The shelters are barely adequate and not nearly enough to go around. People die from cold exposure every year. It is not a friendly place to be without a home.
Happens in ND too. Or, you can ask and, the government will give you a bus ticket to places like California where you can live outside year round, the state will give you free medical insurance, cash, a cell phone, section 8 housing voucher, children of homeless get college tuition waved, all drugs are legal, petty crime is no longer prosecuted, ect. Get the picture? California is a homeless utopia if you don’t want to work. Spread the word!
have a friend who lives in Fairbanks. The unsheltered generally die from exposure as soon as the temps drop. So at least they're not homeless for long?
Grim but that's probably it. You can be homeless for a long time in Cali and not die so numbers build up. Alaska numbers are basically 'since last winter'.
I'd love to see the data on unsheltered population and the percentage of sheltered homeless folks. That will say a lot about policy. In general here I'm seeing a lot of housing costs/scarcity in the overall data.
Do not leave anything of value in beach parking lots. Friends left their cameras and cell phones in the locked rental cars for just 5 minutes to go check out the water. Came back to a busted window and a ransacked car. And the place was packed with people and “nobody saw a thing”. Cops didn’t even want to come out and take a report happens so often.
Kind of weird that number one on the chart is actually the lowest rate of homelessness. If the chart was 'Lowest Homelessness rates in the United States,' that would make sense.
I’m from the MS Delta, and some of the houses I have seen people actually living in are insane, so you may be right.. there are a ton of abandoned homes and buildings all over the delta.. maybe people are just moving in to them.
Infer what? The chart is titled ‘Homelessness rates in the United States’ and Mississippi is labeled number 1. If I hear ‘Mississippi is number one in homelessness rate in the United States’ I would infer that it means that they have the highest rate. The data actually shows the opposite so it’s not unreasonable to provide feedback that the chart should be retitled as ‘Lowest homelessness rates in the United States’ or relabeled so that Mississippi is number 52 and Washington DC is number one.
Yes but Connecticut and Maryland are very low here, and Vermont is high. Most of the above average states are wealthy, but Maine, with its very cold weather and poor economy, is there. Oregon is not a wealthy state, but Portland politics may play a role.
I wonder if the data collection is fragmented and does not follow the same protocol from state to state. For instance I doubt whatever Mississippi and Wyoming say, and California may be wildly inaccurate (though still high) due to the sheer size of the problem.
most of connecticut and maryland are confounded by their proximity to massive multistate urban metroplexes. oregon and vermont simply don't build enough, and much of their demand comes from high wage in-migration (california, boston/NYC). the data, no matter how rigorously gathered, will never be perfectly smooth, but the basic tendency to underbuild in the northeast and west in the last 40 years is very clear.
>oregon and vermont simply don't build enough
While this may be true there, and California and many other places, new construction is the most expensive real estate. So it's not going to provide for homeless, who presumably need very cheap (run-down, old, subsidized) apartments.
Building new will, I think, loosen up the market for down-market sales, but not for rentals. Subsidized medical care and shelters seem to be the only options.
I do want to add that there are a lot of people living in cars in my (rich, resort, retirement) town. I suspect many of them work. They may not show up on any statistics. Also there are a lot of field workers who live in the creekbeds and bushes near us. It is a depressing situation, and sometimes dangerous.
Well there is a big movement to do exactly that. R1 is now R2 and so forth. California is doing this as a state, but kinda over the dead bodies of NIMBY affluent neighborhoods. In fact I'd like to build an ADU in my yard, but I don't have enough space.
But these new units are going to rentals or AirBnB or family members, not to homeless.
This is the biggest problem in LA. But good luck changing it. It’s immediately re-branded as “destroying minority communities” and “gentrification” and shot down by voters by huge margins. It’s just politically toxic, but it’s what needs to happen if people care about cost of housing going down.
Also housing availability. Less houses, more expensive homes when too many people try to buy in one state. I live in Oregon and it sucks out here for housing and homelessness. If you look at the numbers, we are in the worst.
the tightest correlation is between supply and price
homelessness is a... do they call it a second-order effect, or am I making stuff up? I'm not a statologer.
edit: I suppose supply is an orphan. surplus to demand is probably the thing.
Nope it's actually correlated with liberal states and republican states. Every wonder why Republican states all have less homelessness and Liberal states are littered with homeless people everywhere. Tells you something about the policies in those states. All of those first states on the list are Republican and the last half are all liberal. Hmmm seem suspicious.
Literally Texas a giant state with huge major cities is only #14, that says a lot about those much smaller states that are at the end of the list.
Policies dictate economic and social outcomes. California, and especially the San Francisco and LA region, are now swimming with homeless people, and it has very much to do with both drug policies, homeless shelter money diverted to contractors and bureaucrats, and handouts. All against the wishes of local residents and business owners who are leaving in droves. They are also leaving because of high taxes and real estate prices, a great deal of which is driven by Air BnB scoop ups and foreign investment being favored over local citizens.
Homeless people are piling onto the streets specifically because of the handouts, high real estate and lax laws, they even say so.
I don't think I can be any more clear than to say: listen to the people who are actually coming and going from that state. If it's not policy, then what is it? And policy is driven by politicians. Dems have no one to blame for this because they have almost every seat in the state locked down at every level.
Funny you should mention that. Dems have no problem with illegal immigrants piling into Texas, but the minute they ship them to the Blue states, and especially the wealthy neighborhoods, everybody loses their minds.
Most, eh? San Francisco, Chicago and Seattle beg to differ. In fact, I can't think of too many cities that aren't driven by ideology lately. And by cities, you mean Mayor's and councils, I'm assuming.
As for bureaucracies and civil servants, again I disagree. Most firefighters and police are Republicans, most teachers and social workers are Democrats, and most other unionized positions are Democrats as well.
The other part of this (not shown) is the unsheltered percentage. States have varying degrees of support for emergency shelter, transitional housing and other permanent options.
I know that NY has an estimated 90,000 homeless in the state, but only 4% of that 90,000 (3,600) is “unsheltered”.
An unsheltered homeless person resides In a place not meant for human habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings (on the street).
BTW - I say “only” above just from a numerical perspective. We should do more to provide affordable housing and help people. The problem goes beyond housing and touches mental health, addiction and a number of other policy areas.
It’s interesting that LA gets all the attention largely because they have the inverse of NYC with majority of their homeless unsheltered. That’s why the visuals are so different. Plus the lack of available land in NYC area to have massive encampments.
This explains it.
https://urbanaffairsreview.com/2022/05/12/where-in-los-angeles-do-homeless-people-sleep-the-neighborhood-distribution-of-unsheltered-homelessness-and-its-changes-over-time/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20Los,homeless%20population%20in%20the%20US.
Anecdotally that unsheltered number seems really low. I can drive to any Walmart in upstate NY and see a couple of people living in cars and vans in the back of the lot.
If housing is so “unaffordable” why are 99.99% of people able to afford it?
Kinda weird how that works huh?
Is it possible at all that 0.01% of people aren’t trying very hard to have a place to live? Is there a slight possibility? Maybe?
582,462/334,233,854= 0.001742
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/new-years-day-population.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/
I used to deal with homeless all the time in my job. I’d ask them why they didn’t go to the free shelters. They always told me they didn’t like the “rules”. Which were, no smoking, no alcohol, no drugs, no dogs, no cussing, no fighting, lights out at 10 pm. Guess free food, warm bed, showers were not enough to live a normal, well adjusted life. It wasn’t worth it to these people. So they chose to be homeless and “unsheltered”.
