Estudio NAEH Sobre Deambulismo

8/7/2019 Estudio NAEH Sobre Deambulismo

1/48

A Research Reporton HomelessnessAn in-depth examination of homeless counts,

economic indicators, demographic drivers, andchanges at the state and national level.

M William SermonsPeter Witte

JANUARY 2011

STATE OFHOMELESSNESSin America


2/48

The National Alliance to End Homelessness is the leading national voice on the issue of homelessness.The Alliance analyzes policy and develops pragmatic, effective policy solutions. The Alliance workscollaboratively with the public, private, and nonpro t sectors to build state and local capacity, leadingto stronger programs and policies that help communities achieve their goal of ending homelessness.The Alliance provides data and research to policymakers and elected of cials in order to inform policy

debates and educate the public and opinion leaders nationwide.

The Homelessness Research Institute, the research and education arm of the National Alliance to EndHomelessness, works to end homelessness by building and disseminating knowledge that drives policy

change. The goals of the Institute are to build the intellectual capital around solutions to homelessness;to advance data and research to ensure that policymakers, practitioners, and the caring public havethe best information about trends in homelessness and emerging solutions; and to engage the media toensure intelligent reporting on homelessness.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to give special acknowledgment to Shambhavi Manglik, public policy apprenticeat the Homelessness Research Institute for her assistance with data acquisition and analysis and to Lisa

Stand, senior policy analyst at the Alliance, who provided careful and diligent editing for this report. Allerrors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.


3/48

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter One:

State of Homelessness in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter Two:The Economics of Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter Three:The Demographics of Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter Four:States Facing Multiple Risk Factorsfor Increasing Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

STATE OFHOMELESSNESS

in America


4/48

Since the release of Homelessness Counts: Changes in Homelessness from 2005 to 2007 , the Alliance haschronicled changes in the levels of homelessness in the nation and in individual states and communitiesto chart our progress toward the goal of ending homelessness. This comprehensive examination not onlyreveals national and state level homeless counts, but also delves into economic indicators and demographicdrivers taking an in-depth look at risk factors for homelessness. Built upon the most recent nationallyavailable data from the federal Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and HumanServices, Justice, and other public information sources, this report analyzes the effect the recession hashad on homelessness and how it has contributed to an increased risk of homelessness for many Americans.

Major FindingsThe State of Homelessness in America report consists of four major sections. Chapter 1 chronicles annualchanges in overall homelessness and homelessness among families and other subpopulations. Chapter 2demonstrates how economic risk factors, including unemployment, have increased during the recenteconomic recession. Chapter 3 identi es some speci c populations, including doubled-up people and youthaging out of foster care, that are at increased risk of homelessness and documents trends in the sizes of those populations. Chapter 4 identi es a series of states, including California, Florida, and Nevada, that facemultiple risk factors for worsening homelessness. Key ndings for each of those sections are presented here.

State of HomelessnessSince the Homelessness Counts: Changes in Homelessness from 2005 to 2007 report, the Alliance haschronicled changes in the levels of homelessness in the nation and in individual states and communities tochart our progress toward the goal of ending homelessness. Using the most recent available national dataon homelessness, the 2008 and 2009 point-in-time counts, this report chronicles the changes from 2008to 2009 in overall homelessness and in homelessness among subpopulations.

Key ndings of the report on homelessness:

The nations homeless population increased by approximately 20,000 people from 2008to 2009 (3 percent increase). There were also increased numbers of people experiencinghomelessness in each of the subpopulations examined in this report: families, individuals,chronic, unsheltered.

A majority 31 of 50 states and the District of Columbia - had increases in their homelesscounts. The largest increase was in Louisiana, where the homeless population doubled.

Among subpopulations, the largest percentage increase was in the number of familyhouseholds, which increased by over 3,200 households (4 percent increase). Also, the numberof persons in families increased by more than 6,000 people (3 percent increase). In Mississippi,

the number of people in homeless families increased by 260 percent. After population reductions from 2005 to 2008, the number of chronically homeless peoplein the country remained stagnant from 2008 to 2009, despite an 11 percent increase in thenumber of permanent supportive housing units.

While most people experiencing homelessness are sheltered, nearly 4 in 10 were living on thestreet, in a car, or in another place not intended for human habitation. In Wisconsin, twice asmany people experienced homelessness without shelter in 2009 as did in 2008.

It is widely agreed upon that there is a vast undercount of the number of young peopleexperiencing homelessness. Underscoring this is the fact that 35 percent of all communitiesreported that there were no homeless youth in their communities in 2009.

EXECUTIVESUMMARY


5/48

Economic IndicatorsIn recognition of the reality that homelessness is most often caused by job loss and other economic factors,this report explores economic indicators for homeless people and people at risk of homelessness. Theeconomic indicators examined in this report point to worsening conditions across the nation and all states.

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, andRealtyTrac, this report chronicles the changes in four economic indicators from 2008 to 2009.

Key ndings of the report on economic indicators:

Conditions worsened among all four economic indicators examined in this report: housingaffordability for poor people, unemployment, poor workers income, and foreclosure status.

From 2008 to 2009, the number of unemployed people in America increased by 60 percentfrom 8.9 to 14.3 million. Every state and the District of Columbia had an increase in the numberof unemployed people. The number of unemployed people in Wyoming doubled.

Nearly three-quarters of all U.S. households with incomes below the federal poverty line spendover 50 percent of monthly household income on rent. Over 80 percent of households belowthe federal poverty line in Florida, Nevada, and California spend more than 50 percent of income on rent. Forty states saw an increase in the number of poor households experiencingsevere housing cost burden from 2008 to 2009.

While real income among all U.S. workers decreased by 1 percent in 2009, poor workers incomedecreased even more, dropping by 2 percent to $9,151. Poor workers in Alaska, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Rhode Island saw their incomes decrease by more than 10 percent.

Foreclosure affected nearly half a million more households in 2009 than in 2008, a 21 percentincrease for a total of 2.8 million foreclosed units in 2009. The number of foreclosed units morethan doubled in Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, and West Virginia.

Demographic DriversWhile homelessness affects people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and geographies, there are groups of people at increased risk of homelessness. The demographic indicators examined in this report focus on fourpopulations at increased risk of homelessness: people living in doubled up situations, people discharged fromprison, young adults aged out of foster care, and uninsured people. Using data from the U.S. Census BureausAmerican Community Survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Department of Health and HumanServices, this report chronicles the changes from 2008 to 2009 in demographic drivers of homelessness.

Key ndings of the report on demographic drivers:

The doubled up population (people living with family or friends for economic reasons) increasedby 12 percent to more than 6 million people from 2008 to 2009. In Rhode Island the number

increased by 90 percent; in South Dakota the number more than doubled. In the course of a year, the estimated odds of experiencing homelessness for a doubled up

person are 1 in 10. In the course of a year, the estimated odds of experiencing homelessness for a released prisoner

are 1 in 11. In the course of a year, the estimated odds of experiencing homelessness for a young adult who

ages out of foster care are 1 in 6. While the national number of uninsured people remained relatively constant, 33 states saw an

increase in the number of uninsured people.


6/48

States with Multiple Risk FactorsOne of the unique features of The State of Homelessness in America is the simultaneous examination of homeless counts and associated economic and demographic indicators. This affords a unique opportunityto identify states facing multiple economic and demographic risk factors for worsening homelessness.

Key ndings of the report on states with multiple risk factors:

Half of all states have multiple risk factors for increased homelessness; that is, they have ratesworse than the national average on at least two of ve indicators (unemployment, foreclosure,doubled up, housing cost burden, lack of health insurance).

The presence of multiple economic and demographic risk factors is associated with higher ratesof homelessness. In particular, states with high rates of cost burden among poor householdsexhibit higher rates of homelessness. Ten of the fourteen states with rates of homelessnessgreater than the national rate also have levels of cost burden greater than the national average.

California, Florida, and Nevada states known to have been disproportionately impacted by therecent housing crisis have both high rates of homelessness and high levels of unemployment,foreclosure, housing cost burden, lack of insurance, and doubling up.

Moving ForwardThese ndings project a disquieting picture of what depressed wages, stagnant unemployment, unrelentinghousing cost burden, and the lagging pace of the economic recovery could bring about: increases inhomelessness and heightened risk of homelessness for more and more Americans.

As the new Congress and the Administration consider steps to revitalize the American economy with jobs,extension of bene ts, and access to health care, it would be prudent to take note of these increased riskfactors and incorporate homeless interventions into their recovery strategy.

Luckily, there are a number of strategies that can be administered effectively and ef ciently.

Federal support of local efforts: To date, over 270 communities have adapted and adopted the AlliancesTen Year Plan to End Homelessness . In July 2010, these communities found a federal partner; the U.S.Interagency Council on Homelessness released Opening Doors , a national, cooperative, interagencyapproach to end homelessness. Working together, communities with the assistance of federal agencies,services, and resources - can achieve the goal of ending homelessness in America.

Examine state institutions: Discharge from state institutions including foster care, incarceration, andhealth facilities contributes to the number of people experiencing homelessness, but with the properinterventions and transition support, this is a problem that can be remedied. Prevention efforts to curbhomelessness before it occurs are one critical way to reduce homelessness.

Strategic use of federal resources: This report shows that the need for homeless assistance programs is

both abundant and critical - but federal resources are increasingly scarce. Ongoing federal initiatives toprevent and end homelessness must be implemented strategically to maximize their impact and ef cacy.

