The Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (2009)

by HUD USER

The 2009 Annual Homeless
Assessment Report

June 2010

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development

Corrected June 18, 2010

FOREWORD

I am pleased to submit the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 2009
Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. The tragedy of homelessness is faced by
every community. To tackle this challenge, we need the best data available and a coordinated federal
response.
Indeed, this year’s AHAR is delivered at a critical moment – as the Federal government continues to
shift its focus toward preventing homelessness and on the eve of the first-ever federal plan to end
homelessness. The fifth in a series of annual reports about homelessness in the United States, the
2009 AHAR for the first time, captures a large portion of the economic crisis in its reporting period. It
provides real evidence that the economic downturn is impacting the housing stability of low-income
and vulnerable Americans – as we see a rise in family homelessness for the second consecutive year.
By adding data on sheltered homeless people for another full year, this year’s report builds on last
year’s, allowing for a comparative analysis of homelessness that spans three years—2007, 2008, and
2009. Specifically, the 2009 AHAR draws on two types of national estimates of homelessness to
provide a portrait of homelessness nationwide. The first is point-in-time (PIT) estimates, which
provide the total number of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single-night in January.
The report also provides one-year estimates of the total sheltered population based on information
from local Homeless Management Information Systems. These estimates account for individuals
who used a homeless residential program at any time during a 12-month period.
In addition, this year’s report marks another significant increase in the capacity of communities
nationwide to participate in the AHAR. Between 2008 and 2009, the number of communities
participating in the AHAR increased by more than 66 percent, marking another step forward in our
ability to collect critical information on homelessness and inform public policies. All told, this report
compiles data from 2,988 counties and 1,056 cities. I applaud these communities for their hard work
and commitment to helping end homelessness.
By building on the remarkable innovations demonstrated at the local level nationwide, the Obama
Administration is committed to providing all Americans—from the most capable to the most
vulnerable—the opportunity to reach their full potential. With essential research tools like AHAR
and a new strategy that makes ending and preventing homelessness a priority for every federal
agency, that opportunity is closer than ever for all Americans.

Shaun Donovan
Secretary
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) was developed by a team of
researchers from Abt Associates Inc. and the University of Pennsylvania Center for Mental
Health Services and Research. The team was led by Principal Investigators, Dr. Jill Khadduri
(Abt) and Dr. Dennis Culhane (University of Pennsylvania). Dr. Alvaro Cortes (Abt) served
as project director and was responsible for leading the data collection and analysis effort.
Additional team members include: Christopher Blaine, Larry Buron, RJ de la Cruz, Tracy
D’Alanno, Lauren Dunton, Justin Epner, Nichole Fiore, Lindsay Fox, Tyronda Gibson, John 

Griffith, Mary Joel Holin, Emily Holt, Bulbul Kaul, Michelle Klausner, Joshua Leopold, Saty
Patrabansh, Maura Pillsbury, Louise Rothschild, Kate Ryan, Brian Sokol, K.P. Srinath,
Jennifer Turnham, Joshua Vaughn, Jeff Ward, Michelle Woodford, Matt White, and Jeff
Smith (all from Abt Associates) and Stephen Poulin (University of Pennsylvania).

This year’s report also benefited greatly from the contributions of a number of HUD staff.
Julie Hovden and Michael Roanhouse of the Office of Community Planning and
Development, and Anne Fletcher of the Office of Policy Development and Research have
provided overall leadership and vision. The project has also benefited from the support of
other HUD staff in the Office of Community Planning and Development, especially Mark
Johnston and Ann Oliva.

Finally, this project and this report could not have been possible without the participation of
staff from Continuums of Care, local government agencies and nonprofit agencies
responsible for HMIS implementation in communities across the country as well as HMIS
software solution providers. Their continued commitment is greatly appreciated.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................i
Point-in-Time Estimates of Homeless People................................................................................i
One-Year Estimates of Sheltered Homeless People ................................................................... iii
Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 ............................................................................................ iii
Trends in Sheltered Homelessness, 2007-2009 ...........................................................................iv
The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People...................................v
Looking Ahead...............................................................................................................................v
Chapter 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1
1.1 History of the AHAR ........................................................................................................1
1.2 AHAR Estimates for 2009................................................................................................3
1.3 This Report ........................................................................................................................4
1.4 Trends in Homelessness and the Economic Crisis...........................................................5
Chapter 2 National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered ...............7
2.1 One-Day Count of Homeless People................................................................................7
2.2 Trends in PIT Counts of Homeless People ......................................................................8
2.3 Where People were Homeless on the Night of the PIT Count ......................................12
2.4 PIT Counts of Homeless Subpopulations.......................................................................14
2.5 Estimates of Sheltered Homeless Individuals and Families during a
One-Year Period .............................................................................................................17
2.6 Summary of the National Estimates of All Homeless People .......................................18
Chapter 3 Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 ...........................................................................21
3.1 Characteristics of People Using Homeless Shelters, 2009 ............................................21
3.2 Location of Homeless Service Use, 2009.......................................................................31
3.3 Patterns of Homeless Service Use, 2009........................................................................35
3.4 Summary of All Sheltered Homeless People in 2008....................................................38
Chapter 4 Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009...................................41
4.1 Changes in the Sheltered Homeless Population between 2007 and 2009.....................41
4.2 Changing Patterns of Becoming Homeless, 2007-2009 ................................................51
4.3 Changing Use of the Residential System for Homeless People, 2007-2009.................54
4.4 Summary of Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009....................59
Chapter 5 The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People ...........61
5.1 Inventory of Residential Programs and Beds, 2009.......................................................62
5.2 Geographic Location of Beds, 2009...............................................................................65
5.3 Bed Utilization and Turnover Rates, 2009.....................................................................67
5.4 Changes in the National Inventory and Utilization of Beds, 2006-2009.......................69
5.5 Summary of the Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 72
Chapter 6 Looking Ahead.............................................................................................................75
6.1 The 2010 AHAR .............................................................................................................76

Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities
Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
Appendix C: Continuum of Care Point-in-Time Counts of Homeless Persons
Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data

Executive Summary
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is pleased to present the
2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), the fifth in a series of reports on
homelessness in the United States. The reports respond to a series of Congressional
directives calling for the collection and analysis of data on homelessness.

The AHAR reports provide the latest counts of homelessness nationwide—including counts
of individuals, persons in families, and special population groups such as veterans and
chronically homeless people. The report also covers the types of locations where people use
emergency shelter and transitional housing; where people were just before they entered a
residential program; how much time they spend in shelters over the course of a year; and the
size and use of the U.S inventory of residential programs for homeless people.

With the 2009 AHAR, we now have three complete years of data on the numbers and
characteristics of sheltered homeless people, how they became homeless, and how they used
the homeless services system. This is important, because we can begin to see discernable
trends in homelessness, including the effects of the recession and of changes over time to the
homeless services system.

The 2009 AHAR also marks continued improvement in both sources of estimates of
homelessness used in the reports. A larger number of communities are reporting Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS) data to the AHAR, which is used in the analysis of
patterns of homelessness over a year’s time. In 2009, 334 communities—representing 2,988
counties and 1,056 cities—reported usable HMIS data to the report, a sizable increase from
last year’s report (222 communities). At the same time, the point-in-time (PIT) counts
essential for estimating the numbers and characteristics of all homeless people, both
sheltered and unsheltered, are improving as communities use more rigorous methodologies
for conducting the counts.

For the first time, this 2009 AHAR includes information from in-person interviews with local
service providers located in nine communities nationwide. This qualitative information
provides a contextual backdrop for understanding how homelessness is changing.

Point-in-Time Estimates of Homeless People
On a single night in January 2009, there were an estimated 643,067 sheltered and
unsheltered homeless people nationwide. More than 6 in 10 people who were homeless at a
single point-in-time were in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, while 37
percent were unsheltered on the “street” or in other places not meant for human habitation.
The total number of people homeless on a single night has remained fairly stable from year to
year, but over time a smaller share of all homeless people is unsheltered, and a larger share is
Executive Summary i

found in emergency shelters or transitional housing. This may in part reflect better “street
counts,” but it probably also reflects community success in getting people off the streets and
into shelters or housing.

2. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) are electronic administrative
databases that are designed to record and store client-level information on the
characteristics and service needs of homeless persons. HMIS data is used to produce
counts of the sheltered homeless population over a full year—that is, people who used
emergency shelter or transitional housing programs at some time during the course of a
year. The 2009 AHAR uses HMIS data for the most recent, one-year reporting period and
compares these data to previous HMIS-based findings.
Data Sources Used in the AHAR

The AHAR is based on two data sources:

1. Continuum of Care applications are submitted to HUD annually as part of the competitive
funding process and provide one-night, Point-in-Time (PIT) counts of both sheltered and
unsheltered homeless populations. The PIT counts are based on the number of homeless
persons on a single night during the last week in January, and the most recent PIT counts
for which data are available nationally were conducted in January 2009.
Nearly two thirds of the people homeless on a single night were homeless as individuals (63
percent), while more than a third (37 percent) were homeless as part of a family. Family
members were much less likely than individuals to be unsheltered. Only 21 percent of all
homeless family members were unsheltered on the night of the point-in-time count, while
almost half of homeless individuals were unsheltered.

Information from CoC applications includes counts of particular homeless subpopulations,
including people whose homelessness is chronic—that is, individuals with disabilities and
long or frequent patterns of homelessness. National policy has focused on ending chronic
homelessness through funding incentives to develop permanent supportive housing and
through the dissemination of best practice strategies for reducing chronic homelessness. The
January 2009 PIT estimate of chronic homelessness is 110,917 people, more than a 10
percent drop from the PIT count of 124,135 chronically homeless people in 2008. All of the
decrease occurred among unsheltered chronically homeless people. While measuring the
scope of chronic homelessness remains challenging, a majority of CoCs (53 percent) reported
a decrease in chronic homelessness between 2008 and 2009.

Homelessness is heavily concentrated in large coastal states, with California, New York, and
Florida accounting for 39 percent of the PIT count in 2009. On a single night in January
2009, the states with the highest concentrations of homeless people were Nevada, where .85
percent of the total population was homeless, followed by Oregon, Hawaii, California, and
ii Executive Summary

Washington. Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia had the nation’s lowest
concentrations of homeless persons.

One-Year Estimates of Sheltered Homeless People
Nearly 1.56 million people used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program
during the 12-month period (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Two thirds were
homeless as individuals, and one-third were homeless as members of families.

For the second straight year, the number of sheltered homeless families increased, while the
number of sheltered homeless individuals dropped. In 2009, approximately 1,035,000
individuals used sheltered or transitional housing at some time during the year, as did
535,000 people who were there as part of a family. A family is a household that includes an
adult 18 years of age or older and at least one child. All other sheltered homeless people are
considered individuals. Considered as households rather than separate people, slightly more
than 170,000 families were sheltered homeless in 2009, about a 30 percent increase since
2007.

Sheltered Homeless People in 2009
A typical sheltered homeless person in 2009 was an adult male, a member of a minority
group, middle-aged, and alone. Men are overrepresented in the sheltered homeless
population--63.7 percent of homeless adults are men, compared to 40.5 percent of adults in
poverty. African Americans make up 38.7 percent of the sheltered homeless population,
about 1.5 times their share of the poverty population. Only 2.8 percent of the sheltered
homeless population is 62 years old or older. Homeless people have higher rates of disability
than either the poverty population or the total U.S. population; slightly over two-thirds of
sheltered homeless adults have a disability, according to HMIS data.

People who are homeless by themselves are very different from those who are homeless with
children. Sheltered individuals are overwhelmingly male. More than three quarters are over
30, more than 10 percent are veterans, and more than 40 percent have a disability. In
contrast, adults in sheltered homeless families are overwhelmingly female, most are under
age 31, and very few are veterans or have a disability. Three-fifths of the people in homeless
families are children, and more than half of the children are under age 6.

The geographic distribution of homelessness is markedly different from the distribution of
the nation’s poverty and total populations. The share of sheltered homeless people in
principal cities in 2009 is nearly twice the share of the poverty population in these areas, 68.2
vs. 35.6 percent. Homeless individuals are particularly likely to be in urban areas. Nearly
three-quarters of all sheltered individuals (72.2 percent) accessed a homeless residential
program in a principal city, compared with 61.2 percent of persons in families.
Executive Summary iii

Almost two-fifths of people entering an emergency shelter or transitional housing program
during 2009 came from another homeless situation. Among those already homeless, almost
two thirds were in shelter rather than in a place not intended for human habitation.

Another two-fifths of people who entered shelter in 2009 came from a housed situation (in
their own or someone else’s home), and the remaining one-fifth were split between
institutional settings or other situations such as hotels or motels. Families were particularly
likely to be housed the night before becoming homeless: more than 6 in 10 were either in
their own housing unit (20 percent), staying with family (29 percent), or staying with friends
(14 percent).

More than three quarters of sheltered homeless people in 2009 used only emergency shelter,
77 percent. Families were more likely than individuals to use transitional housing either
alone or in combination with emergency shelter, 30 vs. 19 percent. Most people had
relatively short lengths of stay in emergency shelters: the median length of stay was 17 days
for individuals and 36 days for persons in families.

Trends in Sheltered Homelessness, 2007-2009
The overall number of sheltered homeless people increased slightly between 2007 and 2008
before dropping slightly—by about 2 percent or 35,000 people—between 2008 and 2009. The
continued rise in family homelessness across the three years, from 131,000 families in 2007 to
170,000 families in 2009, is almost certainly related to the recession. However, the increase was
more pronounced between 2007 and 2008, even through unemployment rates remained high
during the 2009 reporting period (October 2008 through September 2009). It may be that many
families already at risk of becoming homeless lacked sufficient support networks and became
homeless almost immediately after the economy turned down. A much larger group turned to
family and friends and may be doubled up and still at great risk of becoming homeless. The
percentage of adults in families who reported that they had been staying with families before
entering shelter increased steadily over the three-year period, from 24.2 percent in 2007 to 29.4
percent in 2009, as did the total percentage reporting that they had been in some sort of “housed”
situation before becoming homeless, reaching 62.5 percent in 2009.

All of the increase in family homelessness in 2009 compared with 2008 was in the use of
emergency shelter by family members, rather than transitional housing. Families stayed longer
in shelters in 2009 than in 2008, with the median number of nights rising from 30 to 36. Not
only did family homelessness continue to increase between 2008 and 2009, it also seems to
have become more severe in the sense that it took the typical family longer to leave shelter.

More individuals—adults entering shelter by themselves—reported that their previous living
situation was a place not meant for human habitation in 2009 compared with 2008. This may
suggest that communities are having some success in getting people off the “street” and into
iv Executive Summary

shelter or other forms of housing, especially since the overall number of unsheltered
homeless individuals reported by communities in the PIT count did not go up.

Few changes occurred in the demographic characteristics of sheltered homeless people. A
slight aging of the adult homeless population (more people over 50) is consistent with other
research that points to the aging of a cohort of people who became susceptible to
homelessness when they were younger. Both families and individuals identifying themselves
as African American have dropped steadily, from a high starting point. Adults in sheltered
homeless families were more likely in 2009 to be men (20.4 percent) than they were in 2007
(18.0 percent). This likely reflects the pressures of the recession and is consistent with
reports from the in-person interviews with providers conducted for this report.

The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless
People
In their annual applications to HUD, CoCs submit information on their inventories of
residential beds for homeless people. In 2009, CoCs reported a total of 643,423 year-round
beds nationwide in 20,065 separate emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent
supportive housing, and safe haven programs.

For several years, one of HUD’s policy priorities has been the development of permanent
supportive housing programs that provide a combination of housing and supportive services
to people who were formerly homeless and with disabilities. In 2009 for the first time, the
number of beds in permanent supportive housing surpassed the numbers of beds in
emergency shelter or transitional housing. Permanent supportive housing increased by almost
60,000 beds between 2006 and 2009. More than half the growth was in the last year, from
just under 196,000 beds in 2008 to more than 219,000 in 2009.

Although there may be other factors that contributed to the decline in unsheltered homelessness
and chronic homelessness in the PIT counts—including improved enumeration strategies—we
believe the reported reductions reflect this increase in permanent supportive housing.

Looking Ahead
The 2010 AHAR will continue to provide Congress and the nation with updated counts of
homelessness nationwide, including counts of individuals, persons in families, and special
population groups such as chronically homeless people and persons with disabilities. These
topics will be explored using data from an ever-expanding group of communities that
participate in the AHAR, which now includes the majority of Continuums of Care
nationwide. The 2010 AHAR also will add another full-year of HMIS data to further
highlight trends in homelessness and identify any long-term impacts of the economic
recession.
Executive Summary v

vi Executive Summary

The 2010 AHAR will be the first to include data on people served in permanent supportive
housing programs, in addition to the data from emergency shelter and transitional housing
programs that have constituted the first five AHARs. The slight decrease in the number of
people using transitional housing programs in 2009 may have been a result of communities
moving families directly from emergency shelters to permanent supportive housing. The
2010 AHAR will be able to assess this question, among many others, in a more nuanced
fashion. The 2010 AHAR will also be the first to examine trends in homelessness among
veterans, comparing the 2009 supplemental report on homeless veterans (to be released later
in 2010) with the 2010 supplemental report.

HUD continues to view the AHAR as the primary resource for up-to-date information about
homelessness based on locally-derived HMIS data and is exploring ways to make these data
readily accessible to states, localities, and the general public. Based on the AHAR,
policymakers and practitioners alike will be able to better understand homelessness in their
communities, allocate local homeless assistance funds effectively, improve program
operations, and work toward the ultimate goal of ending homelessness.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
This report is the fifth Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) on homelessness in the
United States. The report provides estimates of the prevalence of homelessness nationwide,
the demographic characteristics of homeless people, and the way homeless people use the
residential services system. The estimates include the most recent counts of homeless
individuals, persons in families, and special population groups such as veterans and persons
experiencing chronic homelessness. The report also covers the types of locations where
people use emergency shelter and transitional housing; where people were just before they
entered a residential program; how much time they spent in shelters over the course of a year;
and the size and use of the U.S inventory of residential programs for homeless people.

This report builds on last year’s report by adding data on sheltered homeless people for
another full year, allowing for a comparative analysis of homelessness that spans three
years—2007, 2008, and 2009. The inclusion of data for a third year is important because it
marks the establishment of discernable trends in homelessness. This report is also the first to
include information from in-person interviews with local service providers located in nine
communities nationwide.
1
The qualitative information provides a contextual backdrop for
understanding how homelessness is changing throughout the nation. Finally, the report adds
Point-in-Time (PIT) counts of sheltered and unsheltered persons and of homeless
subpopulations for another year, providing trend data for 2006 through 2009.

The trend information reported in the AHAR is useful for several reasons. Trend information
can help federal, state and local policymakers understand whether the nation’s policy responses
are making a difference. They also show how the portrait of homelessness is changing over
time, which may suggest a need to provide additional assistance to particular homeless
subpopulations. Finally, trend information on the use of the nation’s homeless residential
system may suggest the need reallocate funds to support programs that are in high demand.

1.1 History of the AHAR
At the direction of Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
initiated a process to collect and analyze data on homelessness nationwide. HUD created
uniform, national data definitions for local Homeless Management Information Systems
(HMIS), which are designed primarily to be case management tools for local service providers

1
The nine Continuums of Care are: Cincinnati-Hamilton County CoC, Detroit CoC, Idaho Balance of State
CoC, Iowa Balance of State CoC, Memphis CoC, New York City CoC, Phoenix-Maricopa County CoC,
San Francisco CoC, and Seaside-Monterey County CoC. The interview participants were local service
providers located within each of these communities. The interviews in Idaho and Iowa were with service
providers located throughout the state.