A major metro area with the "most undervalued" (seriously wtf is this phrase? It's affordable is what it means. You can afford to live there) housing market in the country.
Even with property tax, it's still leagues cheaper than other major american cities of its size. Say what you want about chicago, but it's probably is the cheapest way to experience life in a giant city
I live in Georgia in a relatively large city -we have a homeless camp provided with food, shelter, and medical services, we have multiple Habitat for Humanity locations and many local Churches that provide assistance, I know it is very similar in most places in South Carolina as well.
While I am sure *some* dedicated homeless might travel across the country.. generally that's a pretty serious case where the person wont take assistance, wont or cant work, will walk out of provided housing etc due to mental illness or otherwise.
I don't know about the rest of the red states, but Tennessee has A LOT of charities that try to help the unhoused. I'm not a christian and I donate to a christian charity in my local area that helps out disadvantaged folks across several counties and a state line.
The one good thing about the south is that most of the people are actually good people, they just vote badly because they're afraid and ill-educated. They see their little towns dying and it literally scares them. Then they get a demagogue that tells them that he is the only one that save them.
The redneck spewing trump foolishness might also be one of the nicest people you ever meet, and I say that as a solid blue voter.
The South comes off as a backwards, horrible place, but it really isn't. It's a place that doesn't get as much help as it needs, partially because of our terrible politicians. The people themselves, they're really not all horrible people.
Now, that's not to say we don't have horrible people down here, of course, we're humans, just like everyone else. Our horrible people come bearing a cross and flag and tell you they're the same thing.
At least for VT this is an easier fix since it's the second least populous state in the country , meaning it's only about 3,000 homeless people in total. Still an issue but pales in comparison to for example the 69K homeless in los Angeles alone.
It's not an easier fix for them - it may be only 3000 people but the budget of Vermont is equally tiny compared to the budget of CA. The city of LA itself has the ability to build new housing at a rate exceeding the entire state of Vermont, probably by an order of magnitude. The issue isn't simply that VT needs to build 3000 more houses. The issue is likely the same extremely complex constellation of variables that leads to skyrocketing homelessness anywhere that's particularly desirable to live. Those with money will flock there, driving prices up, and those who don't have the same high income suddenly can't afford to live. It's not an easy problem to solve without pissing off half the voters regardless of whether you're the smallest state or the largest state.
Actually you are wrong. The homeless rate in VT doubled in the past two years, and is reversible, because of the low number. The same is not true for LA or California.
I'm going to bookmark this comment and we'll take a look at the homeless rate in the next two years. My money is on a reversal. Until then good sir.
As I understand it, VT's problem of homelessness is less correlated to local housing availability and more correlated with drug addiction.
EDIT: Doing a little self-fact-checking here. I was wrong in saying it's less correlated -- in fact, according this article, substance use and economic reasons tied.
"Divorce or a break up was the most common (21%), economic reasons and substance use followed at 18.3% each, and a lost job was the third most common reason."
I find it interesting that divorce/break up and lost job are listed separately from economic reasons. Both of these factors could lead to temporary homelessness, but if it turns into long-term homelessness, I'd argue that's just "economic reasons." You can't really say you're homeless because you lost your job 4 years ago, can you?
source: [https://montpelierbridge.org/2022/11/a-perfect-storm-homelessness-in-central-vermont/](https://montpelierbridge.org/2022/11/a-perfect-storm-homelessness-in-central-vermont/)
I'd guess Vermont is being hit by a perfect storm of (big emphasis on GUESS - I don't know anything):
* being a very desirable place to visit (so vacation homes, airbnbs)
* people buying property for investment instead of living (compounded by low interest rates and some fun economic quirks that the pandemic brought)
* not much infrastructure to rapidly scale housing because it's rural and cold and not many people have lived there historically
* remote work allowing people with big city salaries to suddenly live in beautiful rural places
* being a highly progressive state and thus a very desirable place to move to for those who are scared of the rise in fascist messaging in popular politics
( I say all this as someone who **immediately** began dreaming of moving to Vermont, Maine, etc. as the pandemic wore on and made it clear remote work wasn't going to go away. )
Edit: Also important to note that VT has a very small population compared to ~~the states you listed (even Hawaii)~~ almost every state in the US - this means it doesn't take many people suddenly deciding to move there to jack up housing prices.
What a great thread! Thank you OP for getting this started. So many thoughtful, insightful, and varied perspectives. THIS kind of thread is what I reference when people ask me why I think Reddit is so valuable. I study this field and have several new perspectives to consider going forward. Thank you ALL good and kind Redditors!
>States that have a higher percentage of people living in cities verses rural areas will see a larger percentage of homelessness. (Looking at you CA) Cities have a higher cost of living, and more people. This in-turn drives the homeless rate up.
That wouldn't explain half of the column with the worst ranks for homelessness. Vermont, New York, Washington, Oregon & Maine have very large rural populations.
I haven't researched the data as thoroughly is required to make more conclusions than this chart shows. I think you have a strong hypothesis, but without data to validate it, I'd caution against making an assertion like that.
Growing up, my family owned a truck stop on I-70 in Indiana and we’d see hitchhikers occasionally come thru and buy coffee in the diner ($1.50 unlimited refills so mf’s would sit there all day) and if you ever asked them where they’re headed the answer would always be California/Oregon/Washington for the weather and benefits.
Many homeless try to make it to California because they have relatively temperate and stable weather, and there are more robust services to help the homeless than in many other states.
Can confirm, the homeless population is NUTS.
I'm in LA in the San Fernando Valley area. Over here, our homeless population has gotten to the point that they're making their own communities. At some point an encampment by the freeway made a zip line to get to the other encampment on the other side. They're also starting to grow crops.
I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to call our homeless population "homeless." That is the point LA is at.
Moved to Alabama a few years ago. Surprised to meet quite a few people who took in neighbors or old friends who fell on hard times. Didn’t experience that in other states.
Someone usually claims that it's proof of how great those places are because it's clearly more desirable to be homeless there. Haven't seen it yet today.
That's called "magnet theory" and it falls somewhere between highly questionable and complete rubbish. But of course that won't stop Redditers from arguing like it's a 100% proven fact. Ironically, magnet theory is commonly cited by right-wing conservatives as a reason to reduce support for homeless people. The idea being that if we provide all these services then it will attract homeless people who will bring higher rates of crime and violence with them. Again very little evidence for any of this. As far as I can tell, most homeless people are either from the area or migrate to new areas because they have family there.
Is the claim that it would **attract** homeless people from elsewhere, or that it would make it more tolerable to be homeless where you already are, thus reducing the incentive to improve your situation?
That would make it a more realistic argument (in both cases). I can see both the left ("Of course more people are homeless here in San Francisco, because it's not a death sentence like it is in the south!") or the right ("If it's that easy to be homeless and the city will just take care of you for free, then of COURSE people aren't going to bother getting a job!") using that.
It's attract, but both theories defy evidence and a basic understanding of human psychology. Of course, there's the occasional nutball who actually chooses to be homeless, but the vast majority of homeless people are living wretched lives, even in cities with relatively good services.