The National Alliance to End HomelessnessAs the nations leading voice on the issue, the National Alliance to End Homelessness examineshomelessness from every vantage: analyzing trends, best practices, emerging research, and effectivesolutions. The Alliance investigates correlating issues, including housing, health care, employment,changing demographics, and economic conditions. Of late, this has meant examining the impact of therecession on homelessness and what the persisting economic conditions forecast for homelessness in theyears to come. The State of Homelessness in America , the rst in an annual series, investigates these issues.

EXECUTIVESUMMARY


7/48

Each January1, communities across the countryconduct comprehensive counts of their homelesspopulations. Known as the point-in-time count,this process consists of a mostly electronicadministrative bed count of the people sleepingin emergency shelters and in transitional housingunits on a given night. It also includes a streetcount, conducted by outreach workers andvolunteers, of people sleeping on the streets, incars, in abandoned properties, or in other placesnot meant for human habitation. This processresults in the most comprehensive annual portraitavailable of the population of people experiencinghomelessness in the United States.

The most recent available national data is fromthe January 2009 point-in-time count. The 2009count revealed an estimated 656,129 peopleexperiencing homelessness in the United States 2 on a given night. This translates to an incidence, orrate, of 21 homeless people per 10,000 people inthe general population.

Our analysis3 of the 2009 point-in-time data provides a more detailedportrait of the population of personsexperiencing homelessness in theUnited States. This portrait is presentedin Figure 1.1. The population is mostlyindividuals; almost two thirds (412,973of the 656,129) are individuals withpersons in families (e.g. parents andtheir children) making up the balance(243,156). The individuals include arelatively small number of chronically

homeless individuals (112,076); 27percent meet the de nition of chronic

homelessness. 4 The majority of those counted(403,308 of the 656,129) were living in shelters ortransitional housing units at the time of the countbut four in ten were found on the streets or in otherplaces not meant for human habitation.

The State of Homelessness in America and priorAlliance reports on the incidence of homelessnessuse community point-in-time counts as themeasure of homelessness because they are theonly source of data that capture both sheltered andunsheltered homelessness for every communityand state in the country.

The point-in-time data is not without limitations,as variations in methodologies across communitiesand within communities across years cancomplicate comparisons; however, they are morecomprehensive than other sources that either omitunsheltered populations or are not universallyavailable across communities.

1 Since the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will accept the prior years count in even years (e.g. 2006, 2008), somecommunities only conduct counts during odd years. The counts reported for 2009 were all conducted in 2009 and reported to HUD in Exhibit 1of the Notice of Funding Availability for Homeless Assistance Grants (NOFA) application, herein referred to as local application, Continuumapplication, or HUD application.

2 The number includes persons living in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

3 Please see Appendix in this report for additional information on our methodology and methodological limitations, data cleaning techniques, and data sources.

4 Here we report the number of individuals that meet HUDs earlier de nition where a chronically homeless person was de ned as anunaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been ei ther continuously homeless for a year or more or who has had atleast four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. The HEARTH Act, passed in 2009, changed the de nition of chronically homeless toinclude families with at least one adult member who meets the above criteria.

State of Homelessness in theUnited States in 2009

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000

Total

Individuals

Chronic

Family Households

Persons in Families

Sheltered

Unsheltered249,493252,821

386,831403,308

236,904243,156

76,40679,652

111,323112,076

399,420412,973

636,324656,129

2009

2008

FIGURE 1.1 People Experiencing Homelessness by Subpopulation, 2008 to 2009


8/48

Changes inHomelessness in theUnited States, 2008 to 2009The core objective of The State of Homelessnessin America is to determine whether the nationshomelessness problem has improved or worsenedfrom one year to the next. The nations currenteconomic crisis has lent particular importance to thechanges in homelessness from 2008 to 2009. Thisreport represents the Alliances rst comprehensiveinvestigation of homelessness changes that haveoccurred during the course of this recession.

Figure 1.1 presents counts by subpopulation for2008 and 2009 and provides some insight into howhomelessness in the nation changed between thosetwo years. The data indicate that approximately20,000 more people were homeless in 2009 thanin 2008, a 3 percent increase. Additionally, thecount increased in every one of the analyzedsubpopulations persons in families and familyhouseholds; individuals, both chronic and non-chronic; both sheltered and unsheltered people. Thelargest increases occurred among family households,non-chronic individuals, and users of shelter andtransitional housing these populations increased byapproximately 4 percent between 2008 and 2009.

In contrast to other subpopulations, chronichomelessness increased only slightly from 2008 to2009; that this subpopulation did not grow as theothers did between 2008 and 2009 is consistent withrecent trends where the proportion of chronicallyhomeless individuals among the homeless populationhas decreased. In 2005, when the rst national point-in-time count was conducted, chronically homeless

people and unsheltered people represented 23percent of the total homeless population and 39percent of homeless individuals. By 2008, these

gures had decreased to 18 percent of the homelesspopulation and 28 percent of homeless individuals.In continuation of the downward trend, in 2009 thechronically homeless population represented 17percent of the homeless population and 27 percentof homeless individuals.

One of the primary reasons for the relative successin the area of chronic homelessness is the changingcomposition of the homeless assistance system.Figure 1.2 illustrates the composition of the homelessassistance system in 2008 and 2009. It shows thatpermanent supportive housing, an interventionshown to effectively combat chronic homelessness,is now the most commonly used form of homelessassistance for people experiencing homeless. Whilepermanent supportive housing beds also representeda plurality of beds in 2008, this was not the caseas recently as 2007 when both emergency shelterbeds and transitional housing beds outnumberedpermanent supportive housing beds. (Note thatthe total number of temporary beds - transitionalhousing beds added to the number of emergencyshelter beds - is still greater than the number of permanent supportive housing beds.) The gurealso illustrates that permanent supportive housingcapacity increased 11 percent between 2008 and2009 while transitional housing and emergencyshelter capacity stayed constant.

CHAPTER1


9/48

6 For more on homelessness variation by geography, including a defned geographic classifcation spectrum (urban, mostly urban, urban-rural mix, mostly rural,and rural), see Henry, M. & Sermons, M W. 2010. Geography o Homelessness. Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness.

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

193,064

215,208

185,873

185,763

176,955

176,855

EmergencyShelter Beds

TransitionalHousing Beds

Permanent SupportiveHousing Beds

FIGURE 1.2 Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, and PermanentSupportive Housing Inventory, 2008 to 2009

2009

2008

State-level Changes inHomelessness, 2008 to 2009Homelessness in the United States varies widelyby geography. 6 This report continues the approachestablished in Homelessness Counts: Changes inHomelessness from 2005 to 2007 of presentingstate-level data to help illuminate this geographic

variation. The state-level data is useful for displayingwidely divergent trends among states overallhomeless population and subpopulations; where

the story for some states may be similar to thenational one, it is largely a different tale in otherstates.

It is important to note that comparisons across states

are limited by variations in methodology acrosscommunities and across count years.


10/48

7 Te most recently released report is: Department o Housing and Urban Development. 2010. Te 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. Wash-ington, DC. Homeless population data or this report was obtained in electronic ormat rom HUD through a Freedom o In ormation Act (FOIA) request.

8 For ease and simplifcation purposes, in the remainder o this chapter a re erence to the 52 states, each state or the states re ers to the 50 U.S. states, plus theDistrict o Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Total HomelessPopulation by StateThe primary measure of the state of homelessnessin the United States is the total homelesspopulation, as measured in the annual point-in-time counts conducted each January by over 450local Continuums of Care across the country. Thesecounts, organized by the local Continuums andconducted by outreach workers and volunteers, aresubmitted to the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) as a part of each Continuumsannual application for federal homeless assistancefunding. The sum of these counts is the totalnumber of individuals and persons in familiesexperiencing homelessness in shelters, transitional

housing programs, or on the streets or other placesnot meant for human habitation on a given night.

These data are published each year by HUD in its Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress .7

Table 1.1 and Map 1.1 show the change in thetotal homeless population from 2008 to 2009 foreach of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbiaand Puerto Rico. The nations total homelesspopulation increased from 636,324 persons in2008 to 656,129 in 2009, an increase of 19,805persons (3 percent). The data show that 31 of 52states8 reported increases in their total homelesspopulation from 2008 to 2009; the median statechange in homelessness was a 4 percent increase.State changes in total homeless population rangefrom a 32 percent decrease in Wyoming to a 111percent increase in Louisiana.

It is important to note that comparison across statesare limited by variations in methodology acrosscommunities and across count years.

MAP 1.1 Total Homeless Population by State

Homeless Population % Change 2008 to 2009-31.42% to -7.14%-7.13% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +14.80%+14.81% to +111.47%

2008 to 2009National Change

+3.11%

CHAPTER1


11/48

Chronic homelessness is de ned as homelessnessamong people who have disabilities, includingserious mental illness, chronic substance usedisorders, or chronic medical issues, and who arehomeless repeatedly or for long periods of time.Efforts to end homelessness at the national and

local levels rst focused on the chronic homelesspopulation. During the annual January point-in-time counts, homeless people are assessed forchronic homelessness, and the size of the chronichomeless population is submitted to HUD as partof the local Continuum application.

Table 1.2 and Map 1.2 show the change in thechronic population from 2008 and 2009 for each

state. The nations chronic homeless populationincreased from 111,323 persons in 2008 to 112,076in 2009, an increase of 753 persons (less than 1percent). The data show that 28 of 52 states reporteddecreases in their chronic homeless populationfrom 2008 to 2009; the median state change in

chronic homelessness was a 2 percent decrease.The state changes in chronic homelessness rangefrom a 55 percent decrease in Arkansas to an almostsix-fold increase in Louisiana.

It is important to note that comparisons acrossstates are limited by variations in methodologyacross communities and across count years.