2 Chapter 1: Introduction
and communities. HMIS are maintained by localities, and the geographic coverage of HMIS
systems varies considerably. Some systems cover just a city, others a city together with the
rest of a metropolitan area. Still others are statewide or cover several counties in a state.. HUD
instructed programs receiving HUD McKinney-Vento funding to report to the HMIS and
encouraged all programs for homeless people—regardless of their funding source—to report as
well. HMIS implementations have grown stronger over the past several years, and
participation among local providers in these systems is rising. Currently, about 68 percent of
all beds that are available for homeless and formerly homeless people are included in HMIS.
2

In concert with the implementation and support of HMIS, HUD established a nationally
representative sample of communities and began working with them to produce unduplicated
estimates of the sheltered homeless population (i.e., people in emergency shelters and transitional
housing).
3
These estimates were supplemented by data from additional communities willing to
provide their HMIS data. Since 2005, sample communities and others have been submitting
unduplicated counts of shelter users, as well as other information about their demographic
characteristics and patterns of service use for analysis and reporting in the AHAR.

Five reports have been submitted to Congress since HUD launched this effort:

 The 2005 AHAR covered a three-month period in 2005 and was based on HMIS data
reported by 63 communities.
 The 2006 AHAR covered six months, January through June 2006, and included
information from 74 communities.
 The 2007 AHAR was the first report to cover an entire year, October 2006-September
2007, and serves as the baseline for analyzing trends over time. For this report, 98
communities provided useable data.
 The 2008 AHAR covered the next 12-month period, October 2007 through
September 2008, and used HMIS data from 222 communities.
 This report, or the 2009 AHAR, covers the October 2008 to September 2009 period
and includes data from 334 communities— representing 2,988 counties and 1,056
cities.
4
The report is based on 570,335 person records that were aggregated and
reported to the AHAR.

2
This includes all year-round and seasonal beds, but excludes overflow or voucher beds. HMIS-bed
coverage is lowest among emergency shelters (65.2 percent) and highest among permanent supportive
housing (72.9 percent) and safe havens (96.3 percent).
3
An unduplicated estimate means that each person is counted once during a given time period, even if the
person is served multiple times during that period.
4
Some Continuums of Care submitted data for the sample site located within its jurisdiction, as well as data
for the balance of the CoC. The unduplicated count of CoCs that participated in the 2009 AHAR is 296.

HUD also requires CoCs to report point-in-time (PIT) data collected for a single night in
January as part of their annual applications for McKinney-Vento funding. The PIT data
provide a one-night “snapshot” of homelessness within each CoC, including both the
sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations. For several years, HUD has provided
extensive technical assistance to communities on how to conduct these PIT counts and, as a
result, the reliability of PIT data has improved greatly over time. The CoC applications also
provide information on the inventory of residential programs, beds, and units for homeless
and formerly homeless people.

Definitions of Key Terms

1. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS): HMIS is a software application
designed to record and store client-level information on the characteristics and service needs
of homeless persons.
2. Individuals: The HMIS-based estimates of sheltered homeless individuals include single
adults, unaccompanied youth, persons in multi-adult households, and persons in multi-child
households. A multi-adult household is a household composed of adults only—no children are
present. A multi-child household is composed of children only (e.g., parenting youth)—no
adults are present.
3. One-Year Sheltered Counts: 12-month counts of homeless persons who use an emergency
shelter or transitional housing program at any time from October though September of the
following year. The one-year counts are derived from communities’ administrative databases,
or Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS).
4. Persons in Families: The HMIS-based estimates of homeless persons in families include
persons in households with at least one adult and one child.
5. Point-in-Time (PIT) Counts: One-night counts of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless
populations. The one-night counts are reported on CoC applications and reflect a single-night
during the last week in January.
6. Principal City: Following guidance from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the
AHAR replaces the term “central city” with “principal city.” The largest city in each metropolitan
or micropolitan statistical area is designated a principal city, and other cities may qualify if
specified requirements (population size and employment) are met.
7. Sheltered: A homeless person who is in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program
for homeless persons.
8. Unsheltered: A homeless person who is living in a place not meant for human habitation, such
as the streets, abandoned buildings, vehicles, parks, and train stations.

1.2 AHAR Estimates for 2009
The AHAR provides two types of estimates. Estimates that are based on CoC PIT data
provide one-night counts of all people who are homeless either in shelters or in places not
meant for human habitation (colloquially, “the street”). Estimates that are based on HMIS
data provide counts of all people who are sheltered homeless at any time during a year. Both
types of estimates are important:
Chapter 1: Introduction 3

4 Chapter 1: Introduction

 The PIT data provide a total count of all homeless people on a single night in January
and describe the share of people who are sheltered (i.e., in emergency shelter or
transitional housing) or unsheltered (i.e., in a place not meant for human habitation)
on that night.
 The HMIS data provide longitudinal counts of shelter use over a 12-month period,
offer a more detailed demographic profile of sheltered homeless people, and
described their use of the residential services system.

At this time, neither PIT nor HMIS-based data support an unduplicated estimate of the total
number of people who are sheltered and unsheltered homeless over the course of a year.
5

However, given the information provided in this report, we can estimate that roughly 2
million people were homeless—sheltered and unsheltered—at some time during 2009.

1.3 This Report
Chapter 2 provides more detail on the counts of homeless persons. The counts reported in
chapter 2 include both the PIT estimates of people who are in shelters and on the streets and
the HMIS-based estimates of people who access a shelter at some time during 2009. The
counts are presented separately for people who are homeless as individuals and those who are
part of a family. The chapter describes trends in the PIT estimates over a four-year period,
2006-2009, and also provides detail on how homelessness varies from state to state.

Chapter 3 describes the sheltered homeless population in 2009. The chapter focuses on the
demographic characteristics of sheltered homeless people and compares this profile to the
characteristics of people living in poverty and the total U.S. population. The chapter also
discusses the types of locations where people use residential programs for homeless people
and how they use programs—for example, do they use emergency shelter or transitional
housing programs and how long do they stay?.

Chapter 4 focuses on trends in sheltered homelessness between 2007 and 2009. The
chapter describes shifts in the homeless population between individuals and families, the
changing geography of homelessness, and changes in the use of the residential system for
homeless people. The chapter also reports changes in the patterns of becoming homeless—
that is, where people said they were the night before entering an emergency shelter or a
transitional housing program and how long they had been there.

5
Adding the unsheltered count from the Point-in-Time estimate to the HMIS-based one-year count would
miss people who were unsheltered on some other night during the year but not when the “street count” was
conducted. On the other hand, adding the unsheltered count also would double-count the large fraction of
the people who are unsheltered homeless on a particular night but who go to emergency shelters at some
time during a year and are already counted in the HMIS data.

Chapter 5 documents the numbers and locations of residential programs for homeless
people, including permanent supportive housing, as well and emergency shelters and transitional
housing programs. The chapter also reports how intensively emergency shelters and transitional
housing programs are used and how that has changed over time.

Appendix A provides a list of the communities providing useable data to this 2009 AHAR.
Appendix B describes the methodology for selecting the nationally representative sample of
communities, collecting and cleaning the data, and for weighting and adjusting the data to
create the national estimates. Appendix C presents the PIT estimates for each state and CoC.
Appendix D consists of detailed tables based on the HMIS data. The tables provide counts of
sheltered homeless people in numerous categories for 2009 and are intended to supplement the
information provided in the body of the report. Tables for 2007 and 2008 may be found in the
appendices to those AHAR reports.

1.4 Trends in Homelessness and the Economic Crisis
This report captures information on the use of the homeless residential system during the
height of the economic and foreclosure crisis, which began in December 2007. The three-
year changes documented in this report provide some evidence of how the recession has
affected homelessness in America.

The one-year estimates of shelter use show that almost 62,000 more family members were in
shelter at some point during 2009 than had been during 2007, making up almost 40,000
families. The continued growth in sheltered family homelessness almost certainly reflects
the ongoing effect of the recession. When compared to 2008, a slightly higher proportion of
families came from housed situations, most commonly staying with family. The fragile
economic circumstances of the relatives of struggling parents may mean that, as soon as job
losses begin in an economic downturn, support networks for families at risk of homelessness
fall apart. Doubled-up housing situations cannot be sustained, cash is no longer available to
help others with rent payments, and families turn to homeless shelters as the only way of
keeping a roof over their heads.

The data also show that adults in families were somewhat more likely to be men in 2009 than
they were in 2007. Because of the recession, more families with two adults may have
become homeless, as well as more families with only a father present. Local service
providers in six of the nine communities visited for this report said they had seen an increase
in two-parent families and male-headed families. Providers attribute the increase in two-
parent families to the effects of the recession, which is making it difficult for even one parent
to find a job.

Chapter 1: Introduction 5

6 Chapter 1: Introduction
Looking ahead, the long-term impacts of the recession are unclear. A recent study found that
the recession has caused a dramatic increase, almost five-fold, in the rate of overcrowding,
suggesting that many families are doubling up in response to the economic downturn.
6
If
some of these family support networks already are struggling to make ends meet, some of the
doubled-up families may find their way into the homeless residential service system during
2010. On the other hand, as the nation comes out of the recession and as the stimulus
funding made available through the Homelessness Prevention and Re-housing Program
(HPRP) starts helping families in crisis avoid shelter, it also is possible that family
homelessness will decline during the next reporting period. Indeed, as of May 2010, HPRP
has already served more than 300,000 people and approximately 75 percent of the funds have
been used for prevention services.

6
Painter, Gary. 2010. What Happens to Household Formation in a Recession? Research Institute for
Housing America and the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered 7
Chapter 2
National Estimates of All Homeless People,
Sheltered and Unsheltered
This chapter provides the 2009 national estimates of the prevalence of homelessness on a single
night and during a 12-month period (October 2008 to September 2009). Using point-in-time
(PIT) and HMIS data reported by Continuums of Care, this chapter:

 Presents the PIT counts of all sheltered and unsheltered homeless people,
distinguishing between sheltered and unsheltered homeless people and between people
who are homeless as individuals and as members of families. The chapter also describes
how these estimates changed between 2006 and 2009 and describes which states have
disproportionate numbers of homeless people compared with the state’s overall
population.
 Presents the PIT counts of homeless “subpopulations,” including people who are
chronically homeless; people with severe mental illness; people with substance abuse
issues; veterans; unaccompanied youth; and people living with HIV/AIDS.
 Presents the one-year estimates of sheltered homeless people based on HMIS data.
This chapter summarizes the estimates for 2009 and prior years that are discussed in
more detail in Chapters 3 and 4.

2.1 One-Day Count of Homeless People
On a single night in January 2009, all Continuums of Care across the country were required
to conduct a thorough enumeration of the homeless.
7
In total, the 452 CoCs found 643,067
people who were literally homeless on the night of the
count. Sixty-three percent of those counted were
sheltered—sleeping in emergency shelters or
transitional housing—while the other 37 percent were
unsheltered—sleeping on the streets, in their cars, in
abandoned buildings, or in other places not meant for
human habitation. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of
people who were homeless on the night of the PIT
count were individuals. Although the PIT count was conducted in the middle of winter,
nearly half of all homeless individuals were unsheltered. Persons in families—households

7
CoCs are required by HUD to conduct an annual count of their sheltered and unsheltered homeless
population every other year, starting in 2007, then 2009, and so on. Many CoCs, however, voluntarily
choose to conduct a PIT count each year. In 2008, a third of CoCs did not conduct a new count, but rather
reported their 2007 data for the 2008 counts.
On a single night in
January 2009, there
were 643,000 homeless
people in shelters or on
the streets.

with at least one adult and one child—accounted for 37 percent of those homeless on the
night of the PIT count. Less than a quarter of homeless persons in families were unsheltered.

The results of the 2009 PIT count confirm that homelessness is still a serious problem that
affects far too many people. However, the percentage of all people in the U.S. who are
literally homeless on any night is very small. On the night of the January 2009 PIT count
roughly one in every 500 people and one in every 75 people living below the poverty line
was literally homeless. This suggests that the long-stated goal of eliminating homelessness
could be achieve with adequate and effectively targeted resources.

Exhibit 2-1: Homeless Persons and Households by Sheltered Status, Single Night
in 2009
Household Type Number Percentage
Total People
Sheltered 403,308 62.7%
Unsheltered 239,759 37.3%
Total 643,067 100.0%
Individuals
Sheltered 215,995 53.3%
Unsheltered 188,962 46.7%
Total 404,957 100.0%
Persons in Families
Sheltered 187,313 78.7%
Unsheltered 50,797 21.3%
Total 238,110 100.0%
Total Family Households
Sheltered 60,843 77.5%
Unsheltered 17,675 22.5%
Total 78,518 100.0%
Source: 2009 Continuum of Care Applications: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless Population and Subpopulations
Charts

2.2 Trends in PIT Counts of Homeless People
Exhibit 2-2 shows the change in the PIT count of all homeless people between January 2008
and January 2009. The top panel of the exhibit includes all 452 CoCs that submitted data in
2009, while the bottom panel excludes 3 CoCs that experienced important methodological
issues in either 2008 or 2009 that merit special attention. The top panel shows a 3.2 percent
decrease in the total PIT count of all homeless people from January 2008 to January 2009,
from 664,414 to 643,067. The decline includes 2.5 percent decrease in the number of
homeless individuals and a 4.5 percent decrease in the number of homeless persons in
families. The exhibit also shows a 4.3 percent increase in the number of sheltered homeless
people that was offset by a 13.7 percent decline in the number of people who were
unsheltered.
8 Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered

Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered 9

The decline in homelessness in 2009 was driven primarily by a single city with a large
homeless population, the City of Los Angeles. Between 2007 and 2009, the total count of
homeless people on a single night in Los Angeles decreased from 68,608 to 42,694, and the
city’s unsheltered homeless count decreased by almost half from 57,166 to 28,644.
8
In
addition to Los Angeles, two other cities experienced significant methodological issues with
their annual PIT count of homeless people—New Orleans and Detroit.
9
Removing these
three cities from both the 2008 and 2009 counts reveals a much different trend—the count of
sheltered and unsheltered people on a single night in January 2008 and 2009 increases by 2.1
percent. The increase in homelessness includes a 4.1 percent increase in sheltered
homelessness and a 1.7 percent decrease in unsheltered homelessness.

The removal of these
large cities from the PIT counts and the resulting shift in trends illustrates the need to
interpret changes in one-night PIT counts carefully. Unlike HMIS-based counts (presented
in chapters 3 and 4), one-night PIT counts are particularly sensitive to dramatic changes
within the nation’s largest cities and to evolving enumeration strategies.

8
Los Angeles' point-in-time totals were based on four sources. First, a street count of unsheltered homeless
persons conducted over a three-day period in January, covering over 40 percent of the city’s census tracts.
Several “hot spot” census tracts were selected with certainty (the same hot spots identified in the 2007 PIT
count), and all other tracts were selected through stratified random sampling. The results from selected
census tracts were extrapolated to provide estimates for the entire CoC. Between 2007 and 2009 the
number of people found living in unsheltered locations within Los Angeles decreased from 35,333 to
17,750. Second, the CoC conducted a count of sheltered persons in all of Los Angeles' 452 emergency
shelters and transitional housing programs. The number of persons in the sheltered count increased from
11,442 in 2007 to 14,050 in 2009. Third, an enumeration of the “hidden homeless” was conducted via a
telephone survey to estimate the number of homeless persons who were sleeping on private property
outside a place of residence' (e.g., a car or encampment) at the time of the PIT count. A total of 4,288
households within the Los Angeles CoC responded to the telephone survey and the results were
extrapolated to provide a CoC-wide estimate of the hidden homeless. This estimate was included in city’s
unsheltered count. The 'hidden homeless' estimate decreased from 20,746 in 2007 to 9,968 in 2009.
Finally, a separate count of unsheltered homeless youth was conducted in March. The count was organized
by eight providers of services to homeless youth, and the enumeration took place in neighborhoods where
homeless youth are typically found. Unlike the unsheltered street count, the CoC did not extrapolate the
estimates of homeless youth. The homeless youth count declined from 1,087 in 2007 to 926 in 2009.Taken
together, these four sources indicated that the total count of homeless people on a single night in Los
Angeles decreased from 68,608 to 42,694 between 2007 and 2009.
9
The City of New Orleans did not conduct a new PIT count of homeless people in 2008, reporting their 2007
data in their 2008 application. However, the city’s 2007 data were highly unreliable because the aftermath
of Hurricanes Katrina and Ike made it very difficult to produce an accurate PIT count of homeless people.
As a result, the change in the number of homeless people from 2007 to 2009 increased dramatically, from
1,619 to 8,725. In the City of Detroit, the city applied an extrapolation factor to their 2008 data to account
for people who may have been missed during their count of unsheltered people. The city chose not to
apply this extrapolation factor to their 2009 counts, reporting their raw 2009 count without the
extrapolation. As a result, the PIT count of homeless people declined dramatically, from 18,062 (in 2008)
to 3,694 (in 2009).

Exhibit 2-2: Changes in PIT Counts of Homeless People by Sheltered Status and
Household Type, 2008-2009
2008 Count 2009 Count Percent Change 2008-2009
All Continuums of Care
Sheltered Status
Sheltered 386,361 403,308 +4.3%
Unsheltered 278,053 239,759 -13.7%
Household Type
Individuals 415,202 404,957 -2.5%
Persons in Families 249,212 238,110 -4.5%
Total 664,414 643,067 -3.2%
Excluding Three Continuums of Care
a
Sheltered Status
Sheltered 369,191 384,486 +4.1%
Unsheltered 206,934 203,468 -1.7%
Household Type
Individuals 350,523 356,222 +1.6%
Persons in Families 225,602 231,732 +2.7%
Total 576,125 587,954 +2.1%
a
The three CoCs are The City of Los Angles CoC, the City of Detroit CoC and the City of New Orleans CoC. These CoCs were
excluded from the analysis because there were significant methodological issues related to their 2008 or 2009 PIT count of homeless
persons.
Source: 2009 Continuum of Care Applications: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless Population and Subpopulations
Charts excluding Los Angeles, Detroit, and New Orleans data from both 2008 and 2009.

Exhibit 2-3 shows a gradual decline from 2006 to 2009 in the number of individuals and
persons in families who were homeless on the night of the annual PIT count. The largest
decline occurred between 2006 and 2007 and the counts have been fairly stable since then.
While the decline is welcome news, particularly given overall changes to the economy and
the housing market, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of successful policy interventions
from nationwide improvements in PIT enumeration methods that have lead to greater
accuracy.
10 Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered

Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered 11

In addition, these national trends mask some of the changes that occurred within CoCs. As
shown in Exhibit 2-4, one-third of CoCs reported an increase in both individual and family
homelessness, one-quarter reported a decrease in both categories, and the remainder reported
an increase in one category and a decrease in the other. A majority of CoCs reported an
increase in sheltered homelessness (58 percent) but a decrease in unsheltered homelessness (53
percent) (see Exhibit 2-5). The increase in the proportion of sheltered homeless people could
suggest that communities are successfully moving people off of the streets and into shelter or
other forms of housing. HMIS data (reported in Chapter 4) also show that more individuals
report sleeping in a place not suitable for human habitation before entering shelter.