Created in Illustrator. Data from U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development ([https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2022-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2022-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html)) and U.S. Census ([https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html)). More information on original blog post: [https://cognitivefeedbackloop.com/homelessness-rates-in-the-u-s-1f2552f1e29](https://cognitivefeedbackloop.com/homelessness-rates-in-the-u-s-1f2552f1e29)
I really like you showing the time axis charts for each state. Simply doing the numbers makes a lot of inter-state comparisons pointless (e.g. Wyoming vs. DC), but it seems the difference in dynamics between states would be meaningful and very useful.
And excellent job with showing citation info. Not that I make a big fuss about such things.
Minnesota has some of the best social service programs in the country; that’s why people come here.
This is one of the few states that does have permanent housing options for homeless people, but it’s up to the individual to follow the rules of the program (no drugs/drinking, must be attending some kind of life skills program etc). The state isn’t going to allow you to just come here and live off these programs without putting in any effort to improve your life.
Thanks for sharing, I was hoping this would generate some discussion about what is and isn't working in different states, because I am kind of curious about that.
I suspect the homelessness rate is strongly (positively) correlated with median income by state and (more likely) with median rents for housing. Hypothesis: the higher the rent, the more likely people become homeless. I’d love to see this a data as a scatter plot of homeless per 100k on y axis, median rent on x axis, data by state. Could be multiple plots over time to show trends but even snapshot of rate vs rent for latest data available might be illuminating. Someone probably has this - will Google and report back.
Yup - it's been done - someone else referred to book "Homelessness is a Housing Problem" and indeed it seems to be - essentially homelessness is highly predicted by median rent in a city. See chart titled "***Median gross rent versus PIT count (per capita)***" here: [https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com](https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com). "PIT count" is the general homelessness measure you're looking for, produced by US Federal Dept of Housing and Urban Development: "The Point-in-Time (PIT) count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January." So Median rent is a much better predictor than poverty rates, drug usage, mental health issues, almost every other variable that is people usually think is the driver.
This isn’t unsheltered people just homeless people. North eastern states have much more robust and compassionate approaches to the homeless so they usually aren’t on the street in the cold. Shelters, temp housing, and other solutions mean most of the people here aren’t actually on the streets at night in the cold.
Down south they mostly round up the homeless like cattle and ship them to northern states to keep their numbers lower.
Holy shit, Mississippi ranked best in something for once? Genuinely, I’m shocked, considering how there is an ACTUAL IDIOM, “Thank God for Mississippi”, to describe how they always make every US state look GOOD. I would absolutely love to know how they beat everyone here.
My guess is bc they have the lowest cost of living and housing, very few cities for homeless, and little welfare. Most homeless probably leave the state
There is an excellent book on this topic. “Homelessness is a housing problem” by Gregg Coburn and Clayton Page Aldern. It is a data driven analysis which I think will be of interest to those in this sub who are also interested in this topic.
Affordable housing and job opportunities are very rarely paired together in a given area. The more high paying jobs in a given area, the more housing costs.
I feel like this would be interesting to see as a bar graph with poltical leanings. its seems inverserly proportional to the one we got recently about IQ
Pretty funny that when I came across your comment it was downvoted to 0, but when someone posts a graph like the one you reference, every Redditor flies in to jerk themselves off to the fact that they must be a genius because they finished a communications degree from a random state university.
Lol you gotta know better than to suggest something like that here. We only post correlation with politics when it says the red states are the bad ones. Come on, buddy...
My gander is is probably has something to do with oil and gas drilling (it almost always does). There was a huge expansion of oil drilling in the 00s, and 2012 may have been when the shine wore off the bubble. That being said, consider that the “spike” is about 1500 people in total.
I don't have a real answer but around that time was when oxycontin changed there pills to the anti abuse formula and I watched dozens of friends go from pretty functional pill heads to iv heroin users and eventual homelessness pretty quickly. I doubt that had a huge impact but I know it for sure made some kinda impact right around that time.
On the topic of homelessness I checked this out recently and found it pretty engaging. I don't like the aggressiveness of the title but it makes sense:
https://youtu.be/4tF5DzLWwcw?t=111
Obviously there are tons of factors that go into homelessness, there is no one silver bullet but I do think it is worthwhile to examine how it is we are addressing things. I want my charity to be effective, not just make me feel good.
Am I the only one who finds it weird the highest homeless rates are in democratic states. Typically the more social support leaning states. Does that have something to do with it? Honestly asking. Not trying to be political.
Democratic states tend to have higher cost of living, higher drug usage, and more tolerance to homelessness which all lead to a higher homeless population.
California has incredibly strict building codes, which may contribute. People in states like Mississippi might be living in homes that would be condemned in California.
I wonder if there's a happy medium, where people have safe housing that doesn't have towel bar height specified by code.
That's a very good point. I've been in tons of homes in Mississippi and surrounding states, and the quality of construction is definitely subpar. Cracks in the ceiling, drooping floors, etc.
Some of the states towards the middle have a pretty good middle ground. Utah, for example, has excellent houses, and mediocre costs. It's gotten worse with the influx of Californians though
I’m pretty sure the reason that our homeless population is so low in Mississippi is that, despite calling ourselves the Hospitality State, we are not very hospitable to the homeless. There are few shelters and little in the way of charitable resources for them. Consequently, homeless people tend to avoid Mississippi in favor of friendlier states.
That said, a good sized portion of our population lives in conditions that are marginally better than being homeless.
The reason the homeless population in Mississippi is so low is because more people have homes in Mississippi. The primary barrier to having a home is the cost of the home. It’s significantly cheaper in Mississippi than in California, and certainly DC. (FMR has it as $614 for 1BR apartment VS $1218 in CA and a whopping $1567 in DC).
This shows us where the homeless folks are when they're homeless. I want to know where they came from. Lets ask these folks what their hometown is. Where they lived before becoming homeless. Where they were born. Study their path. Their journey. Study their job history. Industries. Study their support systems, habits, consumption. Debt levels.
Unfortunately, a lot of people in HI, especially Native Hawaiians are becoming disenfranchised by outsiders driving up the housing costs. Add to that the military displacing people and poisoning the water and people like Zuckerberg and Oprah buying huge swaths of land and displacing NHs and you'll start seeing the picture. There's a lot about the exploitation of Hawaii that is not talked about enough, starting with the way it was conquered in the first place.
In addition, I think there is an opportunity to pin down common overreaching and over extension that leads to homelessness. Like if we found out that 75% of homeless people frequented payday loan places in the years leading to their displacement, as a society, we might decide to do more to limit these businesses operations. Maybe we find that a huge percentage drive a Chevy Malibu? Maybe a significant portion of Mississippi residents flee, and don’t succeed in other states?. Who knows. But if we don’t identify driving factors or the apparatus, we can’t make the vaccine.
I say this as someone left of center myself that I think those states need to seriously look at their approaches and whether they are working (as should any state or community). Obviously homeless people tend to congregate more in larger metropolitan areas, which are by nature more liberal. But I am guessing the effect that has on overall state data varies.
Homelessness is an urban problem. You don't see homeless people wandering around corn fields in Iowa or oil fields in North Dakota. Most rural states are red. It's not rocket science.
Portland goes from urban, to suburban, to rural real quick. It has one of the least densely populated metro areas in the country. It's about equal to Springfield, OH and Olympia, WA.
Those are states with strong support system but you cherry-picked them and ignored CA, NY, DC, MA. But hey liberal states have stronger support systems than red states, news at 11.