Chronic Homelessness by State

MAP 1.2 Chronic Homeless Population by State

Chronically Homeless Individuals % Change 2008 to 2009-54.54% to -18.05%-18.04% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +14.48%+14.49% to +548.92%


+0.68%


12/48

Family Homeless

Population by StatePoor families face challenges of income and housingstability that can result in episodes of homelessness.During annual January point-in-time counts, personsin families are distinguished from individuals. Thecounts submitted by local Continuums to HUDdistinguish persons in families from individualsexperiencing homelessness.

Table 1.3 and Map 1.3 show the change in thefamily homeless population from 2008 and 2009 foreach state. The nations family homeless populationincreased from 236,904 persons in 2008 to 243,156

in 2009, an increase of 6,252 persons (3 percent).The data show that 29 of 52 states reported increasesin their family homeless population from 2008 to2009; the median change in family homelessnesswas a 3 percent increase. State changes in familyhomelessness range from a 56 percent decrease inWyoming to a 261 percent increase in Mississippi.

It is important to note that comparisons across statesare limited by variations in methodology acrosscommunities and across count years.

MAP 1.3 Family Homeless Population by State

Homeless Persons in Families % Change 2008 to 2009-55.58% to -5.46%-5.45% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +9.67%+9.68% to +261.36%


+2.64%

CHAPTER1


13/48

In conducting data analysis for The State of

Homelessness in America we identi ed anumber of communities where, for a variety of reasons, data adjustments were necessary toaccurately re ect the homeless situation. Theseadjustments are noted in the Technical Appendixof this report.

One such place is the Gulf Coast communityin Louisiana, speci cally New Orleans and

Jefferson Parish (LA-503 CoC). The Gulf Coast

region community had already been at workending homelessness when Hurricane Katrinastruck in late summer 2005. After the storm, thehousing and homelessness situation in the regionwas signi cantly impacted. Much of the housingstock was decimated and the total number of people experiencing homelessness increased by325 percent. In January 2005, the point-in-timecount directly preceding Katrina, 2,051 peoplewere homeless; in 2009, the last point-in-timecount reported, 8,725 people were homeless. Theincrease is due to a variety of reasons, includinga devastating loss of 82,000 rental housing units,an escalation in fair market rents (an increaseof 45 percent from 2005 to 2010), and a loss of healthcare institutions (including 5 hospitals andnearly 4,000 hospital and nursing beds).

In the years following the storm (2006 to 2008),locating and counting the number of peopleexperiencing homelessness proved dif cult.The homeless assistance community was upagainst new challenges in their ght to endhomelessness.

When homeless camps sprouted up in thearea, UNITY of Greater New Orleans took

action to help. In eight months time, UNITY

re-housed 452 people.

In December 2008, UNITY established theirAbandoned Buildings and Outreach Team. TheTeam conducts daytime searches of abandonedbuildings looking for signs of life, and thenconducts nighttime outreach and intake rescueoperations to assist people experiencinghomelessness. They perform this work in theestimated 63,000 abandoned commercial

and residential buildings in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish, where an estimated 3,000 to6,000 people live.

The Outreach Team is still working to help endhomelessness. Their 2010 report, Search andRescue Five Years Later: Saving People StillTrapped in Katrinas Ruins, proved helpful inexplaining the increase in the number of peopleexperiencing homelessness in the Gulf Coast.

Homelessness in the Gulf Coast


14/48

Unsheltered HomelessPopulation by StateDespite the reality that most people experiencinghomelessness are in shelters or transitional housingprograms, roughly 4 in 10 homeless people arefound to be unsheltered during annual counts.Because unsheltered homeless people are often

more vulnerable to illness, drug abuse, andviolence than their sheltered counterparts, theirrepresentation among the homeless populationis a vivid reminder that everyone should haveaccess to housing. The counts submitted by localContinuums to HUD distinguish those in shelterfrom those living on the streets or in other placesnot meant for human habitation.

Table 1.4 and Map 1.4 show the change in theunsheltered population from 2008 and 2009 for

each state. The nations unsheltered homelesspopulation increased from 249,493 persons in2008 to 252,821 in 2009, an increase of 3,328persons (1 percent). The data show that 34 of 52states reported decreases in their unsheltered

homeless population from 2008 to 2009; themedian change in unsheltered homelessnesswas a 9 percent decrease. The state changes inunsheltered homelessness range from a 64 percentdecrease in Kentucky to a 381 percent increase inLouisiana.

It is important to note that comparisons acrossstates are limited by variations in methodologyacross communities and across count years.

MAP 1.4 Unsheltered Homeless Population by State

Unsheltered Homeless % Change 2008 to 2009-63.95% to -19.20%-19.19% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +29.50%+29.51% to +381.12%


+1.33%

CHAPTER1


15/48

AKALARAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIAIDILINKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNC

NDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPAPR

RISCSDTNTXUTVAVTWAWIWVWY

1,9926,0802,852

14,721133,12915,2684,6056,2281,130

55,59920,3605,7823,3801,939

14,0556,9841,8925,999

12,50415,48211,6982,444

27,0677,7186,9592,7971,196

12,918

7733,7181,645

13,1693,475

14,47861,06712,7004,838

17,30915,0964,070

1,6074,473731

10,53236,7613,7958,8521,214

22,7826,5251,667515

1,6465,3873,255

12,488128,75514,7474,6276,044933

50,15819,0956,0613,3461,464

14,7247,3951,7388,1375,913

14,5069,2192,632

28,2487,6447,6871,9611,41712,411

6153,9852,019

13,8323,015

12,61061,12512,9123,846

20,65315,3783,012

1,1965,660579

9,70540,1903,4348,469954

21,9545,4492,016751

21.02%12.86%-12.38%17.88%3.40%3.53%-0.48%3.04%21.11%10.85%6.62%-4.60%1.02%

32.45%-4.54%-5.56%8.86%

-26.28%111.47%6.73%

26.89%-7.14%-4.18%0.97%-9.47%42.63%-15.60%4.09%

25.69%-6.70%

-18.52%-4.79%15.26%14.81%-0.09%-1.64%25.79%-16.19%-1.83%35.13%

34.36%-20.97%26.25%8.52%-8.53%10.51%4.52%

27.25%3.77%

19.75%-17.31%-31.42%

28.5212.919.87

22.3236.0230.3913.09

103.8612.7729.9920.7144.6411.2412.5410.8910.876.71

13.9127.8423.4820.5218.5427.1514.6611.629.47

12.2713.77

11.9520.6912.4215.1217.2954.7831.2511.0013.1245.2411.9810.26

15.269.819.00

16.7314.8313.6311.2319.5334.1911.549.169.46

TABLE 1.1 Total Homeless Population by State

STATE

2009HOMELESS

POPULATION

2008HOMELESS

POPULATION

2008 TO 2009CHANGE IN

PERCENTAGE

2009 HOMELESSPERSONS

PER 10,000


16/48




3231,189406

2,22933,9961,286824

1,923167

9,0623,771772306210

2,212765238671

4,8151,9372,062186

2,8141,449892522160

1,490

70495330934779

2,4184,2802,303654

2,8421,7982,195

220674109

2,6266,020700

1,621134

2,60971633779

4391,052893

3,09730,6581,082875

2,184248

8,5782,67177827746

2,557696177642742

2,3521,489132

2,7711,5371,226877138

1,827

51707437

1,269711

1,6295,0892,252561

3,3461,6222,917

245743104

3,3648,844702

1,678234

3,07368738767

-26.42%13.02%-54.54%-28.03%10.89%18.85%-5.83%-11.95%-32.66%5.64%

41.18%-0.77%10.47%

356.52%-13.49%9.91%

34.46%4.52%

548.92%-17.64%38.48%40.91%1.55%-5.73%

-27.24%-40.48%15.94%-18.45%

37.25%-29.99%-24.49%-26.40%9.56%

48.43%-15.90%2.26%

16.58%-15.06%10.85%-24.75%

-10.20%-9.29%4.81%

-21.94%-31.93%-0.28%-3.40%

-42.74%-15.10%4.22%

-12.92%17.91%

16.21%19.56%14.24%15.14%25.54%8.42%

17.89%30.88%14.78%16.30%18.52%13.35%9.05%

10.83%15.74%10.95%12.58%11.19%38.51%12.51%17.63%7.61%

10.40%18.77%12.82%18.66%13.38%11.53%

9.06%13.31%20.06%7.09%

22.42%16.70%7.01%

18.13%13.52%16.42%11.91%53.93%

13.69%15.07%14.91%24.93%16.38%18.45%18.31%11.04%11.45%10.97%20.22%15.34%

TABLE 1.2 Chronic Homeless Population by State

STATE2009

CHRONIC2008

CHRONIC


PERCENTAGE

2009CHRONIC POPULATION

PERCENT OF TOTALHOMELESSC

HAPTER1


17/48




7531,394671

4,76226,1447,8671,8322,294354

21,1675,9952,8411,725822

6,5802,833654

2,6972,4068,4255,0571,32011,1944,3253,136954444

3,759

2251,646754

7,2071,1321,709

36,5104,9261,6116,8667,712340

4681,279286

2,48414,1971,5533,786521

10,6963,364566175

5791,301630

4,06027,8408,4871,8541,836281

17,1995,3672,7351,737647

6,3682,458658

3,7932,8867,3794,4131,391

10,8844,2563,492264449

3,662

2401,741847

6,9841,1543,201

35,3545,0471,1729,1057,644344

4821,851311

2,46312,2401,4163,631327

9,7983,164581394

30.05%7.15%6.51%

17.29%-6.09%-7.31%-1.19%24.95%25.98%23.07%11.70%3.88%-0.69%27.05%3.33%

15.26%-0.61%

-28.90%-16.63%14.18%14.59%-5.10%2.85%1.62%

-10.19%261.36%-1.11%2.65%

-6.25%-5.46%

-10.98%3.19%-1.91%

-46.61%3.27%-2.40%37.46%-24.59%0.89%-1.16%

-2.90%-30.90%-8.04%0.85%

15.99%9.68%4.27%

59.33%9.17%6.32%-2.58%

-55.58%

TABLE 1.3 Family Homeless Population by State

STATE

2009PERSONS IN

FAMILIES

2008PERSONS IN

FAMILIES


PERCENTAGE




3272,1671,1226,355

82,3526,23750232147

33,73210,9412,514159462

2,2041,778196700

8,3861,0064,252

3815,769

9461,4901,576363

4,445

8639239

1,2981,3676,6863,6131,7711,5319,8671,2772,745

511,437

643,399

15,103255

1,568157

6,5451,06038964

1941,5441,2355,518

81,7907,87060737871

29,43410,2303,358259214

3,2441,472238

1,9421,7431,0693,165

4416,4671,3742,080755410

4,386

19758484

1,9721,2677,7474,6092,5351,043

10,7071,2992,202

542,574

414,04516,110

2561,574258

6,498515594132

68.56%40.35%-9.15%15.17%0.69%

-20.75%-17.30%-15.08%-33.80%14.60%6.95%

-25.13%-38.61%115.89%-32.06%20.79%-17.65%-63.95%381.12%-5.89%34.34%-13.64%-4.24%

-31.15%-28.37%108.74%-11.46%1.35%

-57.89%-15.70%-50.62%-34.18%7.89%

-13.70%-21.61%-30.14%46.79%-7.85%-1.69%24.66%

-5.56%-44.17%56.10%-15.97%-6.25%-0.39%-0.38%

-39.15%0.72%

105.83%-34.51%-51.52%

TABLE 1.4 Unsheltered Homeless Population by State

STATE2009

UNSHELTERED2008

UNSHELTERED


PERCENTAGE


18/48

The Economics

of HomelessnessDespite frequent characterization as a psychosocialproblem, the problem of homelessness is largelyeconomic. People who become homeless haveinsuf cient nancial resources to obtain ormaintain their housing. This is especially true of the large majority of the homeless population thatexperiences episodic, transitional, or temporaryperiods of homelessness.

One representation of the economic challengesthat people in poverty face in obtaining andmaintaining housing is the level of housing costburden. Housing is generally considered affordablewhen it accounts for 30 percent or less of monthlyhousehold income. U.S. renters, on average,spend just under 40 percent of their income onrent; households below the poverty line spend aconsiderably larger fraction of their income on rent.

Alliance analysis of data from the 2009 AmericanCommunity Survey reveals that 72 percent of households at or below the federal poverty line areseverely housing cost burdened; that is, they spendover 50 percent of their income on rent. Whenhousing accounts for such a signi cant percentageof a households resources, any unexpected

nancial crisis could jeopardize housing stability;in this way, households that are severely housingcost burdened are at increased risk of homelessness.And while this is a problem across the country, theextent varies by state. Table 2.1, which shows thestates with the highest and lowest levels of severehousing cost burden, reveals that Florida, Nevada,and California have rates of severe housing costburdens of over 80 percent. The table also showsthat even in the state with the lowest level of severehousing cost burden, South Dakota, almost 60

percent of households below thepoverty line are paying more than

half of their income on housing.

Consistent with the high levelsof housing cost burden amongpeople in poverty, one of the mostfrequently self-reported reasonsfor homelessness is the inabilityto afford housing. Another verycommon self-reported reason isthe lack or loss of a job. 1 Datafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS) reveals that the annual rateof unemployment in 2009 was

1 See National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2009. Foreclosure and Homelessness webpage. http://www.endhomelessness.org/section/data/interactivemaps/oreclosure. See especially survey results rom Indianapolis, San Francisco, and Dallas.

TABLE 2.1 States with highest and lowest levels of severe housing costburden among households below the poverty line, 2009

STATES WITH HIGHESTLEVELS OF SEVERE

HOUSING COST BURDEN

STATES WITH LOWESTLEVELS OF SEVERE

HOUSING COST BURDEN

Florida 83.5%

Nevada 81.5%

California 80.7%

Delaware 79.8%

Connecticut 79.7%

South Dakota 59.2%

West Virginia 64.1%

Kentucky 64.1%

Maine 64.6%

Montana 65.0%

CHAPTER2


19/48

9.3 percent, the highest rate on record since 1983and the third highest annual rate since 1948. 2 Table 2.2 shows the states with the highest andlowest unemployment rates for 2009. Michigansunemployment rate the nations highest - wasmore than three times that of the state with thelowest rate, North Dakota; the disparity is anindication of the variation across states.

In addition to lack or loss of employment, lowearnings among those who workare also a factor in the inabilityto afford housing. According toAlliance analysis of the 2009American Community Survey,workers in poor households whowork at least 27 weeks or moreout of the year earn only 20percent of the national averagefor all workers. At $9,151 peryear, a household supportedby a single worker earning theaverage poor worker incomewould need to nd housingat less than $230 per month,in order for that housing to beconsidered affordable. Fairmarket rents for a one-bedroomapartment exceed this in everycounty in the U.S. 3

And no contemporary economicreview of housing trends wouldbe complete without reference

to the current foreclosure crisis. While peopleexperiencing foreclosure are generally not likely toexperience homelessness, shelter providers reportthat some small fraction of their clients have beendisplaced due to foreclosure. Most are renters whohad lived in foreclosed rental properties but someare former owners. 4 Table 2.3 shows the stateswith the highest and lowest foreclosure rates andre ects the disproportionate impact of foreclosuresin Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada.

TABLE 2.2 States with highest and lowest unemployment rates, 2009

STATES WITH HIGHESTUNEMPLOYMENT

STATES WITH LOWESTUNEMPLOYMENT

Michigan 13.6%

Nevada 11.8%

South Carolina 11.7%

California 11.4%

Rhode Island 11.2%

North Dakota 4.3%

Nebraska 4.6%

South Dakota 4.8%

Iowa 6.0%

Montana 6.2%

2 See Bureau o Labor Statistics, Annual average unemployment rate, http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_trs.htm.

3 See Department o Housing and Urban Development, 2009. County Level Data File, revised, on Fair Market Rents webpage. http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ mr/ mr2009r/FY2009_4050_Rev_Final.xls.

4 See National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2009. Foreclosure to Homelessness: Te Forgotten Victims o the Subprime Crisis webpage. http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/2409.

TABLE 2.3 States with highest and lowest foreclosure rates, 2009

STATES WITH HIGHESTFORECLOSURE RATES

(1/EVERY X HOUSING UNIT)

STATES WITH LOWESTFORECLOSURE RATES

(1/EVERY X HOUSING UNIT)

Nevada 10

Arizona 16

Florida 17

California 21Utah 34

Vermont 2,178

North Dakota 796

West Virginia 597

South Dakota 467Nebraska 423


20/48

Changes in the Economicsof Homelessness in theUnited States, 2008 to 2009In the rst chapter, we documented the increasesin overall homelessness and in homelessnessamong important subpopulations (families, chronic,individuals, sheltered, unsheltered) from 2008 to2009. The recession, which began in December2007 and ended in June 2009, is one importantcontributor to the increases in homelessness during

that time. A review of the changes in the economicrisk factors identi ed in the rst section of this chapter poor households experiencing severe housing costburden, unemployed people, income of workingpoor people, and housing units in foreclosure willprovide useful insight into the impact of the recentrecession on homelessness.

Table 2.4 shows the nationalchanges in each of the fouraforementioned indicators andreveals that each indicator hasworsened since 2009, a re ectionof the broad impact of therecession on vulnerable peopleand families. It also underscoresthe reasons why homelessness,after decreasing considerablybetween 2005 and 2008, 4 increased from 2008 to 2009.

TABLE 2.4 National changes among economic indicators

MEASURE 2008

Poor households experiencingsevere housing cost burden

Unemployed persons

Average annual income of working poor people

Housing units in foreclosure

2009

5,398,379

8,924,000

$9,353

2,330,483

5,886,293

14,265,000

$9,151

2,824,674

2009

+ 9.0 %

+ 59.9 %

- 2.16 %

+ 21.2 %

State-level Changesin the Economics of

Homelessness, 2008 to 2009As with the counts of the homeless population,the national changes in economic indicators failto tell the complete story, as different states andcommunities have been differently impacted by therecession. While all states have seen an increase in

the number of unemployed people, the extent of thechanges varies by state. Further, some states haveseen improvement in each of the other economicindicators. The following sections illuminate thestate by state differences.

4 See chapter two o : Department o Housing and Urban Development. 2009. Te 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. Washington, DC.

CHAPTER2


21/48

Severe HousingCost Burden by StateThe measure used to quantify housing affordabilityis the number of households at or below the federalpoverty threshold who have monthly rents thatexceed 50 percent of their monthly householdincome. This measure makes use of the U.S. CensusBureaus 2008 and 2009 American CommunitySurvey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) les,which include information on annual householdincome, monthly rent, and household composition.Together, these variables are used to estimate thenumber of households whose size and incomequali es them as below the federal poverty line andwhose monthly rent is more than 50 percent of theirestimated monthly income.

Table 2.5 and Map 2.1 show the change in thenumber of poor households that are severely housingcost burdened from 2008 and 2009 for each of the50 states, plus the District of Columbia. The nationspoor, severely housing cost burdened householdsincreased from 5,398,379 in 2008 to 5,886,293 in2009, a 9 percent increase. The data show that 40of 51 states5 had increases in severely housing costburdened households from 2008 to 2009 and that themedian state change in cost burdened households isan increase of 9 percent. State changes range froman 11 percent decrease in Vermont to a 28 percentincrease in Wisconsin.