Exhibit 2-5 also shows considerable fluctuations in the magnitude of change in CoC’s PIT
counts of homeless people. Forty percent of CoCs reported an increase or decrease of 50
percent or more in their unsheltered count, and only 14 percent reported such large changes
in their sheltered counts. Unsheltered counts are more prone to large shifts from one year to
the next for several reasons. First, shelters have capacity constraints that limit how many
people they can serve on any night. Unless CoCs change their capacity by adding or
reducing shelter beds, their sheltered counts can fluctuate only within a limited range. In
contrast, there is no fixed limit on how many people can be living in unsheltered conditions
at any time. Also, conducting a count of sheltered people can be relatively straightforward
643,067
404,957
671,888
759,101
664,414
452,580
423,377 415,202
238,110
306,521
248,511 249,212
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: 2006 through 2009 Continuum of Care Application: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless
Population and Subpopulations Charts
Exhibit 2.3 Trends in Homeless PIT Counts, 2006-2009
Total
Individuals
Persons in Families

while conducting accurate counts of
unsheltered people can be very
challenging. Street count methodologies
differ greatly by CoC and year, and even
marginal changes to these methodologies
can result in substantial impacts on the
counts. Finally, inclement weather
conditions can hamper CoCs abilities to
conduct thorough street counts on any
given year, and thus lead to considerable
changes in their counts of unsheltered
homeless persons.

For the 2009 PIT count, HUD contacted any
CoC that reported either a greater than 100
percent increase or a greater than 50 percent
decrease in its unsheltered homeless count
between 2008 and 2009. Of the 79 CoCs
contacted, 41 (or 52 percent) attributed the
change to a change in their methodology, 23
(or 29 percent) to a change in the weather, and 15 (or 19 percent) believed the change was an
accurate reflection of the number of unsheltered homeless people in their CoC. These results
highlight the need for caution when attempting to attribute changes in the data to larger policy or
economic factors.
Exhibit 2.4 Change in Homelessness
Among CoCs, 2008-2009
21.3%
20.6%
33.2%
24.8%
Increase in family and individual homelessness
Increase in families; decrease in individuals
Increase in individuals; decrease in families
Decrease in both individual and family
homelessness
CoCs Reporting:

Exhibit 2-5: Magnitude of Change in PIT Counts of Homeless People by Sheltered
Status and Household Type, 2008-2009
Decrease
of more
than 50%
20-50%
Decrease
Decrease
of less
than 20%
No
Change
Increase
of less
than 20%
20-50%
Increase
Increase of
more than
50%
Sheltered Status
Sheltered 3% 11% 26% 2% 32% 15% 11%
Unsheltered 20% 19% 14% 1% 13% 13% 20%
Household Type
Individuals 4% 16% 24% 1% 28% 13% 12%
Persons in
Families
6% 15% 25% 2% 21% 16% 15%
Total Persons 4% 13% 27% <1% 32% 14% 10%
Source: 2008 and 2009 Continuum of Care Applications: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless Population and
Subpopulations Charts
12 Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered

2.3 Where People were Homeless on the Night of the PIT Count
Exhibit 2-6 shows the percentage of the homeless and total U.S. population within each
census region. Compared to their portion of the total population, people in the West are
over-represented within the homeless population and people in the Midwest and South are
under-represented. Between 2008 and 2009 the number of homeless people stayed the same
in the Northeast, decreased in the Midwest and West, and increased in the South.

Appendix C provides the
results of the 2009
homeless PIT counts for
each state. The data show
that, while homelessness
occurs everywhere
throughout the United
States, it is particularly
concentrated in large
coastal states. Thirty-nine
percent of people counted
as homeless on the night
of the PIT count were located in California, New York, or Florida. These three states account for
25 percent of the total U.S. population. The disproportionate presence of homelessness in these
states could be because of high housing costs in these states.
Exhibit 2-6: PIT Count of Homeless People by Census
Region, 2009
Percent of Homeless
Population
Percent of Total U.S.
Population
Northeast 18% 18%
Midwes 12% 22%
South 32% 37%
West 37% 23%
Source: 2009 Continuum of Care Application: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless
Population and Subpopulations Chart. Total population count comes from 2006-
2008 weighted averages from the American Community Survey.

States that have large shares of homeless people when compared to their total state
populations include some smaller states as well (see Exhibit 2-7). Excluding Washington,
DC, which is not a state, Nevada has the highest number of homeless people per capita,
followed by Oregon, Hawaii, California, and Washington State. All of these states are
located in the West and, as discussed in chapter 5, have the largest bed per capita rates in the
nation. Their high percentages of homeless people could reflect a high percentage of total
population found in principal cities (Nevada), high housing costs (California and Hawaii), or
a high percentage of adult men without family attachments (Oregon and Washington)
Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia had the lowest reported rates of homelessness.

Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered 13

14 Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered
Exhibit 2-7: Percentage of National Homeless Population by State

2.4 PIT Counts of Homeless Subpopulations
The PIT data also provide information on the number of homeless people who are in particular
subpopulations. CoCs are required to collect information on the number of chronically homeless
people (for both sheltered and unsheltered locations) and on other subpopulations, such as
veterans and people with severe mental illness (for sheltered conditions only).
Chronic Homelessness
The 2009 PIT count identified 110,917 individuals who met the definition of chronic
homelessness.
10
The majority of chronically homeless individuals (58 percent) were
unsheltered. Overall, 27 percent of all homeless individuals, 21 percent of sheltered
homeless individuals, and 35 percent of unsheltered homeless individuals experienced
chronic homelessness.

10
A chronically homeless person is defined as an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling
condition who has been either continuously homeless for a year or more or who has had at least four
episodes of homelessness in the past three years. To be considered chronically homeless, a person must
have been on the streets or in emergency shelter (e.g., not in transitional or permanent housing) during
these stays. Prior to the passage of the HEARTH Act persons in families could not be considered
chronically homeless.

Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered 15

As shown in Exhibit 2-8, the number of chronically homeless individuals decreased by 10.6
percent from 2008 to 2009, from 124,135 to 110,917. The number of sheltered chronically
homeless individuals stayed the same, while the number of unsheltered homeless individuals
decreased. As in the overall PIT counts, the majority of the decline in chronic homelessness
occurred within the City of Los Angeles. Excluding the City of Los Angeles from both the
2008 and 2009 counts, there was a 1.1 percent decline in chronic homelessness.

A slight majority of CoCs (53 percent) reported a decrease in chronic homelessness between
2008 and 2009 (see Exhibit 2-9). As the exhibit suggests, only 13 percent of CoCs reported a
50 percent or greater decline in chronic homelessness, but this small proportion of CoCs
accounted for more than 23,000 fewer chronically homeless people between 2008 and 2009.
110,917
45,592
123,833
155,623
124,135
53,137
41,768
45,418
65,325
102,486
82,065
78,717
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: 2006 through 2009 Continuum of Care Applications: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless Population
and Subpopulations Charts
Exhibit 2.8: Trends in Chronic Homelessness, 2006-2009
Total
Sheltered
Unsheltered
N
u
mb
e
r
of
Pe
op
l
e

16 Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered

Other Subpopulations
CoCs were also asked to report on the number of sheltered homeless people on a single night
in January who are veterans, have severe mental illness, chronic substance abuse problems,
HIV/AIDS, are victims of domestic violence, or who are unaccompanied youth (see Exhibit
2-10).
11
Based on these PIT estimates, one-third of sheltered homeless persons were reported
to have a chronic substance abuse problem and one-quarter reportedly had a severe mental
illness on a single night in January 2009. Thus, a large percentage of the homeless
population has issues that go beyond a temporary housing crisis, and supportive services
maybe needed to address those issues. However, contrary to the perceptions that some
people have of homelessness, a majority of homeless shelter users do not have chronic
substance abuse problems or severe mental illness.

Thirteen percent of sheltered homeless adults were veterans, a lower percentage than has
been reported elsewhere. There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. First,
the PIT data on veteran status are only for sheltered homeless people, and homeless veterans
may be more likely to be unsheltered than other homeless people. If so, the percentage of
sheltered homeless people who are veterans would be lower than the percentage of all
homeless people who are veterans. Second, in some areas of the country, residential
programs for the homeless that are funded through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
do not report data to the CoC. Finally, there is anecdotal evidence that homeless veterans
sometimes do not divulge their veteran status to homeless program staff.

Victims of domestic violence constituted twelve percent of the sheltered homeless
population, four percent had HIV/AIDS, and only one percent consisted of unaccompanied
people less than 18 years of age.

The percent of the sheltered population with any of these characteristics or experiences in
January 2009 was lower than it was in January 2008 or in January 2006. The reasons for the

11
Veterans status was only asked of adults. Substance abuse, mental illness, and HIV/AIDS status was asked
of all adults and unaccompanied youth but not children in families.
Exhibit 2-9: Magnitude of Change in PIT Counts of Chronically Homeless People,
2008-2009
Decrease
of more
than 50%
20-50%
Decrease
Decrease
of less
than 20%
No
Change
Increase
of less
than 20%
20-50%
Increase
Increase of
more than
50%
Percent of CoCs 13% 20% 20% 4% 13% 14% 16%
Total Change -23,116 -9,166 -2,255 0 775 4,749 15,320
Source: 2008 and 2009 Continuum of Care Applications: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless Population and
Subpopulations Charts

Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered 17
decrease are difficult to pinpoint. One possible factor is the development of permanent
supportive housing specifically targeted to certain subpopulations (HIV/AIDS, veterans,
chronic substance abusers, people with severe mental illness). Second, improvements in
methodology may have contributed to the decline, as CoCs have stopped including substance
abuse programs, orphanages, or other programs with residents who should not be considered
homeless in their PIT counts. Finally, the recession may be causing an increase in the
number of people who are homeless for purely economic reasons.

2.5 Estimates of Sheltered Homeless Individuals and Families
during a One-Year Period
This section shifts from information based on CoC PIT data to longitudinal estimates of the
number of people using emergency shelters and transitional housing at any time during the
one-year period from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009. These estimates are based on
CoCs’ HMIS data. Unlike the PIT counts, CoCs are not required to participate in the AHAR,
and thus some CoCs do not submit HMIS data to HUD. Participation in the AHAR is
growing immensely, from 222 communities in 2008 to 334 communities in 2009, spurred by
the inclusion of AHAR-related questions in the CoC competitive scoring process for
McKinney-Vento funds. Altogether, the 334 communities that participated in the 2009
AHAR submitted usable data on 570,335 person records. These data were statistically
33.9%
24.9%
12.1%
3.9%
1.4%
39.0%
36.4%
36.5%
25.3%
27.6%
26.3%
13.1%
15.5% 15.0% 15.1%
12.8%13.0%12.6%
4.2%4.1%
4.7%
2.1%
2.3%
4.8%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: 2006 – 2009 Continuum of Care Applications: Exhibit 1, CoC Point-in-Time Homeless Population and
Subpopulations Charts
Exhibit 2-10: Trends in Sheltered Homeless Subpopulations 2006-2008
Chronic Substance
Abusers
Severely Mentally Ill
Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Persons with HIV/AIDS

18 Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered
adjusted to produce the national estimates that are summarized here and presented in more
detail in Chapters 3 and 4.
12

Roughly 1.56 million people, or one in every 200 Americans, spent at least one night in an
emergency shelter or transitional housing program in 2009. Two-thirds of sheltered persons
were individuals and one-third were persons in families. The total number of homeless
shelter users declined by nearly 30,000 people from 2008 to 2009. However, for the second
straight year the number of homeless families increased: 473,541 in 2007; 516,724 in 2008;
and 535,447 in 2009. Overall, family homelessness increased by about 7 percent between
2008 and 2009 and 30 percent from 2007 to 2009. As a result of this increase, along with the
drop in the number of individual homeless people, the percentage of sheltered homeless
people who were homeless as part of families rather than by themselves increased from 29.8
percent in 2007 to 34.1 percent in 2009.

12
See Appendix B for a description of the weighting techniques used to produce national estimates from
HMIS data.
Exhibit 2-11: Estimates of Sheltered Homeless Individuals and Persons in Families
During a One-Year Period, 2007-2009
2007 2008 2009

Total
Number
% of
Sheltered
Homeless
Population
Total
Number
% of
Sheltered
Homeless
Population
Total
Number
% of
Sheltered
Homeless
Population
Total Number of
Sheltered Persons
a

1,588,595
c
1,593,794
c
1,558,917
c

Individuals
b
1,115,054 70.2% 1,092,612 67.9% 1,034,659 65.9%
Persons in families 473,541
d
29.8% 516,724
d
32.1% 535,447
d
34.1%
Number of Sheltered
Households with
Children
130,968
d
- 159,142
d
- 170,129
d
-

a
These estimated totals reflect the number of homeless persons in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who used
emergency shelters or transitional housing programs during the one-year period from October 1 through September 30 of the
following year. The estimates do not cover the U.S. Territories and Puerto Rico and do not include persons served by “victim
service providers.” The estimated totals include an extrapolation adjustment to account for people who use emergency
shelters and transitional housing programs but whose jurisdictions do not yet participate in their respective HMIS. However, a
homeless person who does not use an emergency shelter or transitional housing during the 12-month period is not included in
this estimate. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
b
This category includes unaccompanied adults and youth as well as multi-adult households without children.
c
This estimate includes unaccompanied individuals and persons in households. In 2007, the 95 percent confidence interval for
the estimated number of sheltered homeless persons in the population was 1,043,775 to 2,133,415 persons (or +/- 544,820
persons). In 2008, the 95 percent confidence interval is 1,180,758 to 2,006,830 (or +/- 413,036 persons). In 2009, the 95
percent confidence interval is 1,265,075 to 1,922,513 (or +/- 328,719).
d
In 2007 - 2009, approximately 1 percent of homeless persons were served both as an unaccompanied individual and a person
in a family. In this exhibit, such people appear in both categories in 2008, so the total number of sheltered persons is slightly
less than the sum of individuals and families.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

Chapter 3 provides information on the characteristics of people who used emergency shelter
and transitional in 2009, and Chapter 4 provides detailed information on the trends in
sheltered homelessness across the three years from 2007 to 2009.

2.6 Summary of the National Estimates of All Homeless People
Results from the single-night PIT count:
 On a single night in January 2009, 643,000 people were homeless. Nearly two-thirds
stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were
living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human
habitation.
 The number of homeless persons on the night of the PIT count decreased 3.2 percent
from January 2008 to January 2009. However, this decline reflects a steep decline in the
homeless population of a single city, Los Angeles. Removing Los Angeles from both
counts, the total number of homeless people increased although the number of
unsheltered homeless people still decreased.
 A majority of CoCs reported an increase in sheltered homelessness and a decrease in
unsheltered homelessness. Communities may be successfully moving people of the
street and into shelter or other forms of housing.
 Large coastal states—California, New York, and Florida—accounted for 39 percent
of people who were homeless on the night of the PIT count. Several other western
states, besides California, had large shares of homeless people compared to their total
state populations.
 Chronic homelessness seems to have continued a long-term pattern of decline
between 2008 and 2009.

Results from one-year estimates from HMIS data:

 Nearly 1.56 million people spent at least one night in an emergency shelter or
transitional housing program between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.
 Nearly 35,000 fewer people used emergency shelter or transitional housing in 2009
than in 2008. However, the number of families in homeless programs increased by
nearly 11,000. Since 2007 there has been a nearly 30 percent increase in the number
of sheltered families.

Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered 19

20 Chapter 2: National Estimates of All Homeless People, Sheltered and Unsheltered

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 21
Definition of Sheltered Homeless Individuals and Persons in Families

 Sheltered homeless individuals include single adults, unaccompanied youth, persons in
multi-adult households, and persons in multi-child households.
 Sheltered homeless persons in families include persons in households with at least
one adult and one child.
Chapter 3
Sheltered Homeless People in 2009
This chapter provides a profile of the estimated 1.56 million sheltered homeless people in
2009. The chapter is based on HMIS data reported by 334 jurisdictions nationwide and
weighted to represent the entire nation. The data were collected on anyone who used an
emergency shelter or transitional housing program at some time from October 2008 through
September 2009.

As in past reports, the profile of sheltered homeless people focuses on three topics:

 The demographic characteristics of sheltered homeless people. Who were the
sheltered homeless? How did the characteristics of homeless people compare to those
of the overall population living in poverty and the U.S. population as a whole?
 The location of homeless service use. In what types of communities (urban, suburban
or rural) did people use emergency and transitional housing programs? Where did
they stay before using residential homeless services?
 The patterns of homeless service use. How did people use emergency and transitional
housing programs? How long did people stay in homeless residential facilities?

These topics are discussed for the total, sheltered homeless population and separately for
individuals and for persons in families. Most individuals are unaccompanied adults. For the
purposes of this report, a family includes persons in households with at least one adult and one
child, so all other households (e.g., unaccompanied youth and two adults who are homeless
together but without children) are considered to be homeless as individuals.

3.1 Characteristics of People Using Homeless Shelters, 2009
Characteristics of All Sheltered Persons
Homelessness can befall people of all genders, races and ages. A portrait of the estimated 1.6
million people who used a shelter between October 2009 and September 2010 is provided in
Exhibit 3-1. In 2009, a typical sheltered homeless person had the following characteristics:

22 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009
A typical homeless
person is a middle-
aged, adult male
who is a member of
a minority group
and is by himself.
 Adult—78 percent of all sheltered homeless persons
are adults.
 Male–61 percent are male.
 Minority—62 percent are members of a minority
group.
 Middle-age—38 percent are 31 to 50 years old.
 Alone—64 percent are in one-person households.
 No special needs—62 percent do not have a disability.

Exhibit 3-1 also compares the characteristics of the sheltered homeless population with those
of the U.S. poverty and total populations, highlighting several important differences. When
compared to these populations, homeless people are much more likely to be adult males,
African-Americans, not elderly, alone, veterans, and disabled.

Adult males. Adult men are overrepresented in the sheltered homeless population. An
estimated 63.7 percent of homeless adults are men, compared to 48.7 percent of the overall
population and 40.5 percent of the poverty population. As noted in previous reports, the
large proportion of adult men in the shelter system is likely associated with several factors:
gaps in the Unemployment Insurance program; an inability to qualify for the largest safety
net programs (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security);
13
higher
rates of substance abuse than among women; and a greater likelihood that men have
institutional histories that are related to homelessness (e.g., incarceration).
14

13
Single men who are poor may be more vulnerable to homelessness because of large gaps in the
Unemployment Insurance program and because the largest safety net programs, such as Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Security, are for families or elderly people. The share of
unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance has declined in recent decades and the gap may be
particularly perilous for men because poor women are likely to be accompanied by children and thus
eligible for TANF. Adult poor men also have higher rates of substance abuse than women, but substance
abuse has not been a categorical eligibility criterion for SSI since 1996. Thus, some women may fall
through one social safety net but be caught by another; men may miss them all. See the 2008 Annual
Homeless Assessment Report. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C.
14
The share of individual sheltered homeless men reported in the HMIS may be artificially high. First, the
HMIS data do not include adults served by domestic violence providers, most of whom are women,
because domestic violence providers are prohibited by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
(reauthorized in 2000 and 2005) from participating in HMIS. Second, some shelters have policies
prohibiting men over a certain age from sleeping in family shelters, requiring men and teenage boys to stay
at men’s shelters alone.
A study of patterns of homelessness among families in four communities—Houston TX, Washington DC,
Kalamazoo MI, and upstate South Carolina—tracked people from their first entry into the homeless
services system (based on HMIS data) for 18 months (30 months in DC) and found that many adults who
were homeless as part of a family during part of the tracking period used shelters for individuals at other
times during the tracking period. Brooke Spellman, Jill Khadduri, Brian Sokol, and Josh Leopold, Costs
Associated with First-Time Homelessness for Families and Individuals. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, March 2010.