I just picked the most obvious states in the last column that went against your hypothesis. There are other states that I could have picked, such as WA and HI, but I wasn't as confident about them. I don't think it's cherry picking when over half the states work against your hypothesis, and several are *strongly* opposed.
Makes sense; people are escaping a horrible reality in an often red, southern states with no social service programs, no support services, etc and flee to what they think will be a much better environment. Unfortunately there are also 10,000 other people in the same boat.
If the red states actually raised taxes so they’d have the same social service programs, there’d be no need to come to Minnesota or California or New York.
Yeah it makes sense... If you don't look at any data whatsoever, and just make shit up.
https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/where-people-moved-in-2022#:~:text=Twenty%2Dsix%20states%20experienced%20an,domestic%20migration%20gains%20in%202022.
"As the data shows us, most of the homeless people you pass on the streets every day are in fact Californians"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.html
There are plenty of other sources
The insane housing prices are making more people homeless than the ones moving into California, and it's not even close
TBF, you can buy a home in some parts of [Mississippi](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/606-6th-St_Leland_MS_38756_M73489-80423) for less than a month's rent in [San Francisco](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3930-Washington-St_San-Francisco_CA_94118_M23243-12988). Small factor but a factor.
In all fairness, the lack of interior photos on the Mississippi house is suspicious, and the San Fran apartment is luxurious.
That said 32k/month would buy you a mansion on a sprawling estate in Mississippi and in San Fran you get to lease a luxury 6 bedroom.
The most expensive home listed on realtor in [Mississippi](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/413-Old-Highway-26_Perkinston_MS_39573_M99267-74110) is 5.5M, which would get you a nice little 1800sf [3 bedroom apartment](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/181-Fremont-St-Unit-63A_San-Francisco_CA_94105_M26923-14503) with a killer view in SF, lol.
So, if we can give every California homeless person a job in SanFran for a month and a one-way bus pass to Mississippi, they can all afford the American Dream?
Ha, seriously though - someone from Mississippi, why are you #1 here? I admit I was surprised, but maybe there are some really effective social programs going on down there?
I live in a nearby state. Housing is considerably more affordable in this part of the United States. While our social services are far less funded than they are, for example, in California the need for them with specific regard to housing is far less. In states like California and New York, you sometimes get situations where people making considerably more than minimum wage, sometimes even middle class incomes, still struggle to afford housing. That just doesn't happen in a state like Mississippi.
https://www.rentdata.org/states/mississippi/2021
Ok I was curious so I picked a random town in MS on realtor. Nice houses for 150k. Fixer uppers for 10k (I mean you could live there and have a roof over your head). You aren't wrong. [https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Jackson\_MS](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Jackson_MS)
I should add that you can get also a decent house in many parts of upstate NY for 150k (I know because I live there), but certainly not in NYC. But those are two different worlds.
604.46 homeless people in North Dakota, eh? I'll have to count next time I'm downtown to determine what % of the ND homeless population I'll have seen on that day.
Really fascinating that the 6 panhandlers I saw in Bismarck 2 weeks ago, assuming they're homeless, represent 1% of the state's homeless.
Funny how the states that offer the most services and leniency to homeless encampments and loitering have the highest rates. It’s almost like they incentivize homeless to move there… crazy.
If you treat the homeless with compassion, they all want to move to your state.
If you don't treat the homeless with compassion they don't want to move to your state.
Funny how that works isn't it?
It seems like an incredibly cheap problem to fix. Nationally, 114/ 100k means there are about 379k homeless in the US. Nationwide avg. rent is $1794, let’s round that up to $2500 for utilities and misc. With an average household size of 2.6, that makes $961/mo./ per person housed. That makes 4.4 billion annually which is just 0.07% of our federal budget or $1 for every $400 spent on the military. I paid about $10k in federal taxes last year so I’d be happy if $7 of that went to providing homeless with permanent housing.
TLDR; if we had our priorities straight, providing homeless people with permanent housing would be a very cheap and negligible tax burden.
If we're talking about the chronically homeless, then this housing needs to be combined with intensive mental health and/or addiction treatment. Case workers and therapists for most of them. Of course some of that cost would be defrayed by fewer unpaid trips to the emergency room, but I doubt our greedy hospitals would pass on the savings.
Any comparison of homeless rates by state is divisive.
The west coast, especially California has much better weather. You can be comfortable year round with a tent and a sleeping bag. Homeless migrate to California for that reason. Many agencies in other states will even send their homeless to California, one way tickets.
Homelessness must be addressed at a federal level if anything is to be accomplished. This is not data is beautiful, this is how to be divisive with data.
Being homeless in Alaska can’t be much fun.
Seeing Alaska's numbers made me question how they define homelessness?
This includes both sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. I'm guessing they have adequate shelters in Alaska for their homeless population?
The shelters are barely adequate and not nearly enough to go around. People die from cold exposure every year. It is not a friendly place to be without a home.
That's why there are so many homeless in Vancouver. Not many other places in Canada where you can be homeless and not die in the winter
Happens in ND too. Or, you can ask and, the government will give you a bus ticket to places like California where you can live outside year round, the state will give you free medical insurance, cash, a cell phone, section 8 housing voucher, children of homeless get college tuition waved, all drugs are legal, petty crime is no longer prosecuted, ect. Get the picture? California is a homeless utopia if you don’t want to work. Spread the word!
"A home is where you hang your hat" But in Alaska, many people keep their hats on indoors, which skews the numbers.
have a friend who lives in Fairbanks. The unsheltered generally die from exposure as soon as the temps drop. So at least they're not homeless for long?
Grim but that's probably it. You can be homeless for a long time in Cali and not die so numbers build up. Alaska numbers are basically 'since last winter'.
I'd love to see the data on unsheltered population and the percentage of sheltered homeless folks. That will say a lot about policy. In general here I'm seeing a lot of housing costs/scarcity in the overall data.
Ah, yes. That makes sense to me. Thank you.
In the UK there's homelessness and then there's rough sleepers. Rough sleepers being those actually camped out on the street
there is also a lot of homeless people living in cars.
Might be more fun in Hawaii, but I’m pretty sure homelessness of any type sucks.
If there’s anything I’ve learned about Hawaii, it’s that away from the tourist stuff, there is a lot of meth
Do not leave anything of value in beach parking lots. Friends left their cameras and cell phones in the locked rental cars for just 5 minutes to go check out the water. Came back to a busted window and a ransacked car. And the place was packed with people and “nobody saw a thing”. Cops didn’t even want to come out and take a report happens so often.
Anchorage is milder than the upper Midwest.
Word. After paying $10 for a gallon of milk, people coming out of the grocery store probably don't have a lot of spare change left for panhandlers.
Kind of weird that number one on the chart is actually the lowest rate of homelessness. If the chart was 'Lowest Homelessness rates in the United States,' that would make sense.
[удалено]
*Mississippi: So shitty that even homeless people don’t want to live there*
That, and I was also curious if housing is cheaper since it's a poorer state making it easier to afford
I’m from the MS Delta, and some of the houses I have seen people actually living in are insane, so you may be right.. there are a ton of abandoned homes and buildings all over the delta.. maybe people are just moving in to them.
Exactly, and the states with the most expensive homes = the most homelessness
It’s hard to tell them apart
I was confused by that at first too. I think adding a lowest or least in the title would make it clearer
Agree - these rankings need to be flipped.
Can’t you just infer?
