The Demographics of Homelessness - Growth Patterns

People living below the poverty threshold decreased between 1984 and 1989 from 33.7 to 31.5 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This population then increased to 39.3 million by 1993, declining after that year to 31.6 million people in 2000 during the boom of the 1990s, and rising again to 35.9 million in 2003. (See Table 2.2.)

Whether using a low or high estimate of the number of homeless people, the number of homeless increased sharply between 1984 and 1987, at the same time that the poverty rate was decreasing. The number of homeless people continued to increase gradually until 1996, even as the poverty rate declined again in the 1990s (see Martha Burt, et al., Evaluation of Continuums of Care for Homeless People).

No strong correlation between poverty and homelessness can be seen in this data; however, there is a definite relationship between homelessness and poverty. Most likely, the number of homeless people were underestimated in the early years.

Homeless counts have been based on surveys centered on facilities that provide services to the homeless (such as shelters and soup kitchens). These are permanent sites where some contact with the homeless is possible. The number of such facilities has increased substantially since the passage of the McKinney Act. Shelter and housing for the homeless increased from an estimated 275,000 beds in 1988 to 607,000 beds in 1996; big city food service programs increased from 97,000 meals to 380,100 meals between 1987 and 1996 (America's Homeless II: Populations and Services, Washington, DC: Urban Institute, February 2000). With an ever-larger base of support facilities, the ability of researchers to reach more and more precise estimates of populations served has improved.

Trend data on the growth or decline of homelessness, comparable in precision to data collected by the Census Bureau on poverty levels, are still not available. Other but more limited data support the relationship between poverty and homelessness. Data collected by the Census Bureau on the population in emergency and transitional shelters show TABLE 2.2
Number of people in poverty, 1984-2003
SOURCE: Adapted from "Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2003," in Historical Poverty Tables, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003, http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html (accessed February 10, 2005)

				People in families
	All people			All families
		Below poverty level			Below poverty level
Year	Total	Number	Percent	Total	Number	Percent
All races
2003	287,699	35,861	12.5	238,903	25,684	10.8
2002	285,317	34,570	12.1	236,921	24,534	10.4
2001	281,475	32,907	11.7	233,911	23,215	9.9
2000	278,944	31,581	11.3	231,909	22,347	9.6
1999	276,208	32,791	11.9	230,789	23,830	10.3
1998	271,059	34,476	12.7	227,229	25,370	11.2
1997	268,480	35,574	13.3	225,369	26,217	11.6
1996	266,218	36,529	13.7	223,955	27,376	12.2
1995	263,733	36,425	13.8	222,792	27,501	12.3
1994	261,616	38,059	14.5	221,430	28,985	13.1
1993	259,278	39,265	15.1	219,489	29,927	13.6
1992	256,549	38,014	14.8	217,936	28,961	13.3
1991	251,192	35,708	14.2	212,723	27,143	12.8
1990	248,644	33,585	13.5	210,967	25,232	12.0
1989	245,992	31,528	12.8	209,515	24,066	11.5
1988	243,530	31,745	13.0	208,056	24,048	11.6
1987	240,982	32,221	13.4	206,877	24,725	12.0
1986	238,554	32,370	13.6	205,459	24,754	12.0
1985	236,594	33,064	14.0	203,963	25,729	12.6
1984	233,816	33,700	14.4	202,288	26,458	13.1

a decline in that population from 178,638 in the 1990 census to a total of 170,706 in the 2000 census. In that period the economy was exhibiting strong growth.

Table 2.3 shows these data together with regional breakdowns of the homeless population. In 2000, 30.7% of the sheltered population were found in the Northeast, a region with 19% of the total U.S. population. The West also had a disproportionate share of homeless people in shelters; 27.8% of the sheltered were found in the region, yet it had only 22.5% of the total population. The Midwest and the South had smaller shares of the sheltered than of their total populations, which might suggest that a greater proportion of people on the coasts were homeless than people in the middle of the country, or it may suggest that a greater proportion of homeless people on the coasts were sheltered.

According to the 2000 census, New York state had 31,856 persons in emergency and transitional shelters. Data for New York City alone, from the Coalition for the Homeless, showed a month-by-month pattern of increasing homelessness during a period of worsening economic conditions. In January 2002, 31,064 people were sheltered; a year later, the number had risen to 38,463. By January 2005 those numbers had dropped somewhat, to 36,599. Over 15,000 of these people were children. While the problem of homelessness had improved somewhat in the previous two years, the number of people housed in shelters for the homeless was still TABLE 2.3
Population in emergency and transitional shelters, 1990 and 2000
SOURCE: Annetta C. Smith and Denise I. Smith, "Table 1. Population in Emergency and Transitional Shelters for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000," in Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population: 2000, U.S. Census Bureau, October 2001, http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/censr01-2.pdf (accessed February 11, 2005)

	Population in shelters				Total 2000 U.S. population
	1990		2000
Area	Number	Percent	Number	Percent		Percent
United States	178,638	100.0	170,706	100.0	100.0
Region
Northeast	60,077	33.6	52,369	30.7	19.0
Midwest	27,245	15.3	28,438	16.7	22.9
South	42,407	23.7	42,471	24.9	35.6
West	48,909	27.4	47,428	27.8	22.5

extraordinarily high compared with the previous twenty years.