Exhibit 3-1: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons in 2009
Compared to the 2008 U.S. and Poverty Populations
Characteristic
Percentage of All
Sheltered Homeless
Persons, 2009
Percentage of the
2008 U.S. Poverty
Population
Percentage of the
2008 U.S.
Population
Gender of Adults
Male 63.7% 40.5% 48.7%
Female 36.3% 59.5% 51.3%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic/non-Latino 80.5% 75.1% 84.6%
Hispanic/Latino 19.5% 24.9% 15.4%
Race
White, Non-Hispanic 38.1% 46.2% 65.4%
White, Hispanic 11.6% 15.0% 9.6%
Black or African American 38.7% 22.1% 12.4%
Other Single Race 4.7% 13.8% 10.3%
Multiple Races 7.0% 2.9% 2.3%
Age
a

Under age 18 22.2% 33.9% 24.3%
18 to 30 22.3% 23.8% 18.2%
31 to 50 38.3% 21.9% 28.2%
51 to 61 14.4% 9.2% 13.9%
62 and older 2.8% 11.3% 15.4%
Household Size
b
1 person 64.1% 16.6% 13.0%
2 people 10.0% 18.4% 25.6%
3 people 10.2% 17.1% 18.9%
4 people 7.9% 18.5% 20.9%
5 or more people 7.9% 29.4% 21.6%
Special Populations
Veteran (adults only)
c
11.1% 5.2% 9.7%
Disabled (adults only)
c
37.8% 26.2% 15.5%
a
Age is calculated based on a person’s first time in shelter during the one-year reporting period.
b
If a person is part of more than one household or the household size changed during the reporting period, the household size reflects the size of
the first household in which the person presented during the one-year reporting period. For all population types, past reports counted each
person in a multi-adult or multi-child household as an individual household composed of one person. In this report, persons in these
households are counted as one household composed of multiple people. For example, a household composed of two adults with no children
is counted as one household with a household size equal to two, rather than two households with each household size equal to 1.
c
Veteran and disability status are recorded only for adults in HMIS. The percentage calculations shown indicate the percent of homeless adults with
this characteristic. Some records were missing information on disability status (10.5 percent) and veteran status (5.3 percent) in 2009. The
percentage calculations are for those whose disability and veteran status was known.
Sources: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009; 2008 American Community Survey

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 23

24 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009
African Americans. African Americans represent 38.7 percent of the sheltered homeless
population, more than 3 times their share of the U.S. population and about 1.75 times their share
of the poverty population. The overrepresentation of African Americans in the homeless
population is related to urban concentrations of homelessness. According to 2008 data from
the U.S. Census Bureau, about 46 percent of the African American population and 57.7
percent of the poor African American population lives in principal cities. By contrast, only
16 percent of the white non–Hispanic population and 35 percent of the white Hispanic
population lives in these areas.
15

Non-elderly. Only 2.8 percent of the sheltered homeless population is 62 years old or older,
compared to 11.3 percent of the poverty population and 15.4 percent of the total U.S.
population. The lower rate of elderly people among the shelter population is likely
associated with two factors. First, an array of social safety-net programs in the United States
for people aged 65 or older—including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security,
Medicare, and public and other assisted housing for seniors—should help many vulnerable
persons avoid shelter. Second, medical morbidity rates—or the incidence of a disease, mental
health issues, or substance abuse disorders—are much higher among homeless people,
especially chronically homeless persons.
16
High medical morbidity rates, in turn, place
homeless people at higher risk of mortality than their housed counterparts. Homeless people
are 3 to 4 times more likely to die prematurely than the general population.
17

Alone. Nearly two-thirds of the total sheltered population (64.1 percent) are in single-person
households, nearly 4 times the proportion of such households in the poverty population and about
5 times the proportion in the national population.
18
Since most homeless individuals are men,
the reasons both single-person households and men are disproportionately represented in t
sheltered homeless population are likely the same.
he

15
Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew
Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, 2010.
16
Burt, Martha, Laudan Aron, Edgar Lee and Jesse Valente. 2001. Helping America’s Homeless. Urban
Institute Press. Washington DC; Caton, Carol, Carol Wilkins, and Jacquelyn Anderson. 2007. “People Who
Experience Long-Term Homelessness: Characteristics and Interventions.” Toward Understanding
Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington DC.
17
O’Connell, James J. “Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations: A Review of the Literature,” National
Health Care for the Homeless Council. December 2005.
18
Past reports counted each person in a multi-adult or multi-child household as an individual household
composed of one person (i.e., a 1-person household). In this report, persons in these household
compositions are counted as one household composed of multiple people. For example, a household
composed of two adults with no children is counted as one household with a household size equal to two,
rather than two households with household size equal to one each.

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 25
When compared to
their counterparts
nationwide,
homeless people
are much more
likely to be adult
males, African-
Americans, non-
elderly, alone,
veterans, and
disabled.
Veterans. Veterans are slightly more likely to be represented
in the sheltered homeless population than the general
population. Veterans represent about 11.1 percent of all
sheltered adults, compared to 5.2 percent of the poverty
population and 9.7 percent of the total U.S. adult population.
Many veterans confront the same issues that lead others into
homelessness, such lack of affordable housing and inadequate
income and savings. But they also have barriers that can be
particularly acute among service-men and -women returning
from active duty, such as the lingering effects of post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse. These
issues can make it difficult for veterans to find and maintain
gainful employment, which in turn can make it difficult to pay
for housing.

Disabled. Nearly four in ten sheltered adults (37.8 percent) has a disability, compared to
26.2 percent of the poverty population and 15.5 percent of the total U.S. population.
19
Thus,
a homeless adult is nearly 2.5 times more likely to have a disability than an adult in the U.S.
population. The higher disability rates among the homeless population are expected because
a disability, particularly one relating to substance abuse or mental health, can make it
difficult to work enough to afford housing. People with disabilities also have higher rates of
housing discrimination and, therefore, may have difficulties finding suitable housing.
20

Finally, as noted in the 2008 AHAR, the ability of SSI and SSDI to avert homelessness among
persons with disabilities is uncertain. A disabled person whose only income in 2009 was a
monthly SSI payment in 2009 was well under the poverty level for a single-person household.
The average annual SSI payment is about 44 percent below the poverty level.
21
Even so, only an

19
In the HMIS Data and Technical Standards (69 FR 45888, July 30, 2004), a disabling condition includes a
diagnosable substance abuse disorder, in order to match the definition found in the regulations
implementing the McKinney-Vento Act’s Supportive Housing and Shelter Plus Care programs. However,
the U.S. Census Bureau does not include substance abuse disorders as a form of disability, and thus the
broader definition used by HUD is likely to result in larger estimates of homeless persons with disabilities
compared to the U.S. poverty and general population.
20
Turner, Margery, Carla Herbig, Deborah Kaye, Julie Fenderson, and Diane Levy. 2005. Discrimination
Against Persons with Disabilities. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington DC.
21
In 2009, the average monthly SSI payment was $504 (or about $6,048 annually) and the poverty level for a
single-person household was $10,830. U.S. Social Security Administration Office of Retirement and
Disability Policy. Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2009. Available at
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/. See also: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. The 2009 HHS Poverty Guidelines. Washington, DC. Available at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml.

26 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009
estimated 10 to 15 percent of homeless people received SSI or SSDI assistance.
22
Many
homeless people who qualify for assistance do not apply or fail to complete the application
process because the process is daunting and particularly difficult for people with severe mental
illness. Also, several common types of disabilities among homeless people, such as substance
abuse issues and personality disorders, are not eligibility criterion for SSI.

Among all people in the United States, about 1 in 195 used a homeless residential facility at
some time during the 12 month reporting period. The likelihood of using a residential
homeless facility is much higher for some population groups (Exhibit 3-2). The highest risk
groups are African Americans (1 in 67) and adult men (1 in 145). Among all those who are
poor, about 1 in 25 is likely to enter shelter at some time during the year, and the variations
among particular types of poor people are equally striking. Veterans (1 in 10), adult men (1
in 14), and African Americans (1 in 15) in poverty are at highest risk of becoming homeless.

Exhibit 3-2: Odds of Becoming Part of the Sheltered Homeless Population, 2009
Group
Odds Within the Total U.S.
Population
Odds Within the U.S. Poverty
Population
All Persons 1 in 195 1 in 25
Persons in Families 1 in 296 1 in 45
Children 1 in 214 1 in 38
All Adults 1 in 190 1 in 21
Adult Men 1 in 145 1 in 14
Adult Women 1 in 269 1 in 35
All Minorities 1 in 105 1 in 21
African Americans 1 in 67 1 in 15
Veterans 1 in 176 1 in 10
Sources: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009

Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Individuals and Persons in Families
Among the estimated 1.56 million homeless people in shelter, about two-thirds are homeless
as individuals (66 percent) and about one-third are persons in families (34 percent). Considered
as households rather than separate people, there were about 170,000 sheltered families, or
14.3 percent of all sheltered homeless households.
23
As shown in Exhibit 3-3, the
overwhelming majority of homeless individuals are unaccompanied adult men. Only a quarter of

22
See the SSI/SDI Outreach, Access and Recovery (SOAR) Initiative:
http://www.prainc.com/SOAR/soar101/what_is_soar.asp
23
There were 1,034,659 homeless individuals, nearly all of whom were individual adult males, individual
adult females, or unaccompanied youth. There were also 25,216 adults in multi-adult households.
Assuming 2 adults per multi-adult household and each individual as a household, the percent of households
that were families is 14.3 percent (or 170,129 divided by 1,189,294).

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 27
are unaccompanied adult females. However, the profile of the individual homeless population
varies from community to community, and the site visits conducted for this report provided an
opportunity to explore some of this variation (see side bar on “Local Faces of Individual
Homelessness”).

As Exhibit 3-3 suggests, very few people are homeless only with other adults or are people under
age 18 without accompanying adults.
24
Together, these groups represent only 4 percent of all
sheltered homeless individuals. About three fifths of homeless people in families are children
under age 18 (61 percent); the rest are adults (39 percent).

The portrait of homelessness differs significantly by household type—that is, people who are
homeless by themselves are very different than those who are homeless as part of a family. In
2009, sheltered homeless individuals and persons in families looked different along several key
characteristics (see Exhibit 3-4 for more details).

24
The percentage of unaccompanied youth in the shelter system may be higher if facilities that specifically
target homeless youth—such as Runaway and Homeless Youth programs funded by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services—are disproportionately not participating in HMIS. Bed inventory
information reported by CoCs for 2009 suggests that 62.3 percent of all beds targeted to homeless youth
currently participate in HMIS, compared to 74.5 percent of all beds in the national inventory. Thus, it is
possible that the one-year estimates slightly undercount the total number of homeles youth in shelters.
Sheltered Persons in Families
39%
61%
Adults in households with children
Children in households with adults
Sheltered Individuals
71%
25%
2%
2%
Single adult male households
Single adult female households
Unaccompanied youth and several-children households
Several-adult households
Exhibit 3-3: Household Composition of Sheltered Individuals and Persons in
Families, 2009

Characteristic Sheltered Individuals Sheltered Persons in Families
Gender of Adults  Overwhelmingly male  Overwhelmingly female adults
Race  Nearly as likely to be a non-minority  Almost half are African-Americans
Age  Three-quarters are over 30  More than four-fifths are under 31
Veterans  More than 1 in 10 are veterans  Very unlikely to be a veteran
Disabled  More than 4 in 10 are disabled  Low rates of disability
Gender of Adults. Most sheltered homeless individuals are men. In 2009, 71 percent of all
sheltered individuals were adult men and only 25 percent were adult women staying alone.
Assuming that most homeless persons are poor before using a shelter, the high rate of men among
individuals suggests that for every 14 men living by themselves with incomes below the poverty
line, 1 is likely to access a homeless shelter at some time during the year. Only 1 of every 35
women living alone in poverty access the homeless shelter system By comparison, adults who
become homeless together with children are usually, but not always, women. In 2009, 79.6
percent of adults in families with children were women. Women in families with incomes below
the poverty line are 2 times more likely to use a shelter than their male counterparts.

Race. Even though the majority of all sheltered people are
minorities, almost half of all individuals (45.4 percent) are
white and not Hispanic. By contrast, less than one-quarter of
persons in families are non-Hispanic and white (23.6 percent)
and nearly half are African American (47.9 percent). Thus,
people of different racial and ethnic groups may experience
homelessness differently—non-minorities more often as single
persons and minorities more often with accompanying children.
The profile of homeless
individuals and persons
in families differs
considerably, especially
in terms of gender,
race, age, and veteran
and disability status.

Age. Half of all homeless individuals in shelter are 31-50 years old and three-quarters are
over age 30. Sheltered families are much younger. Three-fifths of all persons in families are
children (under age 18), and more than half (55.2 percent) of the adults in families are between
age 18 and 30. Homeless children in shelters are also fairly young. More than half (52.6
percent) are under age 6; 32.5 percent are age 6 to 12, and 14.8 percent are age 13 to17.

Veteran Status. A much larger proportion of adult individuals are veterans compared to adults in
families. An estimated 13.0 percent of adult individuals are veterans compared to 2.1 percent of
adults in families. The higher rate of veterans among individuals is expected because the
overwhelming majority of sheltered individuals are men and men are more likely to be in the
military.

Disability. More than 4 in 10 individual homeless adults (42.9 percent) have disabilities,
compared to 14 percent of adults in families. The significantly higher prevalence of disabilities
among homeless individuals is likely explained by the disproportionate presence of older people
and men in individual homeless households. Many epidemiologic survey studies have shown
28 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 29
that rates of drug and alcohol disorders are consistently higher among men than among women.
For example, the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC)
surveyed more than 40,000 adults and found that men are twice as likely as women to abuse
drugs and three times more likely to abuse alcohol.
25

25
Conway KP, Compton W, Stinson FS, Grant BF. “Lifetime comorbidity of DSM-IV mood and anxiety
disorders and specific drug use disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and
Related Conditions.” J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67: 247-257.
Local “Faces” of Individual Homelessness

City of Detroit. The typical homeless individual in Detroit is similar to the national
average: he is an African-American man between the ages of 31 and 50. However,
providers in Detroit also described other types of individuals in need of housing. Senior
citizens, for example, comprise an increasing share of Detroit’s homeless population. As
described further in Chapter 4, some of these seniors have been homeless for much of
their adult lives, while others only became homeless after retirement. Detroit providers
also report that the city has a large population of homeless teens (aged 17 to 20) who
have trouble leasing housing on their own, struggle in doubled-up situations, and are
turned away from shelters that cannot accommodate teenage boys.

Seaside and Monterey Counties. In Seaside and Monterey Counties, on the central
Californian coast, homeless individuals are more likely to be white and female. They are
also somewhat more likely to be young, between the ages of 18 and 30. But providers
also report that the number of older single women accessing homeless services is on the
rise. Most of these women are single following a divorce or as a result of domestic
violence, and many have recently lost their jobs. Some became homeless after their
apartment building went into foreclosure. Locally, there are few services dedicated to
serving senior homeless women, and providers that typically serve individuals struggle to
accommodate their needs.

Phoenix and Maricopa County. Phoenix and Maricopa County (Arizona) also have a
relatively large proportion of single homeless women. Providers suggest that they have
seen a significant increase in single adult homelessness and that this trend is likely to
continue into the next year. They report that single women are more likely than women in
families to have severe mental disabilities and a history of drug addiction. They also
suggest that single women are hard to engage in housing and servicers when transitional
housing and permanent supportive housing programs require treatment compliance.

Idaho Balance of State. In contrast to the national average, the individual homeless
population in the Idaho Balance of State Continuum of Care is predominantly white and
mostly between the ages of 18 and 30. The majority of homeless individuals are men, but
women make up about one-third of the emergency shelter population and about one-fifth
of the transitional housing population.

Exhibit 3-4: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons by
Household Type, 2009
Characteristic
Percentage of All
Sheltered Homeless
Population
Percentage
of Individuals
Percentage of
Persons in Families
Gender of Adults
Male 63.7% 72.7% 20.4%
Female 36.3% 27.3% 79.6%
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic/non-Latino 80.5% 83.9% 74.2%
Hispanic/Latino 19.5% 16.1% 25.8%
Race
White, Non-Hispanic 38.1% 45.4% 23.6%
White, Hispanic 11.6% 10.4% 13.9%
Black or African-American 38.7% 34.1% 47.9%
Other Single Race 4.7% 3.8% 6.2%
Multiple Races 7.0% 6.4% 8.5%
Age
a

Under age 18 22.2% 2.2% 60.6%
18 to 30 22.3% 22.6% 21.8%
31 to 50 38.3% 49.7% 16.4%
51to 61 14.4% 21.3% 1.1%
62 and older 2.8% 4.2% 0.1%
Household Size
b
1 person 64.1% 97.2% 0.0%
2 people 10.0% 2.5% 24.4%
3 people 10.2% 0.2% 29.4%
4 people 7.9% 0.1% 23.0%
5 or more people 7.9% 0.0% 23.1%
Special Populations
Veteran (adults only)
c
11.1% 13.0% 2.1%
Disabled (adults only)
c
37.8% 42.9% 14.0%
a
Age is calculated based on a person’s first time in shelter during the one-year reporting period.
b
If a person is part a household consisting of more than one person or the household size changed during the reporting period, the household
size reflects the size of the first household in which the person presented during the one-year reporting period.
c
Veteran and disability status are recorded only for adults in the HMIS. The percentage calculations are for homeless adults with this characteristic.
Some records were missing information on disability status (10.5 percent) and veteran status (5.3 percent) in 2009. The percentage calculations
include only persons whose disability or veteran status was known.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2008

30 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 31
In addition to these characteristics, sheltered families are also larger than individual
households, as expected. A typical homeless family consists of a mother and two children (the
average number of children per family is 1.9). As demonstrated in Exhibit 3-5, homeless
families have smaller household sizes than both the poverty population and the total U.S.
population. Fewer than one-quarter of sheltered families (23.1 percent) have large families (5
or more people), compared with about 4 in 10 families in poverty. The household sizes among
homeless families suggest that some homeless families could be appropriately housed in a two-
bedroom apartment or house.
26

Exhibit 3-5: Household Sizes of Sheltered Homeless Families and Poor Families 2008
Household Size
Percentage of
Sheltered Homeless
Families
Percentage of Poor
Families
Percentage of All
Families in the U.S.
2 people 24.4% 7.6% 4.2%
3 people 29.4% 20.4% 22.2%
4 people 23.0% 26.4% 34.3%
5 or more people 23.1% 45.5% 39.3%
Sources: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009

3.2 Location of Homeless Service Use, 2009
Geographic Location of Sheltered Homeless Persons

Sheltered homelessness is concentrated in urban areas (see Exhibit 3-6). About 68.2 percent
of all sheltered homeless people are located in principal cities, and less than one-third (31.8
percent) are in suburban or rural jurisdictions. Homeless individuals are particularly likely to
be in urban areas. Nearly three-quarters of all sheltered individuals (72.2 percent) accessed a
homeless residential program that is located in a principal city, compared with 61.2 percent
of persons in families.

The geographic distribution of sheltered homelessness is markedly different than the
distribution of the nation’s poverty and total populations. The share of sheltered homeless
people in principal cities is nearly twice the share of the poverty population in these areas
(68.2 versus 35.6 percent) and almost three times the share of the entire U.S. population (68.2
percent versus 24.3 percent). About 1 in every 92 persons living in a principal city in the
United States was homeless in emergency shelter or transitional housing, compared with
about 1 in every 415 persons living in a suburban or rural area.

26
Homeless families may have additional children who are not with them in a residential program for homeless
people because they have been left with relatives or friends or experienced out-of-home placements by the
child welfare system.