5 For ease and simplifcation purposes, in the remainder o this report a re erence to the 51 states, each state or the states re ers to the 50 U.S. states,plus the District o Columbia.

MAP 2.1 Changes in Severe Housing Cost Burden Among Poor Households by State

Housing Cost Burdened Poor Households % Change 2008 to 2009-10.97% to -3.07%-3.06% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +11.97%+11.98% to +27.88%


+9.04%


22/48

Unemployed People by StateThe measure used to quantify unemployment and

job loss is the number of workers in the labor forcewho are unemployed. For this, we use the Bureauof Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment de nition,which classi es people as unemployed if they donot have a job and are actively looking for work.While unemployment is most often reportedmonthly, BLS also provides annual unemploymentpopulation and rates for each state. The measureused in this report is taken directly from theBLSs Regional and State Unemployment 2009

Annual Averages , which reports on 2008 and 2009unemployed people and unemployment rates foreach of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.

Table 2.6 and Map 2.2 show the change in thenumber of unemployed people from 2008 to2009 for each of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. The national number of unemployedpeople increased from 8.9 million people in 2008to 14.3 million in 2009, an increase of 60 percent.The data show that all 51 states had increases in thenumber of unemployed people from 2008 to 2009and that the median state change in unemployedpeople is an increase of 58 percent. State changesrange from a 24 percent increase in Alaska to a 100

percent increase in Wyoming.

MAP 2.2 Change in Unemployed People by State

Unemployment % Change 2008 to 2009

0.00% to +58.14% +58.15% to +100.77%


+59.85%

CHAPTER2


23/48

MAP 2.3 Change in Average Income of Poor Workers by State

Working Poor Persons Income % Change 2008 to 2009+1.57% to +17.72+0.01% to +1.56%

-3.41% to 0.00%-13.84% to -3.42%


-2.18%

Average Income of WorkingPoor People by StateThe measure used to quantify nancial resourcesavailable to working poor people for housing andother needs is the average income earned by peoplein poor households. This measure makes use of theU.S. Census Bureaus 2008 and 2009 AmericanCommunity Survey Public Use Microdata Sample(PUMS) les, which include information onindividual income, number of hours worked, andhousehold poverty status. As an approximation of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) de nition of working poor people, this measure includes onlythose who have worked at least 27 weeks in thepast year. 6 Incomes for all workers who worked27 weeks or more are also calculated to identifya disproportionate impact on poor workers, if oneexists. All 2008 incomes are adjusted to 2009dollars, so comparisons are of real income.

Table 2.7 and Map 2.3 show the change in averageincome for poor workers from 2008 to 2009 foreach of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.The average real income for poor workers decreasedfrom $9,353 in 2008 to $9,151 in 2009, a decreaseof 2 percent. Average real income for all workersdecreased by 1 percent from $48,134 in 2008 to$47,614 in 2009, re ecting a disproportionateimpact of decreasing income on poor workers. Thedata show that 37 of 51 states had decreases in thereal income of poor workers from 2008 to 2009and that 35 of 51 states reported decreases in realwages for all workers. These decreases may be dueto stagnant or reduced hourly wages, decreasedhours, or both. State changes in the incomes of poor workers range from an 18 percent increase inHawaii to a 14 percent decrease in both the Districtof Columbia and Rhode Island.

6 National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2010. Economy Bytes: Working Poor People in the United States. Washington, DC.


24/48

MAP 2.4 Change in Housing Units in Foreclosure by State

Foreclosed Properties % Change 2008 to 2009-42.16% to -13.30%-13.29% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +31.80%+31.81% to +182.64%


+21.21%

Residential Housing Unitsin Foreclosure by StateThe nal measure in this chapter is the numberof housing units in foreclosure. While only asmall fraction of people whose housing units areforeclosed upon end up experiencing homelessness,the impact of the current foreclosure crisis on theentire housing market and overall economy hasbeen profound. The data for this measure comesfrom RealtyTrac7 which provide state-level dataon the number of residential housing units with areported foreclosure ling as well as foreclosurerates by state. 8

Table 2.8 and Map 2.4 show the change in thenumber of residential housing units in foreclosurefrom 2008 and 2009 for each of the 50 states, plusthe District of Columbia. The national numberof housing units in foreclosure increased from2,330,483 million in 2008 to 2,824,674 in 2009,an increase of 21 percent. The data show that 42 of 51 states had increases in the number of housingunits in foreclosure from 2008 to 2009 and that themedian state change in housing units in foreclosureis an increase of 20 percent. State changes rangefrom a 42 percent decrease in Nebraska to a 182percent increase in Hawaii.

7 Realty rac. 2010. Year-End 2009 Foreclosure Market Report. Available: http://www.realtytrac.com/content/ oreclosure-market-report/realtytrac-year-end-report-shows-record-28-million-us-properties-with- oreclosure-flings-in-2009-5489. And Realty rac. 2009. 2008 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report.Available: http://www.realtytrac.com/content/press-releases/ oreclosure-activity-increases-81-percent-in-2008-4551. Both reports obtained October 2010.

8 A reported oreclosure fling could be a de ault notice, scheduled oreclosure auction, or bank repossession. Properties with multiple flings are still only reported as a single unit in the data when summarizing the number o properties in oreclosure.

CHAPTER2


25/48

AKALAR

AZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIAIDIL

INKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPARISCSDTNTXUTVAVTWAWIWVWY

5,076102,89567,239

111,753711,23194,42463,95719,94811,015

353,431179,23219,12649,60226,617

246,399

133,94250,72390,92590,874

109,94073,77320,133

219,37579,390

121,92963,33814,741

203,49312,15432,47013,724

125,84133,15946,313

470,199267,84277,31781,811

219,83520,80489,37613,465

135,947475,96135,037113,198

8,707115,479119,08237,2816,770

4,45689,02559,192

93,497667,62786,30354,81719,60612,121

300,614175,26220,13955,69321,308

223,781

109,03547,94591,78583,975

107,88867,92020,639

193,87868,589

104,40058,84812,694

172,52112,41727,96312,401118,58733,10140,858

473,631241,68373,29384,406

205,88621,07176,52611,872

120,595428,00730,104

107,5459,780

109,66193,12035,3077,007

13.91%15.58%13.59%

19.53%6.53%9.41%

16.67%1.74%-9.12%17.57%2.27%-5.03%

-10.94%24.92%10.11%

22.84%5.79%-0.94%8.22%1.90%8.62%-2.45%13.15%15.75%16.79%7.63%

16.13%17.95%-2.12%16.12%10.67%6.12%0.18%

13.35%-0.72%10.82%5.49%-3.07%6.78%-1.27%16.79%13.42%12.73%11.20%16.39%5.26%

-10.97%5.31%

27.88%5.59%-3.38%

76.69%70.07%65.67%

78.59%80.70%79.66%79.74%72.01%79.78%83.49%71.83%75.37%72.01%72.60%76.10%

74.37%72.26%64.14%71.20%66.17%75.25%64.64%78.02%67.51%70.71%65.89%64.97%73.16%69.31%68.65%66.25%76.24%67.20%81.49%74.19%70.98%71.70%79.31%71.81%68.04%72.83%59.17%70.23%72.19%73.07%75.49%76.15%76.25%75.30%64.10%71.02%

TABLE 2.5 Severe Housing Cost Burden Among Poor Households by State

STATE

2009 SEVERELY COSTBURDENED POOR

HOUSEHOLDS


PERCENTAGE

2009 % OF ALL POORHOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE

SEVERELY COST BURDENED

2008 SEVERELY COSTBURDENED POOR

HOUSEHOLDS


26/48


NDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPARI

SCSDTNTXUTVAVTWAWIWVWY

28,751212,41899,559

284,4442,086,232208,486155,64734,01535,035

965,753457,19543,25499,78060,104

664,946320,202101,981217,537141,493292,792209,32356,669

665,020236,279282,860123,39630,862

483,858

15,87245,43746,942

418,29468,546

161,270813,386611,220113,579217,035519,44063,668

255,30721,270

317,026910,62189,706

277,56224,817

314,207261,78563,37418,710

23,059111,53571,736

183,0721,313,225132,364104,47421,98821,675

578,447302,38325,98673,07237,207

428,285188,72865,884

134,67392,053

182,825132,63337,504

413,218157,735185,63688,61423,311

283,049

11,50732,63428,902

245,80643,21890,444

514,326392,72264,083

125,873342,29043,487

147,28613,674

204,205575,79751,100

162,30416,046

186,284147,86934,4429,319

24.68%90.45%38.79%55.37%58.86%57.51%48.98%54.70%61.64%66.96%51.20%66.45%36.55%61.54%55.26%69.66%54.79%61.53%53.71%60.15%57.82%51.10%60.94%49.79%52.37%39.25%32.39%70.94%

37.93%39.23%62.42%70.17%58.61%78.31%58.15%55.64%77.24%72.42%51.75%46.41%

73.34%55.55%55.25%58.15%75.55%71.01%54.66%68.67%77.04%84.00%

100.77%

8.010.17.39.111.47.78.2

10.28.1

10.59.66.86.08.0

10.110.16.7

10.56.88.47.08.0

13.68.09.39.66.2

10.6

4.34.66.39.27.211.88.4

10.26.411.18.111.2

11.74.8

10.57.66.66.76.98.98.57.96.4

TABLE 2.6 Unemployed People by State

STATE

2009UNEMPLOYED

PEOPLE

2008UNEMPLOYED

PEOPLE


PERCENTAGE

2009UNEMPLOYMENT

RATECHAPTER2

3


27/48

AKALARAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIAIDIL

INKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMT

NCNDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPA


$6,845$8,829$9,277$9,709$9,697$8,591$8,635$7,862$9,944$9,406$9,671$8,586$8,491$8,801$9,338