Needs Profiled by Mayors

In Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities, A 27-City Survey, December 2004, the U.S. Conference of Mayors presented sixteen years of survey data profiling needs in urban areas. (See Table 2.4.)

Requests for emergency shelter increased in the cities surveyed in 2004 by an average of 6%, with 70% of the TABLE 2.4
Hunger and homelessness in large urban areas, 1989-2004
SOURCE: "Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: A Sixteen-Year Comparison of Data," in Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: A 27-City Survey, December 2004, U.S. Conference of Mayors-Sodexho USA, December 2004, http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/hungersurvey/2004/onlinereport/HungerAndHomelessnessReport2004.pdf (accessed February 2, 2005)

Indicator	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Hunger
Increase in demand for emergency food	19%	22%	26%	18%	13%	12%	9%	11%	16%	14%	18%	17%	23%	19%	17%	14%
Cities in which demand for food increased	96%	90%	93%	96%	83%	83%	72%	83%	86%	78%	85%	83%	93%	100%	88%	96%
Increase in demand by families for food assistance	14%	20%	26%	14%	13%	14%	10%	10%	13%	14%	15%	16%	19%	17%	18%	13%
Portion of those requesting food assistance who are families with children	61%	75%	68%	68%	67%	64%	63%	62%	58%	61%	58%	62%	54%	48%	59%	56%
Demand for emergency food unmet	17%	14%	17%	21%	16%	15%	18%	18%	19%	21%	21%	13%	14%	16%	14%	20%
Cities in which food assistance facilities must turn people away	73%	86%	79%	68%	68%	73%	59%	50%	71%	47%	54%	46%	33%	32%	56%	48%
Cities which expect demand for emergency food to increase next year	89%	100%	100%	89%	100%	81%	96%	96%	92%	96%	84%	71%	100%	100%	87%	88%
Homelessness
Increase in demand for emergency shelter	25%	24%	13%	14%	10%	13%	11%	5%	3%	11%	12%	15%	13%	19%	13%	6%
Cities in which demand increased	89%	80%	89%	88%	81%	80%	63%	71%	59%	72%	69%	76%	81%	88%	80%	70%
Demand for emergency shelter unmet	22%	19%	15%	23%	25%	21%	19%	20%	27%	26%	25%	23%	37%	30%	30%	23%
Cities in which shelters must turn people away	59%	70%	74%	75%	77%	72%	82%	81%	88%	67%	73%	56%	44%	56%	84%	81%
Cities which expect demand for shelter to increase next year	93%	97%	100%	93%	88%	71%	100%	100%	100%	93%	92%	72%	100%	100%	88%	88%
Composition of homeless population
Single men	46%	51%	50%	55%	43%	48%	46%	45%	47%	45%	43%	44%	40%	41%	41%	41%
Families with children	36%	34%	35%	32%	34%	39%	36%	38%	36%	38%	36%	36%	40%	41%	40%	40%
Single women	14%	12%	12%	11%	11%	11%	14%	14%	14%	14%	13%	13%	14%	13%	14%	14%
Unaccompanied youth	4%	3%	3%	2%	4%	3%	4%	3%	4%	3%	4%	7%	4%	5%	5%	5%
Children	25%	23%	24%	22%	30%	26%	25%	27%	25%	25%	na	na	na	na	na	na
Severely mentally ill	25%	28%	29%	28%	27%	26%	23%	24%	27%	24%	19%	22%	22%	23%	23%	23%
Substance abusers	44%	38%	40%	41%	48%	43%	46%	43%	43%	38%	31%	37%	34%	32%	30%	30%
Employed	24%	24%	18%	17%	18%	19%	20%	18%	17%	22%	21%	26%	20%	22%	17%	17%
Veterans	26%	26%	23%	18%	21%	23%	23%	19%	22%	22%	14%	15%	11%	10%	10%	10%
na = Not available

cities reporting an increase. The report also stated that the demand for shelter by homeless families grew by slightly more than the 7% expansion of the overall demand. Although demand for shelter continued to be on the rise, it increased at a slower rate than it had since 1997.

An average of 23% of the requests for emergency shelter by all homeless people went unmet in 2004, a decrease from the previous year. More than four out of five cities had to turn people away from shelters at some point during the year. People remained homeless an average of eight months in the survey cities. Almost half (46%) of the city mayors said that the length of time people stayed homeless increased during 2004. Officials in 88% of the cities surveyed expected that requests for emergency shelter by homeless individuals and families would increase in 2005.

