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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

Due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care to opt out of the unsheltered Point In Time (PIT) Homeless Count for 2021. Every January, volunteers and outreach teams from local communities collaborate to survey and count the number of homeless. persons in their respective locations. With the information provided by the PIT Count, the Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care and local communities can determine how best to address homelessness. For more information see https://www.azmag.gov/Programs/Homelessness/Point-In-Time-Homeless-Count">https://www.azmag.gov/Programs/Homelessness/Point-In-Time-Homeless-Count.

NOTE: The HUD definition of chronic homelessness is: (1) a person who lives in a place not meant for human habitation, Safe Haven, or Emergency Shelter, (2) has a disability, and (3) has been homeless continuously for one year OR four or more times homeless in the last three years, where the combined length of time homeless is at least 12 months.

**Mesa 2025 Data: 6 interactions documented in cities outside of Mesa. Geolocation confirmed interactions occurred in Mesa, versus documented city. Dataset manually updated to reflect correct interaction location and correct PIT counts reflected in https://maricopacoc.org/data/point-in-time-count/">Maricopa Regional Continuum of Care .

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

BackgroundGlobal evidence on psychosis is dominated by studies conducted in Western, high-income countries. The objectives of the Study of Context Of Psychoses to improve outcomes in Ethiopia (SCOPE) are (1) to generate rigorous evidence of psychosis experience, epidemiology and impacts in Ethiopia that will illuminate aetiological understanding and (2) inform development and testing of interventions for earlier identification and improved first contact care that are scalable, inclusive of difficult-to-reach populations and optimise recovery.MethodsThe setting is sub-cities of Addis Ababa and rural districts in south-central Ethiopia covering 1.1 million people and including rural, urban and homeless populations. SCOPE comprises (1) formative work to understand care pathways and community resources (resource mapping); examine family context and communication (ethnography); develop valid measures of family communication and personal recovery; and establish platforms for community engagement and involvement of people with lived experience; (2a) a population-based incidence study, (2b) a case-control study and (2c) a cohort study with 12 months follow-up involving 440 people with psychosis (390 rural/Addis Ababa; 50 who are homeless), 390 relatives and 390 controls. We will test hypotheses about incidence rates in rural vs. urban populations and men vs. women; potential aetiological role of khat (a commonly chewed plant with amphetamine-like properties) and traumatic exposures in psychosis; determine profiles of needs at first contact and predictors of outcome; (3) participatory workshops to develop programme theory and inform co-development of interventions, and (4) evaluation of the impact of early identification strategies on engagement with care (interrupted time series study). Findings will inform development of (5) a protocol for (5a) a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of interventions for people with recent-onset psychosis in rural settings and (5b) two uncontrolled pilot studies to test acceptability, feasibility of co-developed interventions in urban and homeless populations.

Baseline characteristics of study population and diagnosis groups.