$9,198$8,559$8,764$8,987$8,256$8,777$7,815$8,504$8,138$8,412$9,143$8,254

$8,944$7,846$8,575$8,075$9,888$9,955$9,907$9,406$8,828$9,225$8,429$8,639

$7,754$8,916$8,097$8,904

$10,151$8,591$8,435$6,886$8,634$8,146$8,463$9,236

$7,700$9,345$9,478

$10,124$9,951$8,964$9,122$9,107

$10,144$9,534$9,772$7,294$7,985$8,777$9,737

$9,189$8,646$8,919$9,698$8,462$8,714$8,796$8,736$8,012$8,854$9,674$8,253

$9,185$8,045$8,436$8,113$9,751

$10,025$9,902$9,649$8,676$9,341$9,062$8,393

$8,999$9,318$8,662$9,372

$10,436$8,541$9,061$6,341$8,814$8,164$8,829$8,286

-11.10%-5.52%-2.12%-4.10%-2.55%-4.16%-5.34%

-13.67%-1.98%-1.34%-1.04%17.72%6.34%0.28%-4.10%

0.09%-1.01%-1.74%-7.33%-2.44%0.72%

-11.15%-2.66%1.57%-4.99%-5.49%0.01%

-2.62%-2.47%1.64%-0.47%1.40%-0.70%0.05%-2.51%1.75%-1.24%-6.98%2.93%

-13.84%-4.32%-6.52%-5.00%-2.73%0.58%-6.91%8.60%-2.04%-0.22%-4.14%11.47%

$48,924$41,726$38,701$44,373$52,239$49,463$60,980$72,186$47,660$42,877$46,046$44,775$41,124$38,360$50,547

$41,516$43,478$39,754$43,705$56,536$57,439$39,898$43,921$47,630$42,278$38,929$37,078

$43,316$42,486$40,535$48,946$60,635$41,102$45,440$56,065$42,783$40,452$43,951$46,616

$47,549$40,689$37,253$41,733$46,383$42,128$53,267$42,496$49,880$42,673$39,637$42,202

TABLE 2.7 Average Real Income of Working Poor People by State

STATE

2009WORKING

POOR AVERAGEINCOME


PERCENTAGE

2009 TOTAL U.S.WORKING

POPULATIONAVERAGE INCOME

2008WORKING

POOR AVERAGEINCOME

2008 TOTAL U.S.WORKING

POPULATIONAVERAGE INCOME

$50,989$41,847$38,454$45,667$53,347$49,733$61,703$71,343$48,964$44,477$47,282$46,828$40,463$40,245$50,350

$42,553$43,207$40,928$43,536$56,766$56,686$38,554$45,224$49,071$42,954$39,814$40,139

$43,932$40,621$39,668$49,867$60,034$41,643$46,315$55,558$43,520$40,331$44,198$46,580

$47,207$41,898$38,410$42,746$46,997$42,241$53,599$42,874$50,598$42,778$38,625$45,285


PERCENTAGE

-4.05%-0.29%0.64%-2.83%-2.08%-0.54%-1.17%1.18%-2.66%-3.60%-2.61%-4.38%1.63%-4.68%0.39%

-2.44%0.63%-2.87%0.39%-0.40%1.33%3.49%-2.88%-2.94%-1.57%-2.22%-7.63%

-1.40%4.59%2.19%-1.85%1.00%-1.30%-1.89%0.91%-1.69%0.30%-0.56%0.08%

0.72%-2.89%-3.01%-2.37%-1.31%-0.27%-0.62%-0.88%-1.42%-0.25%2.62%-6.81%


28/48

AKALAR

AZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIAIDILINKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPARI


2,44219,89616,547

163,210632,57350,51419,6793,2353,034

516,711106,110

9,0025,681

17,161131,13241,4059,0569,68211,75036,11943,2483,178

118,30231,69728,5195,4021,373

28,384390

1,8457,210

63,2087,212

112,09750,369

101,61412,93734,12144,7325,065

25,163765

40,733100,04527,14052,127

14335,26835,2521,479717

1,9467,764

14,277

116,911523,62450,39621,9254,1822,516

385,30985,2543,1855,3858,512

99,48845,9376,2187,2447,129

44,34232,3382,851

106,05820,28231,2542,2931,246

33,819371

3,1906,636

62,5143,727

77,69350,032

113,57012,46518,00137,2106,583

14,995402

44,15396,15714,83649,011

13726,05819,695

685677

25.49%156.26%15.90%

39.60%20.81%0.23%

-10.24%-22.64%20.59%34.10%24.46%

182.64%5.50%

101.61%31.81%-9.87%45.64%33.66%64.82%-18.54%33.74%11.47%11.54%56.28%-8.75%

135.59%10.19%-16.07%5.12%

-42.16%8.65%1.11%

93.51%44.28%0.67%

-10.53%3.79%

89.55%20.21%-23.06%

67.81%90.30%-7.75%4.04%

82.93%6.36%4.38%

35.34%78.99%115.91%

5.91%

11610778

1621427388

128173756

234374067

1351971587554

219387393

2323171457964238255

12010

15850

12547

12289

8046767943463

2,1787873

597338

TABLE 2.8 Foreclosed Housing Units by State

STATE

2009 # OFFORECLOSED

UNITS

2008 # OFFORECLOSED

UNITS


PERCENTAGE

2009 RATE OFFORECLOSURE

(1/EVERY X HOUSING UNITS)CHAPTER2

5


29/48

The Demographicsof HomelessnessThe estimated odds of experiencing homelessnessin the course of a year are approximately 1 in 200for the general population though the odds vary byeconomic circumstance. The odds of experiencinghomelessness within a given year for people at orbelow the federal poverty line are estimated to be1 in 25. According to the 2009 Annual Homeless

Assessment Report to Congress , the demographicsubgroup at greatest risk of homelessness is veterans,with 1 in 10 odds of experiencing homelessness ina given year. This chapter focuses on a number of additional demographic subgroups with elevatedodds of experiencing homelessness.

One group at elevated risk of homelessness 1 isdoubled up people; that is, people who are livingwith friends or family due to economic need.Staying with friends or family is the most commonliving situation among adults in families prior toentering the shelter system. Using data on priorliving situations from the 2009 Annual Homeless

Assessment Report to Congress and estimates of thedoubled up population from the 2009 AmericanCommunity Survey, this report estimates that the

odds of experiencing homelessness for a doubledup person in the course of a year are 1 in 10.

Another group with elevated odds of experiencinghomelessness is people discharged from prison.Approximately 6 percent of individuals using thehomeless shelter system identify jail, prison, ordetention including the juvenile justice system- as their living situation prior to entering shelter.Combining data on prior living situations amongusers of the homeless shelter system with data fromthe Bureau of Justice Statistics on annual prison and

jail releases, this report estimates that the odds of experiencing homelessness for a released prisonerin the course of a year are 1 in 11.

A third group with elevated odds of homelessness isyoung adults who age out of foster care. Using datafrom the Department of Health and Human Serviceson emancipations from foster care along withdata on prior living situations among users of thehomeless shelter system, we estimate that the oddsof experiencing homelessness after emancipationfrom foster care in the course of a year are 1 in 6.

1 For the purposes o this document, homeless re ers to the defnition set by to the Department o Housing and Urban Development: an individual who lacksa fxed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; an individual whos primary nighttime residence is shelter, an institution that provides a temporary residence

or individuals intended to be institutionalized; or a public or private place not designed or, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation or humanbeings. http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/topics/homelessness/defnition

-2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00%

UninsuredPeople

Aged Out of Foster Care

DischargedFrom Prison

Doubled Up +11.76%

+1.58%

+0.90%

-0.43%

FIGURE 3.1 National Percent Change Among Demographic Indicators


30/48

Increases in the size of the aforementionedsubgroups doubled up people, people releasedfrom prison and jail, and young adults emancipatedfrom foster care would be expected to lead toincreases in the size of the homeless population.

The nations doubled up population increased from5,402,075 in 2008 to 6,037,256 in 2009, an increaseof 12 percent. The national number of prison and

jail releases increased from 669,194 in 2007 to679,738 in 2008, an increase of 2 percent. Lastly,the national number of foster care emancipationsremained relatively stable at approximately 29,500people in both 2008 and 2009.

The nal group whose population is tracked inthis chapter is uninsured people. Given the factthat the most common institutional living situationamong shelter users prior to entry is medicalfacilities and the fact that almost 40 percent of thehomeless population is estimated to have somesort of disability, we conclude that the uninsuredpopulation is at increased risk of homelessness.The size of this population has remained relativelystable, increasing by only 1 percent to 47,151,404from 2008 to 2009.

State-level Changes inthe Demographics of

Homelessness, 2008 to 2009As with the counts of the homeless population andthe economic measures described in earlier chaptersof this report, the national changes in demographicindicators fail to tell the complete story becausethere are considerable differences across states.While the vast majority of states saw increases in the

size of their doubled up population, for example,some states saw decreases; moreover, the size of theincreases ranged from small in some states to morethan double in others. The other measures exhibitedsimilar state by state variation. The following sectionsilluminate the state by state differences.

7

CHAPTER3

Since 2007, the Alliance has documented theoverrepresentation of homelessness among veterans inthe Vital Mission series. The reports have used estimatesof the veteran homeless population made available by the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) through its CommunityHomeless Assessment, Local Education and NetworkingGroup (CHALENG) process.