Mayors view a lack of affordable housing as the leading cause of homelessness, as cited by twenty-four of twenty-seven cities in the Conference of Mayors survey. In general they see insufficient housing options for low-income people as a root cause of homelessness. In the surveyed cities, applicants waited, on average, twenty months for public housing, and 59% of the surveyed cities had stopped accepting applications for at least one assisted housing program. High housing costs also contribute to the homelessness problem. The city officials estimated that low-income households spent an average of 45% of their income on housing.

Philip Mangano, Executive Director of the Interagency Council on Homelessness, in a keynote address on May 20, 2003, at the Policy Academy in Chicago, blamed the lack of affordable housing on what he called "affluenza." He suggested that the affluenza of the mid-1980s and 1990s caused the destruction of older, affordable housing units and their replacement with "artificial housing and neighborhoods implanted like pacemakers."

The National League of Cities

In 2004 the National League of Cities surveyed a random sample of the nation's municipal elected officials regarding issues and problems they faced in governing American cities. (See Table 2.5.) When asked to indicate whether various conditions had improved or worsened in their cities in the previous year, 20% of TABLE 2.5
Change in local conditions over past year and assessment of seriousness of problems, 2004
SOURCE: Christiana Brennan and Christopher Hoene, "Specific Local Conditions," in The State of America's Cities 2004: The Annual Opinion Survey, National League of Cities, 2004, http://www.nlc.org/content/Files/RMPstateAmerCitiesrpt04.pdf (accessed February 11, 2005)

	a) Change in condition since last year			b) Current status of condition
	Improved	Worsened	No change	Major problem	Moderate problem	Minor/no problem
A. Violent crime	30%	12%	54%	7%	33%	51%
B. Unemployment	18	46	31	17	44	29
C. Impacts of unfunded mandates/preemption	1	63	30	32	44	15
D. City fiscal condition	21	43	31	21	39	30
E. Cable TV rates/broadband availability	20	38	37	10	32	58
F. Family stability	7	19	68	8	35	47
G. Race/ethnic relations	20	9	67	4	32	55
H. Vitality of neighborhoods	40	10	47	7	35	49
I. Police/community relations	44	7	44	4	22	65
J. Overall economic conditions	26	39	31	19	43	28
K. Poverty	6	28	61	13	37	40
L. Volunteerism/community services	36	10	48	3	23	64
M. Availability of quality affordable housing	24	24	46	19	39	33
N. Quality of public education	30	22	44	20	27	43
O. Homelessness	5	20	70	8	25	56
P. City relationships w/community groups	48	7	41	3	19	70
Q. Youth violence and crime	11	21	62	9	37	45
R. Regional/area-wide problem solving	36	17	41	12	40	38
S. Infrastructure	38	25	32	17	44	28
T. Traffic congestion	10	50	35	26	39	26
U. Local environmental quality	20	10	64	5	34	51
V. Federal relations with your city	19	14	61	7	29	54
W. State relations with your city	23	26	46	19	31	41
X. Public school relations with your city	33	10	52	6	23	61
Y. Drugs/alcohol abuse	5	28	60	18	42	30
Z. Vitality of downtown/main street	48	16	30	15	41	34
AA. Availability of child care	15	10	67	8	27	53
BB. Recreation	44	9	42	6	22	62
CC. Civility in public life	19	15	5	95	22	63
DD. Family-friendliness of city	38	4	53	3	13	75
EE. Overall sense of "community"	42	7	46	3	26	62
FF. Efficiency of municipal service delivery	41	8	47	3	21	66
GG. Public transportation/transit service	21	18	55	15	32	43
HH. Cost and availability of health services	8	58	28	38	32	21
II. Homeland Security/Emergency Preparedness	41	9	44	11	36	43
JJ. Availability/Quality of After-school programs	21	13	58	10	33	46

the officials reported that homelessness had worsened in their cities, while only 5% said homelessness had improved. Eight percent believed homelessness was a major problem in their cities; a quarter believed it was a moderate problem.

A quarter of city officials surveyed stated that the availability of quality affordable housing had decreased in the past year; another quarter believed the availability of housing had increased. Almost one in five thought the lack of affordable housing was a major problem in their cities, and another 39% believed it was a moderate problem. Officials also believed other conditions affecting homelessness had worsened; 46% believed unemployment had worsened, 39% believed overall economic conditions had worsened, and 28% believed poverty had worsened during the previous year. When officials were asked to list the top three "most deteriorated" conditions in their cities (see Table 2.6), homelessness was not even in the top ten, as it had been in previous years, but "availability of quality affordable housing" ranked seventh at 13% percent.