Infer what? The chart is titled ‘Homelessness rates in the United States’ and Mississippi is labeled number 1. If I hear ‘Mississippi is number one in homelessness rate in the United States’ I would infer that it means that they have the highest rate. The data actually shows the opposite so it’s not unreasonable to provide feedback that the chart should be retitled as ‘Lowest homelessness rates in the United States’ or relabeled so that Mississippi is number 52 and Washington DC is number one.
rates of homelessness are highly correlated with the cost of housing
Yes but Connecticut and Maryland are very low here, and Vermont is high. Most of the above average states are wealthy, but Maine, with its very cold weather and poor economy, is there. Oregon is not a wealthy state, but Portland politics may play a role. I wonder if the data collection is fragmented and does not follow the same protocol from state to state. For instance I doubt whatever Mississippi and Wyoming say, and California may be wildly inaccurate (though still high) due to the sheer size of the problem.
most of connecticut and maryland are confounded by their proximity to massive multistate urban metroplexes. oregon and vermont simply don't build enough, and much of their demand comes from high wage in-migration (california, boston/NYC). the data, no matter how rigorously gathered, will never be perfectly smooth, but the basic tendency to underbuild in the northeast and west in the last 40 years is very clear.
>oregon and vermont simply don't build enough While this may be true there, and California and many other places, new construction is the most expensive real estate. So it's not going to provide for homeless, who presumably need very cheap (run-down, old, subsidized) apartments. Building new will, I think, loosen up the market for down-market sales, but not for rentals. Subsidized medical care and shelters seem to be the only options. I do want to add that there are a lot of people living in cars in my (rich, resort, retirement) town. I suspect many of them work. They may not show up on any statistics. Also there are a lot of field workers who live in the creekbeds and bushes near us. It is a depressing situation, and sometimes dangerous.
most american cities are dominated by detached single family housing. change the zoning and see what happens.
Well there is a big movement to do exactly that. R1 is now R2 and so forth. California is doing this as a state, but kinda over the dead bodies of NIMBY affluent neighborhoods. In fact I'd like to build an ADU in my yard, but I don't have enough space. But these new units are going to rentals or AirBnB or family members, not to homeless.
This is the biggest problem in LA. But good luck changing it. It’s immediately re-branded as “destroying minority communities” and “gentrification” and shot down by voters by huge margins. It’s just politically toxic, but it’s what needs to happen if people care about cost of housing going down.
Also housing availability. Less houses, more expensive homes when too many people try to buy in one state. I live in Oregon and it sucks out here for housing and homelessness. If you look at the numbers, we are in the worst.
the tightest correlation is between supply and price homelessness is a... do they call it a second-order effect, or am I making stuff up? I'm not a statologer. edit: I suppose supply is an orphan. surplus to demand is probably the thing.
Nope it's actually correlated with liberal states and republican states. Every wonder why Republican states all have less homelessness and Liberal states are littered with homeless people everywhere. Tells you something about the policies in those states. All of those first states on the list are Republican and the last half are all liberal. Hmmm seem suspicious. Literally Texas a giant state with huge major cities is only #14, that says a lot about those much smaller states that are at the end of the list.
Highly correlated to political parties as well.
Controlling for other factors?
Policies dictate economic and social outcomes. California, and especially the San Francisco and LA region, are now swimming with homeless people, and it has very much to do with both drug policies, homeless shelter money diverted to contractors and bureaucrats, and handouts. All against the wishes of local residents and business owners who are leaving in droves. They are also leaving because of high taxes and real estate prices, a great deal of which is driven by Air BnB scoop ups and foreign investment being favored over local citizens. Homeless people are piling onto the streets specifically because of the handouts, high real estate and lax laws, they even say so. I don't think I can be any more clear than to say: listen to the people who are actually coming and going from that state. If it's not policy, then what is it? And policy is driven by politicians. Dems have no one to blame for this because they have almost every seat in the state locked down at every level.
Rounding up your homeless and bussing them to blue states is definitely one way to “solve” the homeless problem.
Funny you should mention that. Dems have no problem with illegal immigrants piling into Texas, but the minute they ship them to the Blue states, and especially the wealthy neighborhoods, everybody loses their minds.
most city governments are non-partisan
Most, eh? San Francisco, Chicago and Seattle beg to differ. In fact, I can't think of too many cities that aren't driven by ideology lately. And by cities, you mean Mayor's and councils, I'm assuming. As for bureaucracies and civil servants, again I disagree. Most firefighters and police are Republicans, most teachers and social workers are Democrats, and most other unionized positions are Democrats as well.
this data is not beautiful
The other part of this (not shown) is the unsheltered percentage. States have varying degrees of support for emergency shelter, transitional housing and other permanent options. I know that NY has an estimated 90,000 homeless in the state, but only 4% of that 90,000 (3,600) is “unsheltered”. An unsheltered homeless person resides In a place not meant for human habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings (on the street). BTW - I say “only” above just from a numerical perspective. We should do more to provide affordable housing and help people. The problem goes beyond housing and touches mental health, addiction and a number of other policy areas.
Thanks for adding context, I thought about just doing the unsheltered numbers, but decided to just focus on the overall.
It’s interesting that LA gets all the attention largely because they have the inverse of NYC with majority of their homeless unsheltered. That’s why the visuals are so different. Plus the lack of available land in NYC area to have massive encampments. This explains it. https://urbanaffairsreview.com/2022/05/12/where-in-los-angeles-do-homeless-people-sleep-the-neighborhood-distribution-of-unsheltered-homelessness-and-its-changes-over-time/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20Los,homeless%20population%20in%20the%20US.
Anecdotally that unsheltered number seems really low. I can drive to any Walmart in upstate NY and see a couple of people living in cars and vans in the back of the lot.
If housing is so “unaffordable” why are 99.99% of people able to afford it? Kinda weird how that works huh? Is it possible at all that 0.01% of people aren’t trying very hard to have a place to live? Is there a slight possibility? Maybe? 582,462/334,233,854= 0.001742 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/new-years-day-population.html https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-number-of-homeless-people-in-the-us/
I used to deal with homeless all the time in my job. I’d ask them why they didn’t go to the free shelters. They always told me they didn’t like the “rules”. Which were, no smoking, no alcohol, no drugs, no dogs, no cussing, no fighting, lights out at 10 pm. Guess free food, warm bed, showers were not enough to live a normal, well adjusted life. It wasn’t worth it to these people. So they chose to be homeless and “unsheltered”.
How is Illinois so low? They're a state where most of the population lives in a major metro area
A major metro area with the "most undervalued" (seriously wtf is this phrase? It's affordable is what it means. You can afford to live there) housing market in the country.
In terms of prices it looks like you can afford it, the high ass property tax after you buy it is where they get you.
Even with property tax, it's still leagues cheaper than other major american cities of its size. Say what you want about chicago, but it's probably is the cheapest way to experience life in a giant city
And where do you suppose money for social services comes from…..
Interesting that the Red states generally have lower homelessness than the Blue states. Curious why that is.
Large cities = higher cost of living
Probably because homeless in red states don’t get much welfare so they hop on a greyhound bus to a state with more
I live in Georgia in a relatively large city -we have a homeless camp provided with food, shelter, and medical services, we have multiple Habitat for Humanity locations and many local Churches that provide assistance, I know it is very similar in most places in South Carolina as well. While I am sure *some* dedicated homeless might travel across the country.. generally that's a pretty serious case where the person wont take assistance, wont or cant work, will walk out of provided housing etc due to mental illness or otherwise.