32 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009
As noted in previous reports, the concentration of homeless people in urban areas is related to
several issues:

 Principal cities have high rates of unemployment and lack of affordable housing, which
are risk factors for homelessness.
 The social service system in large cities may be saturated or experiencing large funding
reductions, which may limit the ability of these systems to adequately serve persons at
risk of becoming homeless.
 The majority of homeless residential services are located in principal cities—
approximately 51.6 percent of all programs and 65.4 percent of beds for homeless
persons are located in these areas.
27
The location of homeless residential services in
principal cities may produce a “magnet effect,” attracting homeless people to the area
because services are more accessible than elsewhere. While plausible, this interpretation
is complicated by the difficulty in establishing cause-and-effect: do homeless people
move to service-rich areas or are homeless service providers purposively located where
the demand for services is greatest? Future analysis in the AHAR will explore ways to
disentangle these issues.

27
This includes 2,853 emergency shelters (150,965 beds), 3,961 transitional housing facilities (124,804 beds),
and 87 Safe Havens (1,448 beds).

68.2%
72.2%
61.2%
35.6%
24.3%
31.8%
27.8%
38.8%
64.4%
75.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of All
Sheltered Persons
Percentage of All
Sheltered Individuals
Percentage of All
Sheltered Persons in
Families
U.S. Poverty
Population
Total U.S. Population
Principal Cities Suburban and Rural Areas
Exhibit 3-5: Geographic Distribution of the Sheltered Homeless Popu
Household Type, 2009
lation by
Sources: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009
Exhibit 3-6: Geographic Distribution of the Sheltered Homeless P
by Household Type, 2009
opulation

Movement into the Shelter System
Communities participating in the AHAR provided information on where people stayed the night
before they entered an emergency shelter or transitional living facility. The information is
associated with each person’s first program entry during the 12-month reporting period. Thus,
this information is intended to suggest how people flow into the homeless residential system,
rather than how people churn through the system.

In 2009, the night before entering shelter, almost two-fifths of all sheltered persons (38.5 percent)
came from another homeless situation. Among those who were already homeless, more than
one-half came from an emergency shelter (54.9 percent), nearly two-thirds came from an
unsheltered situation (38.6 percent), and a few came from transitional housing (6.6 percent).
Another two-fifths of all sheltered persons (41.1 percent) moved from a housed situation (their
own or someone else’s home), and the remaining one-fifth were split between institutional
settings (e.g., a substance abuse facility or jail) and hotels, motels, or other unspecified living
arrangements (see Exhibit 3-7). The most common prior living arrangement among all sheltered
people was with friends or family (29.5 percent) and staying in another homeless residential
service facility (23.7 percent).

Exhibit 3-7: Previous Living Situation of People Using Homeless Residential
Services, 2009
a
Living Arrangement the Night before
Program Entry Total
Percentage of
Individual
Adults
b

Percentage of
Adults in
Families
Total Already Homeless
38.5% 41.1% 26.0%
Place not meant for human habitation
14.8% 17.1% 4.0%
Emergency shelter or transitional housing
23.7% 24.0% 22.0%
Total from “Housing”
41.1% 36.6% 62.6%
Rented or owned housing unit
c

11.5% 9.8% 19.7%
Staying with family
17.3% 14.8% 29.4%
Staying with friends
12.2% 12.0% 13.5%
Total from Institutional Settings
12.5% 14.5% 2.7%
Psychiatric facility, substance abuse
center, or hospital
7.2% 8.3% 2.1%
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention
4.8% 5.8% 0.4%
Foster care home
0.4% 0.5% 0.1%
Total from Other Situations
8.1% 7.9% 8.7%
Hotel, motel (no voucher) or “other”
8.1% 7.9% 8.7%
Number of Homeless Adults 1,235,236 1,034,659 210,510
a
The exhibit reports on adults and unaccompanied youth only because the HMIS Data and Technical Standards require
the information to be collected only from these persons. About 11 percent of the records in HMIS were missing this
information in 2009.
b
This category includes unaccompanied adults and youth as well as multiple-adult households without children.
c
Includes a small percentage in permanent supportive housing.
Sources: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009
Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 33

The most common
pathway into the
shelter system for
homeless
individuals was
another homeless
location, whereas
among persons in
families it was
from a housed
situation.
A comparison of living arrangements between sheltered
individuals and persons in families reveals several striking
differences. More than 6 in 10 persons in families (62.6
percent) came from a housed situation, including almost one-
third (29.4 percent) who were staying with family and one-
fifth who came from a rented or owned housing unit (19.7
percent) prior to entering the shelter system. Slightly over
one-quarter of persons in families were already homeless
prior to entering the shelter system during the one-year
reporting period (26 percent). A very small proportion of
persons in families were in institutional settings (2.7 percent).
By comparison, homeless individuals were much more likely
than family members to be already homeless and come from
institutional settings. Fewer than 4 in 10 individuals came
from a housed situation (36.6 percent), and more than 1 in 10
were in a medical or correctional facility (14.5 percent) just prior to entering the shelter
system. Thus, for individuals, the most common pathway into the shelter system during the
one-year reporting period was another homeless location, whereas among persons in families
it was from their own housing or someone else’s.

Focusing on people who were not homeless prior to entering shelter, less than one-fifth came
from their own housing unit (18.7 percent) nearly one-half were staying with family or friends
(48.0 percent), about one-fifth were previously in an institutional setting (19.6 percent), and the
rest were in other locations (13.7 percent). Thus, for people who were not already homeless,
more than two thirds were “housed” in their own unit or someone else’s, and the single most
common pathway into the shelter system was staying with family or friends.

But here, again, the pathway into homelessness for those who were not previously homeless
varies dramatically by household type. Less than one-half of individuals had been staying with
family or friends (45.4 percent), compared with 58.0 percent of adults in families. Only 16.7
percent of individuals had been in their own housing unit, compared with 26.6 percent of
families. Many more individuals than families came from institutional settings, 24.6 percent vs.
3.6 percent.

About 85 percent of adults in families who were not previously homeless were staying with
family and friends or living in their own place just prior to entering the shelter system. This
finding is especially useful to local programs that are designing targeted approaches to preventing
homelessness among families. The finding suggests that homelessness prevention programs may
be particularly successful at staving off homelessness among families with services that help
families retain their existing housing, such as emergency rental assistance or family mediation
services.

34 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 35
3.3 Patterns of Homeless Service Use, 2009
Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housing
A long-standing assumption about how homeless people use a community-wide, homeless
residential service system is that people flow linearly through the shelter system—entering
first into an emergency shelter, moving on to transitional housing, and then eventually
finding a permanent (or permanent supportive) housing arrangement. The 2009 estimates
further support previous findings that few sheltered homeless persons follow a linear
progression through the shelter system during a 12-month period.

As shown in Exhibit 3-8, very few
sheltered persons use multiple program
types. In 2009, more than three-quarters
of the estimated 1.56 million homeless
people in shelter used an emergency
shelter only (77.4 percent), less than one-
fifth used a transitional housing program
only (18.3 percent), and a small
proportion of people used both types of
homeless residential facilities (4.3
percent).

These estimates do not describe the
potential “churning” that may exist within
the homeless residential system—that is,
people who repeatedly cycling in and out
of emergency shelters or transitional
housing during the one-year reporting
period. Nonetheless, the estimates
reinforce findings from previous studies that concluded, similarly, that few homeless persons use
the shelter system sequentially and some use the system in unpredictable ways (e.g., starting in
transitional housing and then entering an emergency shelter).
28
Others find ways to resolve their
homeless episode fairly quickly and, as a result, do not use transitional housing.
29

28
Spellman, Khadduri, Sokol, and Leopold, Costs Associated with First-Time Homelessness for Families and
Individuals, op. cit.
29
Culhane, D.P., S. Metraux, J.M. Park, M.A. Schretzmen, and J. Valente. 2007. Testing a Typology of
Family Homelessness Based on Public Shelter Utilization in Four U.S. Jurisdictions: Implications for
Policy and Program Planning. Housing Policy Debate, 18(1): 1-28. Kuhn, R., and D.P. Culhane. 1998.
Applying Cluster Analysis to Test of a Typology of Homelessness: Results from the Analysis of
Adminstrative Data. American Journal of Commnity Psychology, 17(1): 23-43.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009
Exhibit 3-8: Type of Program Used Among
All Sheltered Homeless People,
2009

Emergency
Shelters Only
77.4%
4.3%
Both Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional Housing
18.3%
Transitional
Housing Only

Service use patterns vary slightly by household type. Homeless individuals are more likely than
persons in families to use an emergency shelter only (81.2 percent versus 70.1 percent) and less
likely to use a transitional housing program only (14.5 percent versus 25.0 percent). Homeless
individuals and persons in families are equally likely to use both types of programs (4.3 percent
versus 4.9 percent). The slight difference in service use patterns among household types is
explained in part by the relative supply of different types of residential homeless programs for
individuals and families, a topic discussed in chapter 5. It also is possible that families try to
avoid emergency shelters if possible because these facilities are particularly unsuitable for
children. Some families may try to bypass shelters altogether and go directly to transitional
housing.

Length of Stay in Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing
Many sheltered homeless people experience short-term episodes of homelessness and only use
emergency shelter for a few days. The short-term nature of sheltered homelessness is
demonstrated in Exhibit 3-9, which shows the number of nights in residential homeless programs
by household type. The estimates represent the cumulative amount of time spent in residential
programs—meaning that if a person had three program stays in emergency shelter, for example,
and each stay was 7 nights, then the person experienced 21 nights of homelessness in emergency
shelters.

Exhibit 3-9: Number of Nights in Shelter by Program and Household Type, 2009
Emergency Shelters
Transitional Housing
Length of Stay
a
Total Individuals
Persons in
Families Total Individual
Persons in
Families
Percentage of People
1 week or less
33.5% 37.9% 23.9% 5.0% 6.5% 3.2%
1 week to < 1 month 26.6% 28.0% 23.5% 11.2% 13.3% 8.6%
1 month to < 6 months 33.4% 29.4% 42.1% 44.0% 47.6% 39.5%
6 months to < 1 year 5.4% 4.0% 8.5% 24.9% 21.2% 29.3%
Entire year 1.2% 0.8% 2.0% 15.0% 11.4% 19.3%
Average (Median) Time
# of nights
22 17 36 133 107 174
a
The length of stay reported in this exhibit accounts for the total number of nights in shelters during the 12-month
reporting period. Some people may have lengths of stay longer than a year if they entered a residential program prior
to the start of the data collection period or remained in the program after the end of the data collection period.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009

36 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009

During the one-year reporting period, one-third of all people in emergency shelters (33.5 percent)
stayed for less than 1 week, and three-fifths (60.1 percent) stayed less than a month. Very few
people stayed 6 months or more (6.6 percent). Individuals in emergency shelters stayed the
shortest amount of time—nearly 4 in 10 stayed less than 1 week (37.9 percent),and almost two-
thirds stayed less than one month (65.9 percent). The median length of stay for individuals in
emergency shelters was 17 days. By comparison, families in emergency shelters stayed longer—
about one-quarter stayed 1 week or less (23.9 percent) and less than half stayed less than one
month (47.4 percent). Twice as many persons in families than individuals stayed for 6 months or
more, and the median length of stay among family members was 36 days.

As described in previous reports, the longer lengths of stay among families is expected because
unsheltered homelessness can be particularly dangerous for families with children, and families
may have a more difficult time finding affordable and appropriately-sized housing. (As shown in
Exhibit 3-5, about 4 in 10 sheltered persons in families have 4 or more household members.)

People in transitional housing programs generally stay for much longer periods of time, which is
expected because these programs are designed to serve clients for up to two years while
helping them transition to permanent housing. In 2009, the average (median) length of stay in
transitional housing was 133 nights (or about four and one-half months), and about 40 percent of
all persons stayed in transitional housing for 6 months or more (39.9 percent). A considerable
proportion of people stayed for the full 12-month reporting period (15.0 percent). Here again,
persons in families stay longer than individuals. The median number of days among persons in
families was 174 compared to 107 for individuals, and nearly 1 in 5 persons in families stayed for
12 months (19.3 percent) compared to about 1 in 10 individuals (11.4 percent).

“Heavy Users” of Emergency Shelters
Communities participating in the 2009 AHAR were asked to report the number and the
characteristics of “heavy users” of the homeless services system, or people who stayed in
emergency shelters for six months or longer during the one-year reporting period. These
heavy users represent only 6.5 percent of all persons who used emergency shelters in 2009
(or about 83,000 people out of the 1.27 million shelter users). Heavy users are nearly as
likely to be individuals as persons in families.

As shown in Exhibit 3-10, heavy users of emergency shelters look very different from those
who use shelters less intensely. Heavy users are much more likely to be minorities
(Hispanics and African Americans). They also are more likely to be in families—that is, to
have children under age 18 and to have larger families than all people in emergency shelters.

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 37

Exhibit 3-10: Demographic Characteristics Associated with Staying in Emergency
Shelters More than Six Months, 2009
Long-Term Stayers in Emergency Shelters
in 2009
Race
All Persons in
Emergency
Shelters in 2009 Total
a
Individuals
Persons in
Families
Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity
19.8% 31.2% 17.4% 44.9%
Black or African American
38.6% 56.0% 45.2% 68.8%
Children under Age 18
20.2% 30.5% 1.2% 59.4%
Household with 5 or more People
7.4% 13.3% 0.0% 26.6%
Number of People
1,274,301 82,978 41,835 42,140
a
The number of long-terms stayers who were individuals and persons in families will not sum to the total number of
long-term stayers because a small proportion of persons (about 1 percent) were served as both individuals and as
persons in families during the 12-month reporting period.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009

3.4 Summary of All Sheltered Homeless People in 2009
The estimates of the sheltered homeless population in 2009 indicate that:

 A typical sheltered homeless person—whether an individual or a member of a family—is
a middle-aged, adult male who is a member of a minority group and is homeless by
himself. Chances are that he does not have any type of disability.
 When compared to their counterparts nationwide, sheltered homeless people are much
more likely to be adult males, African-Americans, non-elderly, alone, veterans, and
disabled.
 Homeless sheltered individuals most often are male, over age 30, disabled, and
experiencing homelessness alone. By contrast, family households in the shelter
system are very likely to be headed by a minority woman without a male partner,
under age 30, and in a household with 2 or 3 members.
 About 68.2 percent of all sheltered homeless people are located in principal cities,
and less than one-third (31.8 percent) are located in suburban or rural jurisdictions.
 About 1 in every 92 persons living in principal cities in the United States was
homeless, compared with about 1 in every 415 persons living in suburban or rural
areas.
 The share of sheltered homeless people in principal cities is nearly twice the share of
the poverty population in these areas (68.2 versus 35.6 percent) and almost three
times the share of the entire U.S. population (68.2 percent versus 24.3 percent).
38 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009

 In 2009, the night before entering shelter, almost two-fifths of all sheltered persons came
from another homeless situation, another two-fifths moved from a housed situation (their
own or someone else’s home), and the remaining one-fifth were split between
institutional settings and hotels, motels, or other unspecified living arrangements.
 The most common pathway into the shelter system for homeless individuals was another
homeless location, whereas among persons in families it was from a housed situation.
 During the one-year reporting period, one-third of all people in emergency shelters stayed
for less than 1 week, and three-fifths stayed less than a month. About 40 percent of all
persons in transitional housing stayed for 6 months or more.
 Heavy users of emergency shelters look very different than those who use shelters
less intensely. Heavy users are much more likely to be minorities (specifically
Hispanics and African Americans), have children under age 18, and have larger
families than all people in emergency shelters.

Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009 39

40 Chapter 3: Sheltered Homeless People in 2009

Chapter 4
Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007
and 2009
The 2008 AHAR was the first to describe year to year changes in the sheltered homeless
population. Now, in this 2009 AHAR, we can look across three years of HMIS data and
present both changes that occurred between the most recent two years, 2008 and 2009, and
changes across the three year period from 2007 through 2009.
The chapter focuses on three types of changes:

 Changes in the sheltered homeless population between 2007 and 2009, including
the number of people, the types of locations in which they are homeless, and their
demographic characteristics.
 Changes in the patterns of becoming homeless, based on information about where
people were the night before they became homeless and how long they had been
there.
 Changes in how people use the homeless services system and, specifically, whether
they use emergency shelter or transitional housing and how long they stay in
residential programs for homeless persons during a 12-month period.

The HMIS-based estimates discussed in this chapter are considerably more robust than those
based on PIT data. Unlike PIT data, HMIS data are not influenced heavily by unexpected
events that may occur on the night of the point-in-time count, such as a winter storm, or by
variations in enumeration strategies. HMIS is now a widely used tool, and communities are
increasingly capable of collecting and reporting reliable HMIS data to the AHAR. As a
result, the precision of the HMIS-based estimates has continued to improve with each
successive report. More importantly, the HMIS-based estimates presented in this chapter
begin to show a few consistent patterns that we believe are real, despite the fact that some
communities were unable to provide complete data and thus the estimates have wide
confidence intervals (Exhibit 4-1).

4.1 Changes in the Sheltered Homeless Population between 2007
and 2009
Overall sheltered homelessness declined slightly between 2008 and 2009, by about 35,000
people or 2 percent of the number of sheltered homeless people in 2008 (Exhibit 4-1).
Individual sheltered homelessness dropped by almost 58,000 people or 5 percent, while
sheltered homeless persons in families increased by almost 19,000 people or 3.6 percent.
Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 41

When families are considered as households rather than as the separate people in the
households, the increase was almost 11,000 families between 2009 and 2008, a 7 percent
increase over the 159,142 sheltered homeless families in 2008.

Exhibit 4-1: Changes in Total Sheltered Homeless Individuals and Persons in
Families, 2008-2009
2008 2009
Household Type

Total Number Total Number
Change 2008-
2009
Percent
change 2008-
2009
Total Number of
Sheltered Persons
a

1,593,794
c
1,558,917
c
-34,877 -2.2%
Individuals
b
1,092,612
d
1,034,659
d
-57,953 -5.3%
Persons in Families 516,724
d
535,477
d
+18,723 +3.6%
Number of Sheltered
Households with
Children
159,142 170,129 +10,987 +6.9%

a
These estimated totals reflect the number of homeless persons in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who used
emergency shelters or transitional housing programs during the one-year period of October 1 through September 30 of
the following year. The estimates do not cover the U.S. Territories and Puerto Rico and do not include persons served by
“victim service providers.” The estimated totals include an extrapolation adjustment to account for people who use
emergency shelters and transitional housing programs but whose jurisdictions do not yet participate in their HMIS.
People who are homeless but do not use an emergency shelter or transitional housing program during the 12-month
period are not included. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
b
This category includes unaccompanied adults, unaccompanied people under 18 years, and multi-adult households
without children.
c
In 2009, the 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated number of sheltered homeless persons in the population was
1,230,198 to 1,887,636 persons (or +/- 328,719 persons). In 2008, the 95 percent confidence interval was 1,180,758 to
2,006,830 (or +/- 413,036 persons).
d
In both 2008 and 2009, approximately 1 percent of homeless persons were served both as an individual and as a
person in a family. In this exhibit, such people appear in both categories, so the total number of sheltered persons is
slightly less than the sum of individuals and families.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

The overall number of sheltered homeless people had increased slightly between 2007 and
2008 before dropping slightly in 2009, as shown in Exhibit 4-2. The drop in sheltered
homelessness among individuals was 80,000 people or about 7 percent across the three-year
period from 2007 through 2009. The decline in the numbers of people in emergency shelters
or transitional housing as individuals probably reflects community success in getting people
out of shelters and into permanent supportive or other housing and also perhaps placing them
into permanent housing directly from the street. Indeed, as shown in chapter 5, the inventory
of beds in permanent supportive housing programs has increased dramatically, from about
177,000 to 219,000 beds.