The most recent Vital Mission update, released on VeteransDay in 2009, estimated that there were 131,230 homelessveterans at a given time in 2008 and calculated a rate of homelessness among veterans that is more than double therate of homelessness in the general population. The updatealso documented the overrepresentation of homelessnessamong African American veterans.

Like data on homelessness for many subpopulations, data

on homeless veterans has varied widely across sources. Forexample, while the 2008 Continuum of Care point-in-timecount data submitted to the Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD) suggest that one in ten homelesspeople is a veteran, the 2008 CHALENG data suggest thatthe ratio is closer to one in ve. Recently, HUD and VA havesought to eliminate these inconsistencies through a processthat will result in a single estimate of the homeless veteranpopulation. We anticipate documenting the changes in theveteran homeless population using this new measure in thenext State of Homelessness in America report.

A New Baseline forHomeless Veterans


31/48

Doubled Up Populationby StateOne of the most common living situations priorto entering homelessness is living with friends orfamily due to economic need, known as doublingup. The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress reveals that 30 percent of all homelessshelter users and 43 percent of sheltered adults infamilies enter shelter from living with family andfriends. In Economy Bytes: Doubled Up in the United States, the Alliance de ned a doubled up person asa low-income individual or member of a family whois living with friends, extended family, or other non-relatives due to economic hardship. The doubledup measure makes use of the U.S. Census Bureaus2008 and 2009 American Community Survey Public

Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) les, which includeinformation on household relationships and income.

Table 3.1 and Map 3.1 show the change in thenumber of doubled up people from 2008 and2009 for each of the 50 states, plus the Districtof Columbia. The nations doubled up populationincreased from 5,402,075 in 2008 to 6,037,256 in2009, an increase of 635,181 people (12 percent).The data show that 45 of 51 states 2 had increasesin their doubled up population from 2008 to 2009and that the median state change in doubled uppeople is an increase of 15 percent. State changesrange from a 26 percent decrease in Iowa to a 120percent increase in South Dakota.

MAP 3.1 Change in Doubled Up Population by State

Doubled Up Persons % Change 2008 to 2009-26.02% to -5.17%-5.16% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +17.43%+17.44% to +120.24%


+11.76%

2 For ease and simplifcation purposes, in the remainder o this report a re erence to the 51 states, each state or the states re ers to the 50 U.S. states, plus the District o Columbia.


32/48

People Discharged fromPrison by StateThe second most common pre-shelter institutionalliving situation, after a medical facility, isincarceration. According to the 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, 6 percentof adult homeless shelter users came directly from

jail, prison, or juvenile detention. To measureany changes in the size of the population at riskof homelessness due to release from jail or prison,this report measures the changes in the number of people released from federal and state prison or

jail each year. This measure makes use of data fromthe Bureau of Justice Statistics National PrisonerStatistics Series,3 which includes information on

prison population and releases from federal andstate correctional facilities, including juveniledetention facilities.

Table 3.2 and Map 3.2 show the change in thenumber of people released from prison or jail from2007 and 2008 for each of the 50 states. The nationalnumber of releases increased from 669,194 in 2007to 679,738 in 2008, an increase of 10,544 people(2 percent). The data show that 28 of 50 states hadincreases in prisoner releases from 2007 to 2008. 4 State changes range from a 34 percent decrease inMaine to a 30 percent increase in Florida.

MAP 3.2 Change in People Discharged from Prison by State

People Discharged From Prison % Change 2007 to 2008-33.94% to -3.92%-3.91% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +5.36%+5.37% to +29.79%


+1.58%

3 See Bureau o Justice Statistics. 2009. Prisoners In 2008 webpage. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.c m?ty=pbdetail&iid=1763. And Bureau o Justice Statistics. 2008. PrisonersIn 2007 webpage. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.c m?ty=pbdetail&iid=903.4 2009 prison release data become available too late to be included in this version o the report so we analyzed the changes rom 2007 to 2008. An addendum will be released inlate January 2011.

9

CHAPTER3


33/48

Young adults who age out of foster care are at anelevated risk of homelessness. To measure changesin the size of this population, this report measures thechanges in the number of young adults emancipatedfrom state custody each year. Thismeasure makes use of data fromthe Department of Health andHuman Services, 5 which includesinformation on all youth exits fromfoster care.

Table 3.3 and Map 3.3 show thechange in the number of youngadults who aged out of foster carefrom 2008 and 2009 for each of the 51 states.

The national number of peoplewho aged out of foster caredecreased slightly from 29,577 in2008 to 29,449 in 2009, a decreaseof 128 (less than 1 percent). Thedata show that 19 of 51 states had

increases in the number of people who aged out of foster care from 2008 to 2009. State changes rangefrom a 58 percent decrease in West Virginia to a 23percent increase in Idaho.

Young Adults Aged Out of Foster Care by State

5 Emancipation data obtained rom the Department o Health and Human Services Administration or Children and Families. Te data is collected through the Adoption andFoster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS).

MAP 3.3 Change in Young Adults Aged Out of Foster Care by State

Youth Aged Out of Foster Care% Change 2008 to 2009

-57.71% to -8.73%-8.72% to 0.00%+0.01% to +4.64%+4.65% to +22.73%


-0.43%

Estimates for the national number of youthexperiencing homelessness vary widely. The number of unaccompanied youth reported in point-in-time countsis roughtly 12,000 and the 2009 Annual Homeless

Assessment Report to Congress estimates that 22,000unaccompanied youth under the age of 18 use the sheltersystem each year. The federal Runaway and HomelessYouth Street Outreach Program identi ed 845,372contacts each year. The Alliance has estimated that thereare 50,000 street-dependent homeless youth.

Despite these disparities, what is consistently recognizedis the dearth of information about this population andthe likely undercount of homeless youth during point-in-time counts. To illustrate this undercount, the Alliancehas analyzed 2008 and 2009 point-in-time count datato identify the number and percentage of communitiesthat reported zero unaccompanied homeless youth a highly unlikely reality. The adjacent table outlinesAlliance ndings.

Where are the Youth?Number of CoCs

that reported apoint-in-time count

Number of CoCsthat reported zero

unaccompanied homeless youth intheir point-in-time

count

Percentage of totalCoCs reporting zero

unaccompaniedhomeless youth in

their community

452

158

35%

2009 2008

448

150

34%

Source: Alliance analysisof point-in-time counts.


34/48

Uninsured Populationby StateAnother common pre-shelter living situation forhomeless shelter users is a health facility. Accordingto the 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report toCongress , 8 percent of adult homeless shelter userscame directly from a psychiatric facility, substanceabuse center, or hospital. To measure changes inthe size of the population at risk of homelessnessfor medical reasons, we measure the size of theuninsured population. This measure makes use of the U.S. Census Bureaus 2008 and 2009 AmericanCommunity Survey Public Use Microdata Sample(PUMS) les, which include information regardingthe existence and type of health insurance.

Table 3.4 and Map 3.4 show the change in thenumber of uninsured people from 2008 and 2009for each of the 51 states. The nations uninsuredpopulation increased from 46,728,637 in 2008 to47,151,404 in 2009, an increase of 422,767 people(1 percent). The data show that 33 of 51 stateshad increases in their uninsured population from2008 to 2009 and that the median state change inuninsured people is an increase of 2 percent. Statechanges range from a 9 percent decrease in theDistrict of Columbia to a 16 percent increase inSouth Dakota.

MAP 3.4 Change in Uninsured People by State

Uninsured Persons % Change 2007 to 2008-9.19% to -3.09%-3.08% to 0.00%

+0.01% to +1.86%+1.87% to +15.92%


+0.90%

CHAPTER3


35/48

AKALAR


INKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPARI


11,781133,28161,491

193,546841,46775,38039,93319,95018,494

405,566272,30522,58217,99823,503

241,093

110,92437,193104,803128,68272,56790,74814,336

185,03550,25194,870117,04024,672

189,4655,258

19,42511,687

103,08353,33053,570

343,727192,97875,03456,041

172,67112,509

117,58915,895

161,924681,89538,686

109,2606,977

91,81768,28239,9716,691

8,444107,25469,754

171,979775,25366,69436,30312,58315,219

351,909247,19520,46924,32916,706

209,702

95,68927,10793,434

130,09960,65569,88815,021

186,44938,43090,76998,18214,953

179,7515,099

15,5218,219

109,39747,35542,574

321,770164,34069,09552,921

159,4036,607

115,2107,217

130,296611,77526,783

105,2984,458

80,06249,55730,6014,297

39.52%24.27%-11.85%

12.54%8.54%

13.02%10.00%58.55%21.52%15.25%10.16%10.32%-26.02%40.69%14.97%

15.92%37.21%12.17%-1.09%19.64%29.85%-4.56%-0.76%30.76%4.52%

19.21%65.00%5.40%3.12%

25.15%42.19%-5.77%12.62%25.83%6.82%

17.43%8.60%5.90%8.32%

89.33%

2.06%120.24%24.27%11.46%44.44%3.76%

56.51%14.68%37.78%30.62%55.71%

TABLE 3.1 Doubled Up People by State

STATE

2009DOUBLED UP

PEOPLE

2008DOUBLED UP

PEOPLE


PERCENTAGE

AKALAR


INKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPARI


3,73211,4546,565

13,105136,73310,5736,380N/A

1,60436,98119,3261,7815,5353,870

35,708

18,2404,63015,33514,8662,639

10,314720

13,5017,919

18,7767,7552,10810,5111,0501,9571,303

13,8153,9955,240

27,34828,4467,8255,020

15,4641,081

9,4223,096

15,35171,7083,388

13,0942,239

15,0239,3503,107755

3,28211,0085,993

12,484135,70110,5506,034N/A

1,89128,49318,6481,5055,7013,831

35,630

17,0424,94613,69714,8752,223

10,0631,090

14,6047,958

19,2398,3612,1689,979977

1,9401,171

14,2964,4834,904

26,86329,1108,3875,042

16,189880

9,3913,250

15,48272,5883,386

12,4862,345

16,4488,8632,948769

13.71%4.05%9.54%

4.97%0.76%0.22%5.73%

N/A-15.18%29.79%3.64%

18.34%-2.91%1.02%0.22%

7.03%-6.39%11.96%-0.06%18.71%2.49%

-33.94%-7.55%-0.49%-2.41%-7.25%-2.77%5.33%7.47%0.88%11.27%-3.36%

-10.89%6.85%1.81%-2.28%-6.70%-0.44%-4.48%22.84%

0.33%-4.74%-0.85%-1.21%0.06%4.87%-4.52%-8.66%5.49%5.39%-1.82%

TABLE 3.2 Discharges From Prison by State

STATE

2008DISCHARGED

PEOPLE

2007DISCHARGED

PEOPLE


PERCENTAGE


36/48

AKALARAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIAIDILINKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMT



48281292700

5,470598456167103

1,475728138490108

1,232137476864293

1,076818158

1,118670718557

49298

33272

375106268

1,4951,453487255970

16435972

5871,522193

1,01588

3314907442

59234257588

5,146520460164104

1,43476315449388

1,218295489806280

1,100808179

1,0996877996

107

51288

32781411109267

1,6081,330505294

1,033

17635081

6781,505225

1,02910542950617546

-18.64%20.09%13.62%19.05%6.30%

15.00%-0.87%1.83%-0.96%2.86%-4.59%

-10.39%-0.61%22.73%1.15%

-53.56%-2.66%7.20%4.64%-2.18%1.24%

-11.73%1.73%-2.47%

-10.13%-11.46%-46.73%

-3.91%11.36%1.53%

-11.11%-8.76%-2.75%0.37%-7.03%9.25%-3.56%

-13.27%-6.10%

-6.82%2.57%

-11.11%-13.42%1.13%

-14.22%-1.36%

-16.19%-22.84%-3.16%

-57.71%-8.70%

TABLE 3.3 Youth Aged Out of FosterCare by State

STATE

2009 YOUTHS

AGED OUT

2008 YOUTHS

AGED OUT


PERCENTAGE

AKALARAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIAIDIL

INKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMT



141,236666,752493,474

1,179,0676,757,500786,013318,10942,22194,375

3,935,4701,919,622

87,833265,037264,231

1,732,332

914,246364,836638,810800,242285,298649,326134,040

1,256,423477,236813,234532,993184,254

1,501,99164,174

206,942138,198

1,105,169411,483580,676

2,283,1431,431,220700,533675,506

1,250,583

119,132772,499109,692914,470

5,989,388403,771920,45453,422

904,686536,854260,37582,833

140,932665,038517,457

1,244,3946,645,696850,497319,24246,49496,441

3,910,7401,884,557

85,795266,259272,568

1,675,495

898,823359,593609,820814,867283,200642,841141,001

1,177,893458,965782,090545,478182,601

1,487,69863,273

193,165144,125

1,094,715431,896569,454

2,340,5251,388,551712,388637,189

1,230,059

110,375770,66794,624

872,9425,926,837416,663915,55255,128

869,485523,594283,55277,403

0.22%0.26%-4.63%-5.25%1.68%-7.58%-0.35%-9.19%-2.14%0.63%1.86%2.38%-0.46%-3.06%3.39%

1.72%1.46%4.75%-1.79%0.74%1.01%-4.94%6.67%3.98%3.98%-2.29%0.91%

0.96%1.42%7.13%-4.11%0.95%-4.73%1.97%-2.45%3.07%-1.66%6.01%1.67%

7.93%0.24%15.92%4.76%1.06%-3.09%0.54%-3.09%4.05%2.53%-8.17%7.02%

TABLE 3.4 Uninsured People by State

STATE

2009 # OFUNINSURED

PEOPLE

2008 # OFUNINSURED

PEOPLE

2008 TO 2009CHANGE INPERCENT

20.22%14.16%17.08%17.88%18.28%15.64%9.04%7.04%

10.66%21.23%19.53%6.78%8.81%

17.09%13.42%

14.23%12.94%14.81%17.81%4.33%11.39%10.17%12.60%9.06%

13.58%18.06%18.90%

16.01%9.92%11.52%10.43%12.69%20.48%21.97%11.68%12.40%19.00%17.66%9.92%

11.31%16.94%13.50%14.52%24.17%14.50%11.68%8.59%

13.58%9.49%

14.31%15.22%

2009 PERCENTOF TOTAL

POPULATIONUNINSURED

3

CHAPTER3


37/48

States Facing MultipleRisk Factors for IncreasingHomelessnessThe rst three chapters of The State of Homelessnessin America demonstrate increases in homelessness(Chapter 1), worsening economic conditions facingthose experiencing homelessness or who are atrisk of homelessness (Chapter 2), and changesin the size of subpopulations with increasedlikelihood of experiencing homelessness (Chapter3). Those chapters also address the degree to whichindividual states re ect national trends and therange of state-level changes for each indicator. Thischapter identi es states with multiple economicand demographic risk factors for increasinghomelessness and examines the relationshipbetween the economic and demographic riskfactors and homelessness. 1

States with multiple risk factors for increasedhomelessness are identi ed in two ways. The

rst way is to identify states with economicand demographic indicator rates worse thanthe national average. For example, the nationalunemployment rate for 2009 was 9.3 percent. Allstates with unemployment rates above 9.3 percentare considered at risk of increased homelessnessdue to high rates of unemployment.

Tables 4.1 lists the rates of unemployment,foreclosure, cost burden, lack of insurance, anddoubling up for each of the states; 2 Table 4.2identi es the states with indicator rates exceedingthe national average. A review of the data shows thathalf of the states have rates worse than the nationalaverage for at least two of the ve indicators.Further, the data show that three states California,Florida, and Nevada have rates that exceed thenational average on all ve indicators; Arizona and

MAP 4.1 State Indicator Rates Higher than National Rates

Homeless Rate Per 10,000People (National Rate = 21)

0 to 1112 to 1415 to 2122 to 104

1 In this chapter, homelessness re ers to those in shelter or transitional housing units or on the street or in other places not meant or human habitation. It does notre er to those who are doubled up, who are considered at risk o homelessness, but not literally homeless.

State Indicator Rateshigher than National Rate# of Indicator Rates

0 to 2345

Indicator Rates:unemployment rate, oreclosure rate, cost burdenedhouseholds, uninsured rate, and rate o doubling up.


38/48

Georgia have rates that exceed the national averageon four out of ve indicators. See Map 4.1 to seethe number of risk factors for each state.

The other way of identifying states facing multiplerisk factors for increased homelessness is to look

at level changes from 2008 to 2009 for the eighteconomic and demographic indicators presented inChapters 2 and 3. Table 4.3 lists the percent changefor each of the eight indicators for each state between2008 and 2009; Table 4.4 identi es the states witha percent change that exceeds the national average.As an indication of the widespread impact of theeconomic recession, a review of the data shows thatall but ve states have fared worse than the nationas a whole for at least two indicators and that 15states have fared worse than the nation as a wholefor more than half of the eight indicators. And while

there are no states that have fared worse than thenation as a whole on all eight indicators, two states Alabama and Nevada have fared worse on allbut one of the indicators. Map 4.2 identi es, state-by-state, the number of indicators with a rate of change that exceeds the national average.

The other aim of this chapter is to determine thedegree to which economic and demographic ratesand rates of change are associated with greaterhomelessness. The national rate of homelessness for2009 is 21 homeless people per 10,000 people in

the general population and the national change inthe size of the homeless population in 3.1 percent.A review of Map 4.1 shows that all three of the stateswith higher than average rates in all ve indicators(unemployment, foreclosure, cost-burden, lackof insurance, and doubling up) California,

Florida, and Nevada have rates of homelessnessthat exceed the national rate. These states alsoexperienced percent increases in homelessnessfrom 2008 to 2009 that were greater than thenational change (see Map 4.2). Map 4.1 also showsthat in addition to the states that have higher thanaverage rates on all ve indicators, there are alsotwo states Arizona and Georgia - with higher thanaverage rates on four of ve of the indicators. Asfurther evidence of the effect of multiple risk factorson homelessness, the maps show that Arizona hasan above-average homelessness rate and a percent

increase in homelessness from 2008 to 2009 thatexceeds the national change, and Georgia had apercent increase in homelessness from 2008 to2009 that exceeds the national change.

Finally, one economic indicator with a particularlystrong relationship to homelessness is severehousing cost burden. As an indication of thisrelationship, 10 of the 14 states (71 percent) withrates of homelessness above the national averagehave rates of severe housing cost burden that arealso above the national average in 2009.

CHAPTER4

2 Only those metrics expressed as percentages or rates are included in this analysis.

MAP 4.2 State Percent Change Higher Than National Percent Change

State % Change Higherthan National %

DecreaseIncrease is less thanor equal to nationalIncrease higherthan national

State Indicator Rateshigher than National Rate

0 to 23 to 45 to 67 to 8

Indicator Rates:unemployment, working poor income, oreclosures, cost burdened house-

holds, prisoner discharges, aged out o oster care, uninsured, and doubled up.

Estudio NAEH Sobre Deambulismo

Documents

Transcript of Estudio NAEH Sobre Deambulismo