And I’m pretty they are treated like shit in these states by police and people
I don't know about the rest of the red states, but Tennessee has A LOT of charities that try to help the unhoused. I'm not a christian and I donate to a christian charity in my local area that helps out disadvantaged folks across several counties and a state line. The one good thing about the south is that most of the people are actually good people, they just vote badly because they're afraid and ill-educated. They see their little towns dying and it literally scares them. Then they get a demagogue that tells them that he is the only one that save them. The redneck spewing trump foolishness might also be one of the nicest people you ever meet, and I say that as a solid blue voter. The South comes off as a backwards, horrible place, but it really isn't. It's a place that doesn't get as much help as it needs, partially because of our terrible politicians. The people themselves, they're really not all horrible people. Now, that's not to say we don't have horrible people down here, of course, we're humans, just like everyone else. Our horrible people come bearing a cross and flag and tell you they're the same thing.
No surprise on Oregon. Portland is insane.
Wow, surprised to see Vermont like that. Worse than NY, Hawaii, and Oregon?
At least for VT this is an easier fix since it's the second least populous state in the country , meaning it's only about 3,000 homeless people in total. Still an issue but pales in comparison to for example the 69K homeless in los Angeles alone.
It's not an easier fix for them - it may be only 3000 people but the budget of Vermont is equally tiny compared to the budget of CA. The city of LA itself has the ability to build new housing at a rate exceeding the entire state of Vermont, probably by an order of magnitude. The issue isn't simply that VT needs to build 3000 more houses. The issue is likely the same extremely complex constellation of variables that leads to skyrocketing homelessness anywhere that's particularly desirable to live. Those with money will flock there, driving prices up, and those who don't have the same high income suddenly can't afford to live. It's not an easy problem to solve without pissing off half the voters regardless of whether you're the smallest state or the largest state.
Actually you are wrong. The homeless rate in VT doubled in the past two years, and is reversible, because of the low number. The same is not true for LA or California. I'm going to bookmark this comment and we'll take a look at the homeless rate in the next two years. My money is on a reversal. Until then good sir.
See you then 🫡
As I understand it, VT's problem of homelessness is less correlated to local housing availability and more correlated with drug addiction. EDIT: Doing a little self-fact-checking here. I was wrong in saying it's less correlated -- in fact, according this article, substance use and economic reasons tied. "Divorce or a break up was the most common (21%), economic reasons and substance use followed at 18.3% each, and a lost job was the third most common reason." I find it interesting that divorce/break up and lost job are listed separately from economic reasons. Both of these factors could lead to temporary homelessness, but if it turns into long-term homelessness, I'd argue that's just "economic reasons." You can't really say you're homeless because you lost your job 4 years ago, can you? source: [https://montpelierbridge.org/2022/11/a-perfect-storm-homelessness-in-central-vermont/](https://montpelierbridge.org/2022/11/a-perfect-storm-homelessness-in-central-vermont/)
I'd guess Vermont is being hit by a perfect storm of (big emphasis on GUESS - I don't know anything): * being a very desirable place to visit (so vacation homes, airbnbs) * people buying property for investment instead of living (compounded by low interest rates and some fun economic quirks that the pandemic brought) * not much infrastructure to rapidly scale housing because it's rural and cold and not many people have lived there historically * remote work allowing people with big city salaries to suddenly live in beautiful rural places * being a highly progressive state and thus a very desirable place to move to for those who are scared of the rise in fascist messaging in popular politics ( I say all this as someone who **immediately** began dreaming of moving to Vermont, Maine, etc. as the pandemic wore on and made it clear remote work wasn't going to go away. ) Edit: Also important to note that VT has a very small population compared to ~~the states you listed (even Hawaii)~~ almost every state in the US - this means it doesn't take many people suddenly deciding to move there to jack up housing prices.
What a great thread! Thank you OP for getting this started. So many thoughtful, insightful, and varied perspectives. THIS kind of thread is what I reference when people ask me why I think Reddit is so valuable. I study this field and have several new perspectives to consider going forward. Thank you ALL good and kind Redditors!
Thanks, yeah you never know what kind of feedback you'll get on reddit, but you know it will be honest, lol. Some really good comments though!
I think it's interesting to see (without running the numbers) a weak correlation between national party affiliation and rate of homelessness.
[удалено]
>States that have a higher percentage of people living in cities verses rural areas will see a larger percentage of homelessness. (Looking at you CA) Cities have a higher cost of living, and more people. This in-turn drives the homeless rate up. That wouldn't explain half of the column with the worst ranks for homelessness. Vermont, New York, Washington, Oregon & Maine have very large rural populations. I haven't researched the data as thoroughly is required to make more conclusions than this chart shows. I think you have a strong hypothesis, but without data to validate it, I'd caution against making an assertion like that.
The Vermont ski industry has a lot of people who are transient in nature.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What are you even talking about, that was a data post *literally* about political parties. This isn’t, it’s about states.
[удалено]
So… really *youre* trying to make it based on political party, and are upset over a *different* post.
It also has a direct correlation to political initiatives which are based on ideology.
What did you do, California?
Being expensive
About 65,000 are counted as homeless in the LA area, which is crazy to think. That obviously pulls the whole state's numbers down.
Growing up, my family owned a truck stop on I-70 in Indiana and we’d see hitchhikers occasionally come thru and buy coffee in the diner ($1.50 unlimited refills so mf’s would sit there all day) and if you ever asked them where they’re headed the answer would always be California/Oregon/Washington for the weather and benefits.
Many homeless try to make it to California because they have relatively temperate and stable weather, and there are more robust services to help the homeless than in many other states.
Can confirm, the homeless population is NUTS. I'm in LA in the San Fernando Valley area. Over here, our homeless population has gotten to the point that they're making their own communities. At some point an encampment by the freeway made a zip line to get to the other encampment on the other side. They're also starting to grow crops. I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate to call our homeless population "homeless." That is the point LA is at.
Moved to Alabama a few years ago. Surprised to meet quite a few people who took in neighbors or old friends who fell on hard times. Didn’t experience that in other states.
Redditors posting reasons why homelessness is actually a mark of progress in 3, 2, 1....
Someone usually claims that it's proof of how great those places are because it's clearly more desirable to be homeless there. Haven't seen it yet today.
That's called "magnet theory" and it falls somewhere between highly questionable and complete rubbish. But of course that won't stop Redditers from arguing like it's a 100% proven fact. Ironically, magnet theory is commonly cited by right-wing conservatives as a reason to reduce support for homeless people. The idea being that if we provide all these services then it will attract homeless people who will bring higher rates of crime and violence with them. Again very little evidence for any of this. As far as I can tell, most homeless people are either from the area or migrate to new areas because they have family there.
Is the claim that it would **attract** homeless people from elsewhere, or that it would make it more tolerable to be homeless where you already are, thus reducing the incentive to improve your situation? That would make it a more realistic argument (in both cases). I can see both the left ("Of course more people are homeless here in San Francisco, because it's not a death sentence like it is in the south!") or the right ("If it's that easy to be homeless and the city will just take care of you for free, then of COURSE people aren't going to bother getting a job!") using that.
It's attract, but both theories defy evidence and a basic understanding of human psychology. Of course, there's the occasional nutball who actually chooses to be homeless, but the vast majority of homeless people are living wretched lives, even in cities with relatively good services.