42 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009

Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 43

In contrast, in 2009, almost 62,000 more family members were in emergency shelter or
transitional housing at some point during the year than had been in 2007. Considered as
households rather than as separate people, the growth in sheltered family homelessness over
the three years was almost 40,000 families or a 30 percent increase. The continued growth in
sheltered family homelessness almost certainly reflects the ongoing effect of the recession.

Somewhat surprisingly, the increase in sheltered homeless families was more pronounced
between 2007 and 2008 than between 2008 and 2009, even though the 2008 reporting period
(October 2007 through September 2008) was fairly early in the recession, and unemployment
rates remained high during the 2009 reporting period (October 2008 through September
2009).
30
It may be that some families who were already at risk of becoming homeless and
lacked sufficient support networks to ease the impact of the recession became homeless
almost immediately. But a much larger group of families turned to family and friends to
stave off the effects of the recession. Indeed, a recent study found that the recession has
caused a dramatic increase, almost five-fold, in the rates of overcrowding, indicating that

30
According to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the seasonally adjusted unemployment
rate increased from 6.6 percent to 9.8 percent between October 2008 and September 2009. By December
2009 (after the study period for this report), it had increased to 10.0 percent. See Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Labor, Databases, “Tables & Calculators by Subject: Unemployment,”
http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (accessed May 11, 2010).
1,593,7941,588,595 1,558,917
1,115,054
1,092,612
1,034,659
473,541
516,724
535,447
130,968
159,142
170,129
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2007 2008 2009
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009
Exhibit 4-2: Trends in Homelessness by Household Type, 2007-2009
All Sheltered Persons
Individuals
Households with
Children
Persons in Families

44 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009
may families are doubling up in response to the economic downturn.
31
Thus, the fortunes of
many struggling families may still be in the balance. For some of these families, the fragile
economic circumstances of the relatives and friends of struggling parents may mean that, as
soon as job losses begin in an economic downturn, support networks for families at risk of
homelessness fall apart. Doubled up housing situations cannot be sustained, cash is no
longer available to help others with rent payments, and families turn to homeless shelters as
the only way of keeping a roof over their heads. Then, as the recession continues, the flow of
fragile families into homelessness remains at a high level but does not increase.

Alternatively, as the nation comes out of the recession and as the stimulus funding made
available through the Homelessness Prevention and Re-housing Program (HPRP) begins to
serve families, some of these at-risk families may avoid shelter altogether. (HPRP funding
only started to become available in October 2009, the month after the 2009 AHAR reporting
period ended). It is also possible that some of these families may find a way to regain their
financial footing on their
own and become self
sufficient.

As a result of the slight
drop in homelessness
among individuals and
the increase among
families, family members
represent a larger
percentage of sheltered
homeless people each
year, rising from 29.8
percent in 2007 to 34.1
percent in 2009, as shown
on Exhibit 4-3.

Changes in the
Geography of
Homelessness
The types of locations in
which homeless people
were found in emergency
shelters or transitional

31
Painter, Gary. 2010. “What Happened to Household Formation in a Recession?” Research Institute for
Housing America and the Mortgage Bankers Association.

70.2%
67.9%
65.9%
29.8%
32.1%
34.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009
Individuals Persons in Families
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009
Exhibit 4-3: Change in the Household Composition
of Homelessness, 2007-2009

Impact of the Economic Downturn on Family Homelessness

From rural Iowa to New York City, providers report increases in family homelessness
they attribute to the recession. In San Francisco, for example, the waiting list for family
shelter increased 30 percent between 2008 and 2009. In eight of the nine continuums
visited for this report, providers noted a significant jump in the number of families in
shelters or transitional housing who are homeless for the first time, mostly as a result of
unemployment. In Phoenix, nearly half (47.9 percent) of families entering shelter in 2009
had not been homeless before, and in New York City, the rate of first-time homelessness
among families is about 30 percent.

The Idaho Balance of State CoC has not yet seen a major increase in the number of
homeless families, but providers expect this might be coming. Several Idaho providers
noted an increase in the number of families accessing homeless services for the first-time
and in the number of formerly “middle class” families seeking assistance. Memphis
providers comment that families are increasingly being admitted to shelter with high
debts, coming from expenses incurred while the family had employment.

Five of the communities reported longer stays by families in shelters as it takes longer to
find employment that would allow them to secure permanent housing. For example, one
transitional housing provider in Marshalltown, Iowa, reported that prior to 2008, her facility
served about two families per year, and these families would stay between two and four
weeks. Since 2008, the facility has served 9 to 12 families per year, with an average
length of stay of approximately four months.

Lack of employment opportunities and affordable housing are among the most common
reasons cited by local providers for the rise in family homelessness. Although the typical
homeless family is composed of a mother with children, providers in Iowa, Monterrey,
and Phoenix also report an increase in the number of two-parent families being served,
signaling that the lack of employment is a critical factor in the growth of family
homelessness. Also, the lack of affordable housing continues to play an important role in
family homelessness in most communities, even though the recession has generally put
downward pressure on rents. In some markets, such as Memphis, Tennessee, and
Ames, Iowa, the supply of affordable housing has decreased in recent years due to public
housing transformation, Section 8 opt outs, and the redevelopment of alternative housing
options, such as trailer parks. In other parts of the country, costs for rental housing
remain high in spite of the recession. In San Francisco, for example, 20 to 25 percent of
families in shelter have one adult who is working, suggesting that the lack of affordable
housing is the major problem.
Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 45

housing were almost exactly the same in 2009 as in 2008. About 68 percent of all sheltered
homeless people were in principal cities and 32 percent in suburban and rural areas in both years,
as shown in Exhibit 4-4. Between 2008 and 2009, the share of individuals in principal cities
grew very slightly, from 71.0 percent to 72.2 percent, while the share of family members in
suburban and rural areas grew by half a percentage point to 38.8 percent in 2009.

Exhibit 4-4: Change in the Geographic Location of the Sheltered Homeless
Population, 2008-2009
Homeless
Persons in 2008
Homeless
Persons in 2009
Geographic Location
Number Percent Number Percent
Change from 2008
to 2009 in
Percentage Points
All Sheltered Persons
Principal Cities
1,084,335 68.0% 1,063,613 68.2% 0.2%
Suburban and Rural Areas 509,459 32.0% 495,304 31.8% -0.2%
Individuals
Principal Cities 775,977 71.0% 746,563 72.2% 1.1%
Suburban and Rural Areas
316,634 29.0% 288,096 27.8% -1.1%
Persons in Families
Principal Cities
318,683 61.7% 327,758 61.2% -0.5%
Suburban and Rural Areas
198,041 38.3% 207,689 38.8% 0.5%
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2008-2009

These very small changes in the locations of sheltered homeless people between 2008 and
2009 followed a much larger shift in the geography of sheltered homelessness between 2007
and 2008. Sheltered homelessness became markedly more suburban and rural between 2007
and 2008. In contrast the continued growth in family homelessness between 2008 and 2009
did not occur disproportionately in suburban and rural areas. Exhibit 4-5 shows the pattern
across the three-year period.

46 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009

Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 47

Changes in the Demographic Characteristics of Homeless Individuals and Families
Overall, the demographic characteristics of sheltered homeless people did not change much
over the three-year period from 2007 through 2009. The following exhibits (4-6 through 4-8)
show a few notable changes: the aging of homeless population, the number of veterans and
people with disabilities, the racial composition of sheltered homelessness, and the composition
of homeless families.
32

Aging of the Homeless Population
Exhibit 4-6 shows a slight increase in the percentage of all homeless people who give their age
as greater than 50. This is consistent with other research that shows an increase in
homelessness among a relatively older population as the baby boom generation ages.
33
It is
also consistent with the information gathered through interviews with homeless assistance
providers in nine communities across the country. San Francisco, for example, has a large
population of individuals who have been homeless for a long time and whose physical health

32
See Appendix Exhibit D-4 in this report for other demographic characteristics of sheltered homeless
families in 2009. The appendices in the 2007 and 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Reports provide the
demographic characteristics of sheltered persons for these years.
33
Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Jay Bainbridge. “The Age Structure of Contemporary
Homelessness: Risk Period or Cohort Effect?” Working Paper: The University of Pennsylvania.
32.00%
22.90%
31.80%
21.30%
29.00%
27.80%
26.90%
38.30%
38.80%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2007 2008 2009
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009
Exhibit 4-5: Change in the Percentage of Sheltered Homeless People, in
Suburban and Rural Areas, 2007-2009
Persons in Families

All Sheltered Persons
Individuals

needs have increased over time. Providers in Detroit also commented on the aging of the
homeless population.

Exhibit 4-6 Change in the Ages and Veteran and Disabled Status of Sheltered
Homeless Adults, 2007-2009
Percentage of All Sheltered Homeless Adults
Characteristic
2007 2008 2009
Age
a

18 to 30 26.2% 28.0% 28.7%
31 to 50 52.7% 50.9% 49.2%
51to 61 17.4% 17.6% 18.5%
62 and older 3.8% 3.5% 3.6%

Veteran (adults)
a
13.2% 11.6% 11.1%
Disabled (adults)
a
37.1% 42.8% 37.8%
a
Age is calculated based on a person’s first time in shelter during the covered time period. A child is defined as a
person age 17 or under, and an adult is defined as a person age 18 or older.

Veteran status and whether a person had a disabling condition are recorded only for adults in HMIS. The percentage
calculations shown indicate the percent of homeless adults with this characteristic. The number of records missing
information on disability status dropped from 32.4 percent in 2007 to 22.0 percent in 2008 and 10.6 percent in 2009.
Similarly, the percent of adults with missing information on veteran status dropped from 15.9 percent in 2007 to 7.5
percent in 2008 and to only 5.4 percent in 2009. The percentage calculations include only persons whose disability
and veteran status was recorded.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

Veterans and People with Disabilities in the Sheltered Homeless Population
Exhibit 4-6 also shows the percentages of homeless adults who reported being veterans and
who reported having a disability in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Over time the rates of missing
information for disability and veteran status have declined considerably, and as a result, the
accuracy of these estimates has improved substantially. The slight drops between 2008 and
2009 in the percentages of all adults who report that they are veterans or that they have a
disability may reflect more accurate estimates or may reflect the increase in family
homelessness over the three-year period. Homeless adults in families are much less likely than
individual adults to be veterans (because they are younger and less likely to be men) and also
less likely to report having a disability. Substantial differences in disability rates and veterans
status by household type have been observed repeatedly in past AHAR reports.

Interviews with homeless assistance providers conducted for this report suggest that veterans of
the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have not yet become homeless in great numbers, perhaps
because it takes some years for the mental disabilities associated with war to become acute.
However, several providers suggested that that the average age of homeless veterans is
decreasing. In Phoenix, for example, the average age of homeless veterans in 2009 was 47,
48 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009

Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 49
down from 57 only five years earlier.
34
Providers also noted that they are seeing a “higher
level of impairment” among homeless veterans, including more cases of substance abuse, Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury and other mental and physical
impairments. Several providers, including those in San Francisco, Monterrey and Phoenix,
reported seeing an increase in homeless veteran families related to worsening economic
conditions. As one California provider noted, “there are just no jobs when they are
discharged.”

Race and Ethnicity of Sheltered Homeless People
Homelessness became somewhat more prevalent among people who are white and not
Hispanic over the three-year period from 2007 to 2009. The share of sheltered homeless
individuals who do not identify themselves as members of minority groups increased from
42.6 percent in 2007 to 45.4 percent in 2009, and the share of sheltered homeless family
members who were not minorities increased from 21.3 to 23.6 percent between 2007 and
2008 and held steady in 2009, as shown in Exhibit 4-7.

34
The AHAR data collected for this report do not permit estimates of the age ranges of sheltered homeless
veterans. A supplementary effort collected 2009 data just on veterans in the standard AHAR reporting
categories, and an analysis of that information will be published later in 2010.

Exhibit 4-7 Change in the Race and Ethnicity of Sheltered Homeless Individuals
and Persons in Families, 2007 - 2009
a
Sheltered Individuals
Race
% of Individuals
2007
% of Individuals
2008
% of Individuals
2009
White, non–Hispanic/Latino 42.6% 44.6% 45.4%
White Hispanic, Latino 14.1% 11.0% 10.4%
Black or African American 33.2% 37.0% 34.1%
Other Racial Groups
b
10.1% 7.5% 10.2%
Sheltered Persons in Families
Race
% of Persons in
Families 2007
% of Persons in
Families 2008
% of Persons in
Families 2009
White, non–Hispanic/Latino 21.3% 24.4% 23.6%
White Hispanic, Latino 9.8% 13.1% 13.9%
Black or African American 55.2% 50.9% 47.9%
Other Racial Groups 
b
13.6% 11.6% 14.7%
a

Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
b
Includes persons who identify as multiple races.

Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007- 2009

While African-American families and individuals have higher rates of homelessness than in
the U.S. population as a whole or in the poverty population (see chapter 3), the share of
sheltered homeless family members identifying themselves as black or African American
decreased steadily over the three year period—for example, from 55.2 percent of persons in
families in 2007 to 47.9 percent in 2009 (Exhibit 4-7).

More Men in Sheltered Homeless Families
The ratio between adults and children in sheltered homeless families changed very little over
the 2007-2009 time period. However, adults in families were somewhat more likely to be
men in 2009 than they were in 2007, 20.4 percent vs. 18.0 percent, as shown in Exhibit 4-8.
This probably accounts for the slight increases in the percentages of 3 and 4 person
households shown on the exhibit, despite the lack of change in the percentage of people in
sheltered homeless families who are children. Because of the recession, more families with
two adults may have become homeless, as well as more families with only a father present.

Providers in six of the nine communities visited for this report said they had seen an increase
in two-parent families and male-headed families. Providers generally attribute the increase
in two-parent families to the effects of the recession, which is making it difficult for even one
parent to find a job. According to one provider in Monterey, California, two-parent
households now represent about half of all families seeking shelter. Located on the ocean,
Monterey has very high housing costs and in recent years has lost affordable rental housing
due to foreclosures. According to this provider, “You can’t afford to make the rent working
at Starbucks.” Providers in northeast Iowa also commented on the increase in two-parent
households seeking shelter, which they attribute to the lingering effects of the closure of a
major manufacturing plant a couple of years ago.

Providers had fewer explanations for the increase in male-headed families. Providers in
Detroit suggested that it could reflect higher rates of drug abuse or incarceration among
women, or be related to local efforts to encourage men to take a greater role in raising their
children.

Providers in several communities noted that it can be harder for male-headed and two-parent
families to access shelter, because most facilities are geared toward serving single women
and their children.

50 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009

4.2 Changing Patterns of Becoming Homeless, 2007-2009
Exhibit 4-8: Changes in the Composition of Sheltered Homeless Families, 2007-
2009
a
Characteristic
Percentage of Sheltered
Homeless Persons in
Families 2007
Percentage of Sheltered
Homeless Persons in
Families 2008
Percentage of
Sheltered Homeless
Persons in Families
2009
Adults and Children
Adults 38.4% 39.7% 39.4%
Children 61.6% 60.3% 60.6%
Gender of Adults
Women 82.0% 80.9% 79.6%
Men 18. 19.2% 20.4%
Household Size
2 people 26.6% 25.0% 24.4%
3 people 27.9% 29.6% 29.4%
4 people 22.1% 21.8% 23.0%
5 or more people 23.4% 23.7% 23.1%
a
Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

The pathways through which people entered shelters or transitional housing changed to some
extent between 2008 and 2009. Exhibits 4-9 and 4-10 show the trends over the 2007
through 2009 period separately for sheltered homeless individuals (Exhibit 4-9) and for
adults in homeless families (Exhibit 4-10).

Sheltered Homeless Individuals
People in emergency shelter or transitional housing as individuals were more likely to have come
from a place not meant for human habitation in 2009 than was the case in 2007 or 2008, as
shown on Exhibit 4-9. According to Continuum of Care point-in-time counts, the number of
unsheltered individuals dropped between 2008 and 2009 (see chapter 2). Therefore, the increase
of about 31,000 in the number of individuals coming into the shelter system from the “street”
between 2008 and 2009 may reflect the success of the homeless services system in reducing
unsheltered homelessness rather than a growth in street homelessness.

Overall, the share of homeless individuals coming into shelter from some type of housing
(their own housing unit or someone else’s) was essentially unchanged over the three-year
period, but the share coming from their own housing unit went down slightly, while the
percentage who had been staying with friends or family increased from 24.3 percent in 2007
to 25.8 percent in 2008 and 26.8 percent in 2009.

Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 51

Exhibit 4-9: Change in Previous Living Situation of Individuals Using Homeless
Residential Services, 2007-2009
Living Arrangement the Night
before Program Entry
Percentage
Distribution
2007
Percentage
Distribution
2008
a

Percentage
Distribution
2009
a
Total Already Homeless 43.3% 39.5% 41.1%
Place not meant for human
habitation
14.8% 14.7% 17.1%
Emergency shelter 25.2% 22.0% 21.4%
Transitional housing 3.2% 2.7% 2.6%
Total from Some Type of Housing 36.5% 37.0% 36.6%
Rented housing unit
b
10.3% 9.2% 8.0%
Owned housing unit 1.9% 2.0% 1.9%
Staying with family 15.2% 14.2% 14.8%
Staying with friends 9.1% 11.6% 12.0%
Total from Institutional Settings 12.1% 13.6% 14.6%
Psychiatric facility 1.6% 1.7% 1.5%
Substance abuse treatment center 3.6% 4.4% 5.3%
Hospital (non-psychiatric) 1.4% 1.5% 1.5%
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention 5.0% 5.6% 5.8%
Foster care home 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
Total from Other Situations 8.2% 9.9% 8.4%
Hotel, Motel (no voucher) or “other” 8.2% 9.9% 8.4%
Number of Homeless Adults 1,115,054 1,092,612 1,034,659
a
The percentage of HMIS records missing this information dropped from 32 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2008 and
to 11 percent in 2009.
b
Includes a small percentage in permanent supportive housing.

Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009
A growing number of people homeless in shelters or transitional housing as individuals came
there from substance abuse or detoxification centers over the three-year period. As shown on
Exhibit 4-9, the percentage of homeless individuals coming into shelter from that type of
institutional setting grew from 3.6 percent in 2007 to 5.3 percent in 2009. In 2009, the
number was 48,645, compared with 27,131 in 2007.

As part of the site visits conducted for this report, providers of homeless services in several
communities reported that some individuals exhibited mental health problems of greater
severity than in previous years This could be interpreted as a success in reaching the most
needy unsheltered people or, alternatively, could reflect budget-related declines in mental
health services reaching unsheltered homeless people. Many state and local governments
have made significant cuts to social services as a result of budget shortfalls. Providers in
several of the communities visited described the impact of those cuts on the size and nature
of the homeless populations they serve.
52 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009

State Funding Cuts and Homelessness

In California, the state fiscal crisis has led to sharp decreases in mental health funding and a lack
of discharge planning from state institutions, as well as what one San Francisco provider
described as an “erosion of community resources.” In 2007, funding was eliminated for the state’s
Integrated Services for Homeless Adults with Serious Mental Illness program, and in 2009, the
state faced a $42 billion budget gap resulting in cutbacks in many social services usually provided
at the county level. According to providers, these reductions have limited provision of services to
those with the most severe cases of mental illness. Others with only slightly less severe illness
cannot be served and end up in the homeless system. As a result, homeless service providers
indicated a much higher proportion of their population is afflicted with mental illness. San
Francisco providers note that, although they have not seen a substantial increase in the homeless
population overall, those they are serving have greater needs.

