Maßnahmen im Hinblick aufdie beiden Obdachlosensiedlungen in Poll; perzipierte Unterschiede beiden Obdachlosen; charakteristische Merkmale, an denen man Obdachloseerkennen kann; Beurteilung eines Medienberichts über die Obdachlosen inPoll; Beurteilung der kommunalen Einrichtungen im Stadtteil;persönliche Wichtigkeit der Existenz solcher Einrichtungen;Religiosität. Demographie: Alter; Familienstand; Kinderzahl; Kirchgangshäufigkeit;Schulbildung; Berufstätigkeit; Einkommen; Haushaltsgröße. Interviewerrating: Wohnhausgröße und Kooperationsbereitschaft desBefragten. Community integration of homeless in a Cologne suburb. Topics:Characterization of the suburb Poll; closeness with the suburb or withthe city of Cologne; length of residence in the suburb; previous placeof residence and moving frequency; rent costs; size of household andnumber of rooms; possession of durable economic goods; year ofconstruction of building; satisfaction with residence; moving plans;possible destination of moving; particular advantages of theresidential area in Poll; favorite part of town of Cologne; familialrelations in the part of town or in the entire city; frequency ofcontact with parents, grandparents, children, siblings and the rest ofthe relatives; distribution of circle of friends about the part of townand the other parts of the city; contacts with neighbors andcolleagues; location of place of work; frequency of change of place ofwork; occupational mobility; desire for remaining in the part of towngiven a change of occupation; shopping habits; frequency of tripsdowntown; leisure activities and place of these leisure activities;club membership; time extent of club activity; participation inactivities of the Poll Buergerverein; significance of thisorganization; judgement on the moving of schools; most influencialpersonalities in the suburb; most important integration factors in thepart of town; influence of the part of town on the entire city; anomy(scale); evaluation of despicability of selected crimes; most importantreasons for development of so-called Rocker groups; most effectivemeasures to reduce crime; perceived differences in the old and new partof town; identification of areas that belong together in the part oftown and assignment of different social groups to the parts of town;assignment of social groups to the homeless settlement; significance ofthe homeless problem and preferred measures to eliminate it; measuresto prevent homelessness; attitude to differential treatment of thehomeless and the rest of the population; recommendations on treatmentof the homeless; judgement on the proportion of homeless in the part oftown; personal contacts with the homeless; intensity of contacts; fearof contact and social distance to the homeless; preferred measures inview of the two homeless settlements in Poll; perceived differencesamong the homeless; typical characteristics with which one canrecognize the homeless; judgement on a media report about the homelessin Poll; judgement on the municipal facilities in the part of town;personal importance of the existence of such facilities; religiousness.Interviewer rating: residential building size and willingness ofrespondent to cooperate.

The Street Needs Assessment survey was conducted by City staff, community partner agencies and volunteers on April 17th, 2013. Just under two thousand individuals experiencing homelessness provided responses. Respondents were surveyed outdoors, in shelter locations, health and treatment facilities and correctional facilities. The results of the 2013 Street Needs Assessment were summarized in a staff report and a statistical results report, approved by Council in October 2013. The 2013 Street Needs Assessment was undertaken at Council’s request to better understand the evolving nature of homelessness in Toronto, and the most effective ways to target services in order to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness. The Street Needs Assessment includes a point-in-time estimate of Toronto's homeless population as well as a survey administered to almost two thousand homeless respondents in indoor and outdoor sites.

This dataset contains data of non-market housing projects - both the buildings owned by City of Vancouver, and the buildings provided by other agencies. Non-market housing is for low and moderate income singles and families, often subsidized through a variety of ways, including senior government support. This housing is managed through various operators, including the public, non-profit, co-op, and urban indigenous sectors. Non-market housing is located throughout Vancouver in the forms of social, supportive, and co-op housing. This dataset includes temporary modular housing, which are demountable structures, not permanently affixed to land and assembled within months. The inventory does not include the following types of housing:Special Needs Residential Facilities - includes community care facilities providing licensed care services, and group residences providing housing as required by law, rehabilitative programs, or temporary housingSingle Room Accommodation - privately-owned single room occupancy (SRO) hotels, rooming houses, and other housing with rooms less than 320 square feet, typically featuring units with a basic cooking setup and shared bathroomsShelters - provide temporary beds, meals, and services to the city's homeless population NoteUnit total (and breakdown) of projects could change over the course of development and are not captured real timeHousing projects with "proposed", "approved" and "under construction" status may not contain unit number breakdown by "Design"Housing projects with "proposed", "approved" and "under construction" status may not contain information on operator names or typeUnit total is the sum of clientele groups (families, seniors, and others) Data currencyThis dataset is updated weekly. Data accuracyData for this dataset is amalgamated from a number of sources. It is possible that some information may not be shown because of data synchronization issues. There may be some loss of quality from data entry errors.Non-housing market projects for which geographic coordinates are not available yet will not show up on the map or in the spatial formats. For a complete list, please consult the XLS or CSV formats. Websites for further informationSocial and market rental housingFind social and co-op housing in Vancouver