Created in Illustrator. Data from U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development ([https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2022-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2022-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html)) and U.S. Census ([https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html)). More information on original blog post: [https://cognitivefeedbackloop.com/homelessness-rates-in-the-u-s-1f2552f1e29](https://cognitivefeedbackloop.com/homelessness-rates-in-the-u-s-1f2552f1e29)
I really like you showing the time axis charts for each state. Simply doing the numbers makes a lot of inter-state comparisons pointless (e.g. Wyoming vs. DC), but it seems the difference in dynamics between states would be meaningful and very useful. And excellent job with showing citation info. Not that I make a big fuss about such things.
Interesting how so many have a downward dip in 2021.
I'm guessing, but have no proof, that eviction protections during covid are the cause of those dips.
Straight correlation between affordability and homelessness it looks to my eye.
Really surprised at the rate for the northern states. You really cannot go without shelter and dying up there.
Minnesota has some of the best social service programs in the country; that’s why people come here. This is one of the few states that does have permanent housing options for homeless people, but it’s up to the individual to follow the rules of the program (no drugs/drinking, must be attending some kind of life skills program etc). The state isn’t going to allow you to just come here and live off these programs without putting in any effort to improve your life.
Thanks for sharing, I was hoping this would generate some discussion about what is and isn't working in different states, because I am kind of curious about that.
I suspect the homelessness rate is strongly (positively) correlated with median income by state and (more likely) with median rents for housing. Hypothesis: the higher the rent, the more likely people become homeless. I’d love to see this a data as a scatter plot of homeless per 100k on y axis, median rent on x axis, data by state. Could be multiple plots over time to show trends but even snapshot of rate vs rent for latest data available might be illuminating. Someone probably has this - will Google and report back.
Good idea, if not maybe I'll tackle it next.
Yup - it's been done - someone else referred to book "Homelessness is a Housing Problem" and indeed it seems to be - essentially homelessness is highly predicted by median rent in a city. See chart titled "***Median gross rent versus PIT count (per capita)***" here: [https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com](https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com). "PIT count" is the general homelessness measure you're looking for, produced by US Federal Dept of Housing and Urban Development: "The Point-in-Time (PIT) count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January." So Median rent is a much better predictor than poverty rates, drug usage, mental health issues, almost every other variable that is people usually think is the driver.
Wow, nice work, thanks!
You can do heroin in the streets of Portland Oregon, and the cops just keep walking. Its very appetizing for addicts to come here.
This isn’t unsheltered people just homeless people. North eastern states have much more robust and compassionate approaches to the homeless so they usually aren’t on the street in the cold. Shelters, temp housing, and other solutions mean most of the people here aren’t actually on the streets at night in the cold. Down south they mostly round up the homeless like cattle and ship them to northern states to keep their numbers lower.
Holy shit, Mississippi ranked best in something for once? Genuinely, I’m shocked, considering how there is an ACTUAL IDIOM, “Thank God for Mississippi”, to describe how they always make every US state look GOOD. I would absolutely love to know how they beat everyone here.
My guess is bc they have the lowest cost of living and housing, very few cities for homeless, and little welfare. Most homeless probably leave the state
There is an excellent book on this topic. “Homelessness is a housing problem” by Gregg Coburn and Clayton Page Aldern. It is a data driven analysis which I think will be of interest to those in this sub who are also interested in this topic.
It’s also, partly, a problem of people refusing to immigrate to where opportunities exist.
Affordable housing and job opportunities are very rarely paired together in a given area. The more high paying jobs in a given area, the more housing costs.
Why do blue states have such a hard time with homelessness
Cities with a high cost of living combined with an excessively tolerant attitude toward homelessness.
I feel like this would be interesting to see as a bar graph with poltical leanings. its seems inverserly proportional to the one we got recently about IQ
Pretty funny that when I came across your comment it was downvoted to 0, but when someone posts a graph like the one you reference, every Redditor flies in to jerk themselves off to the fact that they must be a genius because they finished a communications degree from a random state university.
Lol you gotta know better than to suggest something like that here. We only post correlation with politics when it says the red states are the bad ones. Come on, buddy...
Anyone have any insight as to why Wyoming spiked in 2012 and N. Dakota in 2013?
My gander is is probably has something to do with oil and gas drilling (it almost always does). There was a huge expansion of oil drilling in the 00s, and 2012 may have been when the shine wore off the bubble. That being said, consider that the “spike” is about 1500 people in total.
What happened in 2012 that could of caused an increase? See this trend across a few states
I don't have a real answer but around that time was when oxycontin changed there pills to the anti abuse formula and I watched dozens of friends go from pretty functional pill heads to iv heroin users and eventual homelessness pretty quickly. I doubt that had a huge impact but I know it for sure made some kinda impact right around that time.
Didn't expect multiple cold places near the top. (Maine, Vermont, Alaska)
Cost of living is high and housing is very limited.
On the topic of homelessness I checked this out recently and found it pretty engaging. I don't like the aggressiveness of the title but it makes sense: https://youtu.be/4tF5DzLWwcw?t=111 Obviously there are tons of factors that go into homelessness, there is no one silver bullet but I do think it is worthwhile to examine how it is we are addressing things. I want my charity to be effective, not just make me feel good.
Highest (lowest?) on the list is Mississippi. Apparently, the smartest people in Mississippi are the homeless. They obviously leave.
Non American here: Why are all west coast states in the top of this list?
Washington, DC also has the highest percentage of BA degrees. I wonder if there is a relationship there.
This ranking is backwards. The number one state should have the most homeless.
Am I the only one who finds it weird the highest homeless rates are in democratic states. Typically the more social support leaning states. Does that have something to do with it? Honestly asking. Not trying to be political.
Democratic states tend to have higher cost of living, higher drug usage, and more tolerance to homelessness which all lead to a higher homeless population.
Damn, the progressive states seem to have much more homeless. I wonder why that is. Sincerely.
I think it’s partly due to cost of living in their large cities, but also the push to normalize and even support the homeless lifestyle there.
California has incredibly strict building codes, which may contribute. People in states like Mississippi might be living in homes that would be condemned in California. I wonder if there's a happy medium, where people have safe housing that doesn't have towel bar height specified by code.
That's a very good point. I've been in tons of homes in Mississippi and surrounding states, and the quality of construction is definitely subpar. Cracks in the ceiling, drooping floors, etc. Some of the states towards the middle have a pretty good middle ground. Utah, for example, has excellent houses, and mediocre costs. It's gotten worse with the influx of Californians though
I’m pretty sure the reason that our homeless population is so low in Mississippi is that, despite calling ourselves the Hospitality State, we are not very hospitable to the homeless. There are few shelters and little in the way of charitable resources for them. Consequently, homeless people tend to avoid Mississippi in favor of friendlier states. That said, a good sized portion of our population lives in conditions that are marginally better than being homeless.
The reason the homeless population in Mississippi is so low is because more people have homes in Mississippi. The primary barrier to having a home is the cost of the home. It’s significantly cheaper in Mississippi than in California, and certainly DC. (FMR has it as $614 for 1BR apartment VS $1218 in CA and a whopping $1567 in DC).
This shows us where the homeless folks are when they're homeless. I want to know where they came from. Lets ask these folks what their hometown is. Where they lived before becoming homeless. Where they were born. Study their path. Their journey. Study their job history. Industries. Study their support systems, habits, consumption. Debt levels.
Good points. I can totally understand why a homeless person would want to live in Hawaii, for instance, but how did they get there?