Providers in Phoenix and Maricopa County told a similar story. The recession has resulted in
fewer state and local government resources for safety net services; particularly behavioral health
services. In 2009, the City of Phoenix reduced the number of human service one-stop service
centers from five to three. The State of Arizona cut Medicaid-funded drug treatment services, and
the result has been longer lengths of stay in treatment and fewer available slots opening up for
new clients to enter treatment. Many of those who are unable to enter treatment are homeless
and remain in the homeless system.
Sheltered Homeless Persons in Families
There were few changes in the prior living arrangements of persons in families between 2007 and
2009 (Exhibit 4-10). Perhaps the most interesting finding is that the percentages coming from
housing units they owned or rented were very little different in 2009 than they were in 2008. The
effect of the foreclosure crisis on homelessness seems to be mainly indirect, reflected by the increase
in the percentage of families that had been staying with relatives before they became homeless. The
change between 2008 and 2009 in the number who said they had been staying with family before
becoming homeless was about 9,500, and the three-year change between 2007 and 2009 was 27,330.

Families were less likely to report that they were already homeless when they entered an emergency
shelter or transitional housing program in 2009 than they were in 2007, suggesting that much of the
increase in family homelessness in recent years has been for families becoming homeless for the first
time.

A slightly higher percentage of adults in families said that they had been in substance abuse treatment
centers in 2009 compared with 2008. A slightly lower percentage reported that they had been living
unsubsidized in a hotel or motel, continuing a pattern of decline in the use of this type of living
arrangement by families at risk of homelessness also observed between 2007 and 2008.

Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 53

Exhibit 4-10: Change in Previous Living Situation of Adults in Families Using
Homeless Residential Services, 2007-2009
Living Arrangement the Night before
Program Entry
Percentage of
Adults in
Families 2007
Percentage of
Adults in
Families 2008

Percentage of
Adults in
Families 2009

Total Already Homeless 30.3% 25.9% 26.0%
Place not meant for human habitation 3.6% 4.0% 4.0%
Emergency shelter 23.3% 19.8% 19.5%
Transitional housing 3.4% 2.2% 2.5%
Total from Some Type of Housing 54.4% 61.5% 62.5%
Rented housing unit
a
13.0% 16.8% 17.1%
Owned housing unit 3.8% 2.4% 2.6%
Staying with family 24.2% 27.8% 29.4%
Staying with friends 13.4% 14.5% 13.5%
Total from Institutional Settings 2.3% 2.4% 2.7%
Psychiatric facility, substance abuse
center, or hospital
1.9% 1.8% 2.1%
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention 0.4% 0.5% 0.4%
Foster care home 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Total from Other Situations 13.0% 10.2% 8.7%
Hotel, motel (no voucher) or “other” 13.0% 10.2% 8.7%
Total Homeless Adults in Families 179,401 203,199 210,510
a
Includes a small percentage in permanent supportive housing.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

4.3 Changing Use of the Residential System for Homeless
People, 2007-2009
All of the increase in family homelessness in 2009 compared with 2008 was in the use of
emergency shelters by family members, rather than transitional housing. Exhibit 4-11 shows
the number of persons in families using only emergency shelter, only transitional housing, or
both programs during the course of a year. The number of persons in families staying just in
emergency shelters grew by more than 20,000 people, while the numbers using transitional
housing alone or in combination with emergency shelter dropped slightly. This pattern may
reflect efforts by communities to help families move quickly to permanent housing rather
than using a transitional housing program first. Also, it could reflect a shift in the types of
families becoming homeless, with a smaller number needing the additional stabilizing
services offered by transitional housing programs. Adult family members who reported that
they had a disability dropped from 18.4 percent in 2008 to 14.0 percent in 2009, consistent
with the idea that the growth in family homelessness over the two-year period was driven by
economic factors.

54 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009

Exhibit 4-11 Family Members in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing, 2008 -
2009
All Sheltered Persons in Families

2008 2009 Change 2008-2009
Emergency shelter only 354,997 375,334 +20,337
Transitional housing only 134,678 134,069 -609
Both emergency shelter and
transitional housing
27,050 26,044 -1006
Total 516,724 535,447 +18,723
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2008-2009

Changes in Lengths of Stay in the Homeless Services System
Exhibit 4-12 shows median lengths of stay in emergency shelter and transitional housing
separately for individuals and persons in families. The median number of nights in
emergency shelter increased from 14 to 18 for individuals from 2007 to 2008 and then
dropped back to 17 nights in 2009. In contrast, the median number of nights in emergency
shelter for persons in families was 30 in both 2007 and 2008 and then increased to 36 nights
in 2009. Not only did family homelessness continue to increase between 2008 and 2009, it
also seems to have become more severe in the sense that it took the typical family longer to
leave shelter.

The differing patterns for individuals and family members hold for lengths of stay in
transitional housing as well, with the median number of nights for individuals remaining
constant between 2008 and 2009 but growing for persons in families, from 161 nights in
2008 to 174 nights in 2009. Growing lengths of stay for families in transitional housing are
more difficult to interpret. Six months may be an appropriate stay in transitional housing for
families that need the intensive services that transitional housing programs are supposed to
provide.

Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 55

56 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009
In 2009 as in previous years, many people homeless as individuals spent a week or less in
emergency shelter over the course of a year. That percentage dropped from 42 percent in 2007 to
37 percent in 2008, but then remained almost the same (38 percent) in 2009, as shown on Exhibit
4-13. The percentage of homeless individuals spending between one and six months in emergency
shelter rose from 26 percent in 2007 to almost 30 percent in 2008 and then stayed about the same
between 2008 and 2009.

Exhibit 4-14 focuses on those
individuals who stayed in emergency
shelter for six months or more during
a year, a group that made up less than
5 percent of all individuals using
emergency shelters in 2009. The
comparison of the demographic
characteristics of these “heavy users”
of the shelter system across the three
years—2007, 2008, and 2009&mdash;show
a steady increase in the percentage of
non-minority individuals (white and
not Hispanic). This change may be
related to bringing more non-minority
individuals off the streets and into
shelters. (The increasing percentage
of heavy users of emergency shelter
identifying themselves as belonging
to “other” racial groups mainly
reflects the growing tendency of
people to identify themselves as
belonging to several races.)
Exhibit 4-12: Change in Median Length of Stay, by Shelter and Household Type,
2007-2009
Median Nights in Shelter

2007 2008 2009
Emergency Shelters
Individuals 14 nights 18 nights 17 nights
Persons in Families 30 nights 30 nights 36 nights
Transitional Housing
Individuals 91 nights 107 nights 107 nights
Persons in Families 151 nights 161 nights 174 nights
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 57

Exhibit 4-14 shows a dramatic increase in the percentage of heavy users of emergency shelter
who are individuals older than 50 years of age, from 30.6 percent in 2008 to 40.5 percent in
2009. This is consistent with other information on the aging of a cohort of individuals that
began to exhibit patterns of chronic homelessness in the 1980s.
35
The percentage of heavy
users with a disability dropped slightly, but this may simply reflect more precise estimates
resulting from the lower rate of missing data on disability in 2009 than in 2008.

Families are much less likely than individuals to stay in emergency shelter for a week or less.
The percentage doing so stayed essentially the same over the three-year period, between 23
and 24 percent. As shown in Exhibit 4-15, the increase in median lengths of stay for families
in shelter between 2008 and 2009 resulted mainly from more persons in families spending
between two and six months in shelter.

35
Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Jay Bainbridge. “The Age Structure of Contemporary
Homelessness: Risk Period or Cohort Effect?” Working Paper: The University of Pennsylvania.
Exhibit 4-14: Individuals Who Stayed in Emergency Shelter More Than 180 Days,
2007-2009
Characteristics
Percentage of
Long-Stayers
2007
Percentage of
Long-Stayers
2008
Percentage of
Long-Stayers
2009
Gender
Male 73.5% 77.0% 72.1%
Female 26.5% 23.0% 27.9%
Race/Ethnicity
White, non–Hispanic/Latino 31.9% 34.8% 36.9%
White, Hispanic/Latino 11.0% 12.8% 8.1%
Black or African American 49.9% 45.4% 45.2%
Other racial groups 7.3% 7.1% 9.8%
Age
a
18 to 30 12.6% 16.7% 11.3%
31 to 50 50.3% 51.9% 47.0%
51 and older 34.9% 30.6% 40.5%
Veteran (adults only)
b
-- 15.4% 14.3%
Disabled (adults only)
b
-- 39.7% 34.6%
a
Age categories do not sum to 100 percent because of the small numbers of people homeless alone who were under 18
years of age.
b
Because of the very different rates of missing data between 2007 and 2008 for veteran and disability status, the
comparison to 2007 is not shown for these characteristics.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007- 2009

58 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009

Just as is the case for individuals, the percentage of people staying in emergency shelter as
families for more than six months of a year who are not members of minority groups
increased steadily over the three-year period, from less than 7 percent in 2007 to almost 12
percent in 2009. Long stayers still were more likely to be African American than all
sheltered homeless families in 2009, 68.8 percent vs. 47.9 percent (see Exhibit 4-16).

Exhibit 4-16: Change in Race and Ethnicity of Persons in Families Who Stayed in
Emergency Shelters More Than 180 Days, 2007-2009
Characteristic
Percentage of
Long-Stayers
2007
Percentage of
Long-Stayers
2008
Percentage of 
Long-Stayers
2009
White, non–Hispanic/Latino 6.8% 8.0% 11.9%
White, Hispanic/Latino 2.6% 9.5% 8.6%
Black or African American 87.9% 70.6% 68.8%
Other single- and multi-race groups 2.7% 11.9% 10.7%
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

22.8% 23.5%
23.9%
28.2% 26.7%
23.5%
16.4% 18.7%
15.7%
22.4%
21.7%
26.4%
10.2% 9.5% 10.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009
1 week or less 1 week to 1 month 1 to 2 months 2 to 6 months More than 6 months
Exhi ies, bit 4-15: Lengths of Stay in Emergency Shelter for Persons in Famil
2007-2009
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009

4.4 Summary of Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007
and 2009
The major changes that occurred in sheltered homelessness that occurred between 2007 and
2009 were:

 A small overall decline in the number of sheltered homeless people between 2008 and
2009. About 35,000 fewer people were homeless at some time during 2009 than
during 2008.
 A 7 percent drop in the number of people homeless as individuals across the three-year
period between 2007 and 2009. About 80,000 fewer people were in emergency shelter or
transitional housing as individuals in 2009 compared to 2007. This may reflect
community success in getting people out of shelters and into permanent housing.
 A continued increase in family homelessness between 2008 and 2009, following a
larger increase between 2007 and 2008. In 2009, more than 170,000 families
(including more than 535,000 people) were in shelters or transitional housing, a 30
percent increase over the 2007 number of sheltered homeless families. The sustained
high level of family homelessness in 2009 reflects the ongoing effect of the recession.
 A slight aging of the adult homeless population, consistent with other research that
points to the aging of a cohort of people who became susceptible to homelessness
when they were younger.
 A steady decrease (from a high starting point) in the percentage of sheltered homeless
families and individuals identifying themselves as African American.
 A slight increase (from a low starting point) in men who are homeless as part of families.
 An increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of individuals reporting that their
previous living arrangement was a place not meant for human habitation. Communities
may be having some success in getting people off the “street” and into shelters.
 A continued increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of adults in families
who reported that they had been staying with family before becoming homeless.
However, there was no further increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage
who said they came from an owned or rented housing unit. The effect of the
continuing foreclosure crisis on family homelessness seems to be indirect, as families
stay with friends or relatives before entering shelters.
 An increase in the use of emergency shelters by families, and a slight decrease in the
use of transitional housing.
 An increase in the median number of nights that family members stayed in
emergency shelter, from 30 nights in 2008 to 36 nights in 2009. Family homelessness
both increased between 2008 and 2009 and became more severe in the sense that it
Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009 59

60 Chapter 4: Trends in Sheltered Homelessness between 2007 and 2009
took the typical family longer to leave shelter. Looking ahead to the 2010 AHAR, it
is possible that lengths of stay will go down as a result of the use of HPRP funds for
rapid re-housing.

Chapter 5
The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs
for Homeless People

This chapter describes the nation’s capacity to provide shelter or permanent supportive
housing for homeless and formerly homeless people. The inventory of beds is reported for
four types of residential programs: emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent
supportive housing, and safe havens. The chapter presents information on:

 The 2009 inventory of beds by residential program type, by whether the beds are for
individuals or persons in families, and by specific homeless subpopulations:
unaccompanied youth, veterans, and victims of domestic violence.
 The geographic location of beds in 2009, focusing on the total number of beds by
state and the proportion of beds located in urban and suburban or rural areas.
 The frequency of bed use (or the bed utilization rate) for emergency shelters and
transitional housing programs in 2009.
 Changes in the nation’s capacity to provide shelter or permanent supportive
housing for homeless and formerly homeless persons from 2006 to 2009.

With one exception, all of the information presented in this chapter was reported by CoCs in
a bed inventory that is part of their annual application for funding. The bed utilization and
turnover rates use the HMIS-based data on the number of shelter users and beds.

Types of Residential Programs
1. Emergency Shelter: A facility with the primary purpose of providing temporary shelter for
people who otherwise would be forced to stay in a place not fit for human habitation.
2. Transitional Housing: A residential program intended to facilitate the movement of homeless
people into permanent housing. Homeless people may live in transitional housing for up to 24
months and receive services that prepare them to obtain and retain permanent housing.
3. Safe Havens: A form of supportive housing that serves hard-to-reach homeless people with
severe mental illnesses who are on the streets and have been unable or unwilling to
participate in supportive services.
4. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH): Long-term, subsidized housing with supportive
services for formerly homeless people with disabilities to enable them to live as independently
as possible in a permanent setting.

Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 61

62 Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People
5.1 Inventory of Residential Programs and Beds, 2009
Total Number of Residential Programs and Beds
In 2009, the nation’s capacity to house homeless and formerly homeless people included an
estimated 20,065 residential programs and 643,423 year-round beds
36
(see Exhibit 5-1). The
number of beds is divided almost evenly among emergency shelters, transitional housing, and
permanent supportive housing, but—for the first time—the number of permanent supportive
housing beds is larger than each of the other types of beds.

Exhibit 5-1: National Inventory of Residential Programs and Year-Round Beds,
2009
a

Programs Beds
Program Type
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Emergency Shelter 6,009 29.9% 214,425 33.3%
Transitional Housing 7,229 36.0% 207,589 32.3%
Permanent Supportive Housing 6,701 33.4% 219,381 34.1%
Safe Haven 126 0.6% 2,028 0.3%
Total Number
b
20,065 100% 643,423 100%
a
Year-round beds are available for use throughout the year and are considered part of the stable inventory of beds for
homeless persons. The inventory includes beds in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.
b
The 2009 inventory includes beds that were reported by CoCs as part of their current and new inventories. The current
inventory was available for occupancy on or before January 31, 2008. The new inventory was available for occupancy
between February 1, 2008 and January 30, 2009.
Source: 2009 Continuum of Care Application: Exhibit 1, CoC Housing Inventory

Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing

In 2009, the national inventory of year-round beds for homeless persons was split almost
evenly between emergency shelter and transitional housing programs. However, whereas
emergency shelters dedicated slightly more than half of their beds to homeless individuals,
transitional housing programs dedicated slightly more than half of their beds to homeless
families (see Exhibit 5-2). Family beds are located within units—such as apartments or
single rooms that are occupied by one family. Programs that served families had 67,083
family units with an average 3.2 beds per unit.

In addition to their year-round beds, CoCs must report their inventories of seasonal beds and
overflow or voucher beds. These beds are exclusively for emergency shelter and are
typically used during inclement weather conditions. The 2009 national bed inventory had
20,419 seasonal beds and 30,565 overflow or voucher beds. (See Text Box: Types of Beds

36
Year-round beds are available for use throughout the year and are considered part of the stable inventory of
beds for homeless persons.

Reported in a CoC Housing Inventory.) Adding these beds to the total number of year-round
shelter beds in emergency shelters and transitional housing programs increases the nation’s
peak bed capacity for homeless persons by 12 percent, to 475,026 beds. Including these beds
also increases the average size of emergency shelters from 36 beds per program to just over
44 beds per program. Considering the short-term and more congregate housing settings of
emergency shelters compared to transitional housing, it is not surprising that bed capacity per
program is much larger than the approximately 29 beds per program in transitional housing.

5. Family units: Housing units (e.g., apartments) that serve homeless families. Each family unit
includes several beds.
Types of Beds Reported in a CoC Housing Inventory
1. Year-round beds: Beds available for use throughout the year and considered part of the
stable inventory of beds for homeless persons.
2. Seasonal beds: Beds usually available during particularly high-demand seasons (e.g., winter
months in northern regions and summer months in southern regions), but not available
throughout the year.
3. Overflow beds: Beds typically used during emergencies (e.g., a sudden drop in temperature
or a natural disaster that displaces residents). Their availability is sporadic.
4. Voucher beds: Beds made available, usually in a hotel or motel. They often function as
overflow beds. Some communities, especially rural communities, use vouchers instead of
fixed shelters, and thus these beds also can also be year-round beds.
Safe Havens
HUD funds safe haven programs designed to serve people with severe mental illness. Safe
haven programs resemble permanent housing in that homeless individuals may stay in these
24-hour residences for an unspecified duration in private or semi-private accommodations.
Safe havens are designed to stabilize a person’s housing situation so that his mental health
issues can be treated and he can obtain permanent housing. Occupancy in safe havens is
limited to no more than 25 people and the average is just under 17 beds per program.

In 2009, 126 safe haven programs containing 2,028 beds made up less than one-half percent
of the total bed inventory for serving homeless people.

Permanent Supportive Housing
For several years, one of HUD’s policy priorities has been the development of permanent
supportive housing programs that provide a combination of housing and supportive services to
formerly homeless people with disabilities. In 2009, the nation’s permanent supportive housing
inventory included more than 219,000 beds, more beds than in either emergency shelters or
transitional housing (Exhibit 5-2). The large number of permanent supportive housing beds
reflects the continuing efforts by HUD and communities to end homelessness among chronically
Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 63

64 Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People
homeless people. About 60 percent of these beds (131,663) served unaccompanied individuals,
and the remaining 40 percent served families (87,718). The inventory of permanent supportive
housing beds for families was distributed across approximately 31,000 family units, with an
average of 2.9 beds per unit. The average size of a permanent supportive housing program is
almost 33 beds, in between the size of emergency shelters and transitional housing.