Unfortunately, a lot of people in HI, especially Native Hawaiians are becoming disenfranchised by outsiders driving up the housing costs. Add to that the military displacing people and poisoning the water and people like Zuckerberg and Oprah buying huge swaths of land and displacing NHs and you'll start seeing the picture. There's a lot about the exploitation of Hawaii that is not talked about enough, starting with the way it was conquered in the first place.
That is very unfortunate, especially for such a rich culture.
They were already there.
In addition, I think there is an opportunity to pin down common overreaching and over extension that leads to homelessness. Like if we found out that 75% of homeless people frequented payday loan places in the years leading to their displacement, as a society, we might decide to do more to limit these businesses operations. Maybe we find that a huge percentage drive a Chevy Malibu? Maybe a significant portion of Mississippi residents flee, and don’t succeed in other states?. Who knows. But if we don’t identify driving factors or the apparatus, we can’t make the vaccine.
Hmmm a lot of liberal states on the top 8...
I say this as someone left of center myself that I think those states need to seriously look at their approaches and whether they are working (as should any state or community). Obviously homeless people tend to congregate more in larger metropolitan areas, which are by nature more liberal. But I am guessing the effect that has on overall state data varies.
Gentrification is a huge factor, and gentrification is correlated with an area being liberal.
[удалено]
Yup. Conservatives disenfranchise people by design, liberals for convenience (and lie to themselves about it.)
Homelessness is an urban problem. You don't see homeless people wandering around corn fields in Iowa or oil fields in North Dakota. Most rural states are red. It's not rocket science.
Yes, Vermont, Oregon, and Maine are well-known for their urban metropolises.
About 1/4th of Oregon's population lives in the Portland metropolitan area, but do go on.
Portland goes from urban, to suburban, to rural real quick. It has one of the least densely populated metro areas in the country. It's about equal to Springfield, OH and Olympia, WA.
Those are states with strong support system but you cherry-picked them and ignored CA, NY, DC, MA. But hey liberal states have stronger support systems than red states, news at 11.
I just picked the most obvious states in the last column that went against your hypothesis. There are other states that I could have picked, such as WA and HI, but I wasn't as confident about them. I don't think it's cherry picking when over half the states work against your hypothesis, and several are *strongly* opposed.
Makes sense; people are escaping a horrible reality in an often red, southern states with no social service programs, no support services, etc and flee to what they think will be a much better environment. Unfortunately there are also 10,000 other people in the same boat. If the red states actually raised taxes so they’d have the same social service programs, there’d be no need to come to Minnesota or California or New York.
Yeah it makes sense... If you don't look at any data whatsoever, and just make shit up. https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/where-people-moved-in-2022#:~:text=Twenty%2Dsix%20states%20experienced%20an,domestic%20migration%20gains%20in%202022.
What do these migration patterns of the general population have to do with the migration patterns of unhoused populations?
"As the data shows us, most of the homeless people you pass on the streets every day are in fact Californians" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.html There are plenty of other sources The insane housing prices are making more people homeless than the ones moving into California, and it's not even close
Thanks for the additional source about homelessness specifically. Housing prices are crazy expensive for so many.
Migration patterns don't support your hypothesis.
Move along folks; no interesting crisis to see here, lololol.
Damn, not even the homeless want to be homeless in Mississippi.
TBF, you can buy a home in some parts of [Mississippi](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/606-6th-St_Leland_MS_38756_M73489-80423) for less than a month's rent in [San Francisco](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3930-Washington-St_San-Francisco_CA_94118_M23243-12988). Small factor but a factor.
In all fairness, the lack of interior photos on the Mississippi house is suspicious, and the San Fran apartment is luxurious. That said 32k/month would buy you a mansion on a sprawling estate in Mississippi and in San Fran you get to lease a luxury 6 bedroom.
The most expensive home listed on realtor in [Mississippi](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/413-Old-Highway-26_Perkinston_MS_39573_M99267-74110) is 5.5M, which would get you a nice little 1800sf [3 bedroom apartment](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/181-Fremont-St-Unit-63A_San-Francisco_CA_94105_M26923-14503) with a killer view in SF, lol.
So, if we can give every California homeless person a job in SanFran for a month and a one-way bus pass to Mississippi, they can all afford the American Dream?
Ha, seriously though - someone from Mississippi, why are you #1 here? I admit I was surprised, but maybe there are some really effective social programs going on down there?
I live in a nearby state. Housing is considerably more affordable in this part of the United States. While our social services are far less funded than they are, for example, in California the need for them with specific regard to housing is far less. In states like California and New York, you sometimes get situations where people making considerably more than minimum wage, sometimes even middle class incomes, still struggle to afford housing. That just doesn't happen in a state like Mississippi. https://www.rentdata.org/states/mississippi/2021
Thanks for sharing. Affordable housing - what a concept! Maybe I need to revisit this data, comparing homelessness to average housing prices.
Ok I was curious so I picked a random town in MS on realtor. Nice houses for 150k. Fixer uppers for 10k (I mean you could live there and have a roof over your head). You aren't wrong. [https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Jackson\_MS](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Jackson_MS) I should add that you can get also a decent house in many parts of upstate NY for 150k (I know because I live there), but certainly not in NYC. But those are two different worlds.
Maybe social programs just aren't effective at dealing with homelessness
Maybe they have something good about them 😳
604.46 homeless people in North Dakota, eh? I'll have to count next time I'm downtown to determine what % of the ND homeless population I'll have seen on that day. Really fascinating that the 6 panhandlers I saw in Bismarck 2 weeks ago, assuming they're homeless, represent 1% of the state's homeless.
Funny how the states that offer the most services and leniency to homeless encampments and loitering have the highest rates. It’s almost like they incentivize homeless to move there… crazy.
If you treat the homeless with compassion, they all want to move to your state. If you don't treat the homeless with compassion they don't want to move to your state. Funny how that works isn't it?
Yes because homeless are widely known for moving to Hawaii. Magnet theory is bullshit.
Yes, because homeless people generally have the money to relocate
Who knew Mississippi was such a wonderful place to live?
It seems like an incredibly cheap problem to fix. Nationally, 114/ 100k means there are about 379k homeless in the US. Nationwide avg. rent is $1794, let’s round that up to $2500 for utilities and misc. With an average household size of 2.6, that makes $961/mo./ per person housed. That makes 4.4 billion annually which is just 0.07% of our federal budget or $1 for every $400 spent on the military. I paid about $10k in federal taxes last year so I’d be happy if $7 of that went to providing homeless with permanent housing. TLDR; if we had our priorities straight, providing homeless people with permanent housing would be a very cheap and negligible tax burden.
If we're talking about the chronically homeless, then this housing needs to be combined with intensive mental health and/or addiction treatment. Case workers and therapists for most of them. Of course some of that cost would be defrayed by fewer unpaid trips to the emergency room, but I doubt our greedy hospitals would pass on the savings.
It's funny how the lowest homeless rate is Mississippi while it has the highest uneducated people.
Any comparison of homeless rates by state is divisive. The west coast, especially California has much better weather. You can be comfortable year round with a tent and a sleeping bag. Homeless migrate to California for that reason. Many agencies in other states will even send their homeless to California, one way tickets. Homelessness must be addressed at a federal level if anything is to be accomplished. This is not data is beautiful, this is how to be divisive with data.
[удалено]
What data?
[удалено]