Exhibit 5-2: Number of Beds and Units in Homeless Assistance System
Nationwide, 2009
Year-Round Beds Other Beds

Total Year-
Round
Beds
Family
Beds
Individual
Beds
Total
Year-Round
Family Units
Seasonal
Overflow
or Voucher
Emergency Shelters
Inventory
214,425 103,531 110,894 31,964 20,419 30,565
Transitional Housing
Inventory
207,589 110,064 97,525 35,119 0 0
Safe Havens
Inventory
2,028 0 2,028 0 0 0
Sub-Total: Beds for Currently Homeless Persons
Inventory
424,042 213,595 210,447 67,083 20,419 30,565
Permanent Supportive Housing (Beds Serving Formerly Homeless Persons)
Inventory
219,381 87,718 131,663 30,649 0 0
Source: 2009 Continuum of Care Application: Exhibit 1, CoC Housing Inventory

Inventory of Beds for Homeless Subpopulations
Emergency shelter and transitional housing programs reserve a portion of their beds for a variety of
homeless subpopulations with special characteristics and needs. In 2009, about 82 percent of beds
were available to the general homeless population, with the remainder of beds reserved for specific
subpopulations: approximately 13 percent for victims of domestic violence; 3 percent for veterans;
2 percent for unaccompanied youth; and almost 1.5 percent for persons living with HIV/AIDS
(Exhibit 5-3).
37

While both emergency shelters and transitional housing programs target about one-fifth of their
beds to specific populations, the target population varies slightly by program type. A larger
proportion of beds were available for victims of domestic violence in emergency shelters (16
percent) than in transitional housing (9 percent). Transitional housing programs reserved more
beds for veterans (5 percent) and for persons living with HIV/AIDS (2 percent), compared to

37
The CoC application reports beds dedicated to unaccompanied youth separately from beds dedicated to victims
of domestic violence, veterans, or persons living with HIV/AIDS. The exhibit assumes that beds dedicated to
unaccompanied youth are mutually exclusive from beds dedicated to these other subpopulations.

emergency shelters (0.8 percent for both
population types). The share of beds for
unaccompanied youth was the same for
both emergency shelters and transitional
housing programs (2 percent).

5.2 Geographic Location
of Beds, 2009
Distribution of Beds by State
Exhibit 5-4 shows the total number of
beds by state. The exhibit also provides
the number of beds per 1,000 people in
the state. In 2009, there were 2.0 beds
for homeless and formerly homeless
persons for every 1,000 people in the
United States.

With 17.1 beds per 1,000 persons, the
District of Columbia has three times
higher a ratio of beds to persons as the highest state, New York, which has a ratio of 4.8 beds per
1,000 persons. New York also has the largest inventory of beds in the country, with approximately
94,500 beds, followed by California with 88,688. No other state has more than 32,000 beds, and
New York and California combined have 29 percent of the nation’s bed capacity. Wyoming has
the fewest beds of any state (835 beds), but Mississippi has the fewest beds per 1,000 persons (0.6).
Kansas is the only other state with less than 1 bed per 1,000 persons.
2.9%
1.4%
1.7%
81.5%
12.5%
Domestic violence victims only
Veterans only
Pers ons with HIV/AIDS
Unaccompanied youth
General population
Exhibit 5-3: Year-Round Emergency
Shelter and Transitional
Housing Beds by Homeless
Subpopulation 2009

Distribution of Beds by Urban and Suburban or Rural Areas
According to information submitted by CoCs in 2009, more than half of all programs and almost
two-thirds of all beds are located in a principal city (Exhibit 5-5). The distribution of programs
and beds varies by program type. Transitional housing and permanent supportive housing
programs follow a similar distribution as the inventory of beds. In contrast, while 70 percent of
emergency shelter beds are located in principal cities, less than half of the programs are located in
these areas because emergency shelter programs tend to be larger in principal cities than in
suburban and rural areas. The average size of an emergency shelter in principal cities was 53
beds, compared to 20 beds in suburban and rural areas.

Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 65

Exhibit 5-4: Inventory of Year-Round Beds and Beds Per Capita Rate by State, 2009
1
Rank

State
# of
Beds
Beds Per
Capita
Rate Rank

State
# of
Beds
Beds
Per
Capita
Rate
1 District of Columbia 10,091 17.1 Colorado 8,713 1.8
2 New York 94,449 4.8 28 Florida 31,862 1.7
3 Hawaii 5,141 4.0 Louisiana 7,633 1.7
4 Nevada 10,191 3.9 Utah 4,693 1.7
5 Oregon 14,547 3.8 Delaware 1,488 1.7
6 Washington 24,519 3.7 New Hampshire 2,231 1.7
7 Massachusetts 23,376 3.6 Iowa 5,079 1.7
8 Maine 4,570 3.5 34 Wyoming 835 1.6
9 Alaska 2,204 3.2 35 Idaho 2,326 1.5
10 Minnesota 14,245 2.7 Georgia 14,674 1.5
11 Rhode Island 2,737 2.6 Montana 1,438 1.5
12 California 88,688 2.4 Indiana 9,477 1.5
13 Connecticut 8,112 2.3 39 Wisconsin 8,076 1.4
14 Michigan 21,641 2.2 North Carolina 12,607 1.4
15 Nebraska 3,764 2.1 41 Alabama 6,199 1.3
16 South Dakota 1,636 2.0 Tennessee 8,172 1.3
Arizona 12,992 2.0 West Virginia 2,311 1.3
Vermont 1,235 2.0 Virginia 9,895 1.3
North Dakota 1,266 2.0 45 South Carolina 5,461 1.2
New Mexico 3,891 2.0 Arkansas 3,366 1.2
21 Maryland 10,801 1.9 Texas 28,650 1.2

Pennsylvania 23,748 1.9
48
Oklahoma 4,145 1.1
Ohio 21,657 1.9 New Jersey 9,393 1.1
24 Kentucky 7,871 1.8 50 Kansas 2,094 0.7
Illinois 23,363 1.8 51 Mississippi 1,758 0.6
Missouri 10,586 1.8 Total 628,155 2.0
1
The beds per capita rate is the number of residential beds per 1,000 people in the state. Puerto Rico and U.S.
Territories are not included: Guam (294 beds and 1.60 beds per capita), Virgin Islands (175 beds and 1.6 beds per
capita), and Puerto Rico (3,057 beds and 0.8 beds per capita).

Sources: 2009 Continuum of Care Application: Exhibit 1, CoC Housing Inventory; 2008 American Community Survey

66 Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People

Exhibit 5-5: Distribution of Bed Inventory by Geographic Area, 2009
Total Number Percentage of Total
Type of Program
Principal
City
Suburban and
Rural Areas
Principal City
Suburban and
Rural Areas
Emergency Shelter
Number of programs
2,853 3,156 47.5% 52.5%
Number of year-round beds
150,965 63,460 70.4% 29.6%
Transitional Housing
Number of programs
3,961 3,268 54.8% 45.2%
Number of year-round beds
124,804 82,785 60.1% 39.9%
Safe Havens
Number of programs
87 39 69.0% 31.0%
Number of year-round beds
148,783 70,598 67.8% 32.2%
Permanent Supportive Housing
Number of programs
3,905 2,796 58.3% 41.7%
Number of year-round beds
148,783 70,598 67.8% 32.2%
Total
Number of programs
10,806 9,259 53.9% 46.1%
Number of year-round beds
426,000 217,423 66.2% 33.8%
Source: 2009 Continuum of Care Application: Exhibit 1, CoC Housing Inventory

5.3 Bed Utilization and Turnover Rates, 2009
This section describes the average daily bed utilization and bed turnover rates by residential
program type and geographic area. The bed utilization and turnover rates use one-year
estimates of shelter users based on HMIS data together with bed inventory information
reported by CoCs in their annual applications. The HMIS data provide information on the
total number of people who used an emergency shelter or transitional housing facility at any
point from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009.

Emergency Shelters
Between October 2008 and September 2009, almost 89 percent of emergency shelter beds
were occupied on an average day (Exhibit 5-6). Emergency shelter beds dedicated to
individuals had a slightly higher utilization rate than beds for persons in families. Turnover
rates were much higher for beds used by individuals than by persons in families. Eight
homeless people per year were served in beds for individuals compared with 4.7 people per
bed for persons in families. This is consistent with the longer lengths of stay for families in
emergency shelters compared to individuals reported in chapter 3.

Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 67

Emergency shelters located in suburban and rural areas have a higher utilization rate than
shelters in principal cities, especially for homeless individuals: 95 percent of emergency
shelters beds for individuals in suburban or rural areas were occupied on an average night,
compared to 88 percent of these beds in principal cities. Suburban and rural area shelters
also had higher turnover rates for individual and family beds than their counterparts in
principal cities.

Exhibit 5-6: Average Daily Utilization and Turnover Rate of Year-Round Equivalent
Beds by Program and Household Type and Geographic Area, 2009

Emergency Shelters Transitional Housing
Rate
a
Total Individual Family Total Individual Family
Overall
Utilization rate

88.5% 89.9% 86.7% 82.4% 82.5% 82.3%
Turnover rate

6.5 8.1 4.7 1.8 2.1 1.6
Principal City
Utilization rate

87.9% 88.2% 87.5% 82.7% 82.6% 82.9%
Turnover rate

6.5 7.9 4.5 1.9 2.1 1.7
Suburban and Rural Areas
Utilization rate

90.0% 95.3% 85.2% 82.0% 82.3% 81.7%
Turnover rate

6.7 8.6 5.1 1.7 2.0 1.5
a
The rates reported in the exhibit are based on year-round equivalent beds. A year-round equivalent bed is equal to the
total number of year-round beds plus the total number of seasonal beds in proportion to the amount of time these beds
were available plus the total number of vouchers in proportion to how many “voucher beds” were used during the
one-year reporting period.
b
The exhibit provides two types of bed utilization rates—average daily bed utilization rates and bed turnover rates. The
average daily bed utilization rate is calculated by dividing the average daily census during the study period by the total
number of year-round beds in the current inventory and then converting it to a percentage. The turnover rate measures
the number of persons served per available bed over the 12-month period. It is calculated by dividing the number of
persons served by the number of year-round beds.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2009
Types of Bed Utilization Rates
1. Average daily utilization rate: The percentage of available year-round equivalent beds
occupied on an average night during the 12-month reporting period. Year-round equivalent beds
include seasonal beds that have been pro-rated for the portion of the year that they are available.
Vouchers have been pro-rated based on the bed nights paid for with vouchers during the year.
2. Turnover rate: The total number of people served per year-round bed during the 12-month
reporting period.
68 Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People

Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 69
Transitional Housing
Compared to emergency shelters, transitional housing programs have lower bed utilization
and turnover rates. About 82 percent of transitional housing beds were occupied on an
average day, and this did not vary much by whether the beds were dedicated to individuals or
families or by the location of the beds. Not surprisingly, bed turnover rates in transitional
housing were much lower than those of emergency shelters. Transitional housing programs
are designed to serve people for up to two years. During the one-year reporting period, a
transitional housing bed typically serves a little less than two people.

These data reinforce two patterns that have been observed consistently in other studies: (1)
emergency shelters have higher average daily utilization rates and turnover rates than
transitional housing programs, and (2) beds for unaccompanied individuals have higher
average daily utilization rates and turnover rates than beds for persons in families.
38

Duration in a shelter and frequency of bed use both affect turnover rates. The shorter the
average length of stay and the faster a program can fill a vacant bed, the higher the turnover
rate. These findings also are consistent with the information reported in chapter 3, which
shows that people who stay in emergency shelters have shorter lengths of stay than those
who stay in transitional housing programs, and that individuals who stay in either program
type have shorter lengths of stay than families in the same program type.

5.4 Changes in the National Inventory and Utilization of Beds, 2006-
2009
Changes in the Total Number of Beds
From 2006 to 2009, the total number of beds available in residential programs throughout the
United States increased by almost 60,000 beds (or 10 percent), reflecting an increase in beds
across all program types (Exhibit 5-7). The number of emergency shelter beds increased by 7,548
(3.6 percent), the number of transitional housing beds increased by 7,880 (3.9 percent), and the
number of permanent supportive housing beds increased by more than both other programs
combined by 42,551 (24.1 percent). More than half the growth in permanent supportive housing
beds occurred in the last year, from just under196,000 in 2008 to more than 219,000 in 2009. In
the same one-year period, the number of permanent supportive housing programs grew by 555, to
6,701 in 2009.

The increase in the inventory of permanent supportive housing programs and beds is particularly
noteworthy because it is consistent with HUD’s emphasis on expanding the stock of supportive
housing. In collaboration with the Interagency Council on Homelessness, HUD has placed

38
Burt, Martha and Sam Hall. 2008. Transforming the District of Columbia's Public Homeless Assistance
System. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute.

70 Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People
federal policy and funding behind local efforts to end homelessness through permanent
supportive housing. Hundreds of city governments have responded by developing “10 year
plans” that place a priority on expanding permanent supportive housing in their communities.
HUD has also partnered with the Department of Veterans Affairs to administer jointly a new
federal Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. The HUD–VASH program
combines rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services
provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs at its medical centers and in the community.

As reported in Chapter 2, the number of persons who were chronically homeless decreased
substantially from 2006 to 2009. During the same time period, over 42,000 permanent
supportive housing beds were added to the nation’s inventory. These findings suggest that
HUD’s efforts to move chronically homeless people off the streets or other places not meant for
human habitation and into permanent housing are starting to pay off.

Changes in the Inventory of Beds for Homeless Subpopulations
The overall proportion of beds dedicated to homeless individuals and persons in families has
remained fairly constant since 2006. The percentage of emergency shelter beds dedicated to
homeless persons in families has increased slightly, from 46 to 48 percent, and also in transitional
housing, from 52 to 53 percent (Exhibit 5-8). In contrast, the percentage of permanent supportive
housing beds for families has decreased since 2006, from 44 percent to 40 percent in 2009, likely
214,425
207,589
211,451
206,877
211,222
199,709
211,205
205,062
219,381
176,830
188,636
195,724
160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000
200,000
210,000
220,000
230,000
2006b 2007 2008 2009
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2007-2009
Exhibit 5-7: Change in the National Inventory of Homeless Residential Year-
Round Beds, 2006-2009
Permanent Supportive
Housing
Emergency Shelters
Transitional Housing

Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 71
reflecting the increased number of new units resulting from an emphasis on ending chronic
homelessness through permanent supportive housing programs. By definition, all chronically
homeless persons are individuals.

Changes in Average Daily Utilization and Turnover Rates
The average daily utilization rate for emergency housing in 2009 returned to the 2007 level
of 88.5 percent after an increase in 2008. The utilization rate in transitional housing
increased between 2007 and 2008 and maintained the higher rate in 2009 (82.4 percent). The
bed turnover rate remained constant during this period for transitional housing, suggesting
that the increased utilization rate is being driven by retaining the clients longer rather than
serving more clients per bed over the year.

Changes in bed utilization patterns varied depending on the geographic location of programs
and beds. In emergency shelters, the utilization rate in principal cities increased by about
five percentage points between 2007 and 2008, but decreased by about four percentage points
in suburban and rural areas. By 2009, both types of geographic locations had nearly returned
to the rate in 2007. In transitional housing, the utilization rate in principal cities increased
steadily between 2007 and 2009, from 78.6 to 82.7 percent. The utilization rate in suburban
or rural areas increased considerably from 2007 to 2008 (about 10 percentage points), and
then stabilized in 2009, to 82 percent.
48%
53%
46%46%
47%
52%
53%
54%
40%
44%
38%
39%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2006 2007 2008 2009
Exhibit 5-8: Change in the Percentage of Beds Dedicated to Persons in
Families by Program Type, 2006-2009

Permanent Supportive
Housing
Emergency Shelters
Transitional Housing

Exhibit 5-9: Average Daily Utilization and Turnover Rate of All Year-Round Equivalent
Beds by Program and Household Type, 2007–2009
a

Total Principal City Suburban/Rural
Rates
b

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Average Daily Utilization Rate
Emergency Shelter
88.5% 91.0% 88.5% 87.6% 93.1% 87.9% 91.4% 85.8% 90.0%
Transitional Housing
76.9% 82.7% 82.4% 78.6% 81.8% 82.7% 73.7% 83.9% 82.0%
Turnover Rate
Emergency Shelter
7.3 6.9 6.5 7.5 6.7 6.5 6.6 7.3 6.7
Transitional Housing 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.7
a
The rates reported in the exhibit were based on year-round equivalent beds. A year-round equivalent bed is equal to the
total number of year-round beds plus the total number of seasonal beds in proportion to the amount of time these beds
were available during the one-year reporting period.
b
The exhibit provides two types of bed utilization rates—average daily bed utilization rates and bed turnover rates. The
average daily bed utilization rate is calculated by dividing the average daily census during the study period by the total
number of year-round beds in the current inventory and then converting it to a percentage. The turnover rate measures the
number of persons served per available bed over the 12-month period. It is calculated by dividing the number of persons
served by the number of year-round beds.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, 2006 – 2009

5.5 Summary of the Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for
Homeless People
The number of emergency shelter and transitional housing beds for serving homeless people
increased by nearly 15,000 beds between 2006 and 2009. The added supply has not gone
unused: almost 90 percent of emergency shelter beds are filled on an average night, as are
about 82 percent of transitional housing beds. The number of permanent supportive housing
beds for serving formerly homeless person has grown even more rapidly, increasing by 24
percent since 2006. There are now more permanent supportive housing beds than either
emergency shelter or transitional housing beds.

The bed inventory data reported by CoCs show that:

 The 2009 national inventory of residential programs and year-round beds serving
homeless and formerly homeless people included an estimated 20,065 residential
programs and an estimated 643,423 beds.
 The 2009 national bed inventory included 20,065 seasonal beds and 30,565 overflow
or voucher beds. If these beds are added to the total number of year-round shelter
beds in emergency shelters and transitional housing programs, the nation’s peak
capacity for homeless persons in 2009 was 475,026 beds.
72 Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People

 Between 2006 and 2009, the total number of beds available in residential programs
throughout the United States increased by approximately 60,000 (10 percent),
reflecting an increase in beds across all program types.
 The increase in permanent supportive housing beds (about 43,000) accounts for two-
thirds of the increase in beds for homeless and formerly homeless people between 2006
and 2009.
 Between 2008 and 2009, the average daily bed utilization rate remained constant in
transitional housing 82 percent), but returned to the 2007 level in emergency shelters
(89 percent).

Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People 73

74 Chapter 5: The Nationwide Capacity of Residential Programs for Homeless People

Chapter 6
Looking Ahead
This report builds on last year’s report by adding data on sheltered homeless people for
another full year, allowing for a comparative analysis of homelessness that spans three
years—2007, 2008, and 2009. The inclusion of data for a third year is important because it
marks the establishment of discernable trends in homelessness. This report is also the first to
include information from in-person interviews with local service providers located in nine
communities nationwide. The qualitative information provides a contextual backdrop for
understanding how homelessness is changing throughout the nation. Finally, the report adds
Point-in-Time (PIT) counts of sheltered and unsheltered persons and of homeless
subpopulations for another year, providing trend data for 2006 through 2009.

The trends observed in this AHAR reinforce some of the findings from previous reports.
Homelessness remains predominately an urban phenomenon, and most people are homeless
as individuals rather than as members of families. But trends reported in this 2009 AHAR
also provide an indication of how homelessness may be changing over time and whether the
current economic and foreclosure crisis has led to higher rates of homelessness. Overall, the
number of sheltered homeless persons has remained relatively unchanged between 2007 and
2009, at about 1.6 million people over the course of each year, but the composition of the
sheltered homeless population has shifted. During the three-year period, the number of
sheltered persons in families increased by 13 percent, and families now represent more than
one-third of the entire sheltered population, up from 29 percent in 2007. From 2007 to 2008,
the share of the overall sheltered homeless population living in suburban and rural areas
increased from 23 percent to 32 percent. From 2008 to 2009, even though the share of the
sheltered homeless population in suburban and rural areas remained at 32 percent, the
number of sheltered persons in families still increased by nearly 4 percent in suburban and
rural areas.

So far, both the PIT and HMIS-based estimates of homeless people do not suggest that the
economic recession has created a surge in homelessness, but signs of the recession’s impact
are present. The continued growth in sheltered family homelessness almost certainly reflects
the ongoing effect of the recession. Also, because of the recession, more families with two
adults may have become homeless, as well as more families with only a father present. But
the long-term effects of the recession are unclear. Many families are doubling up in response
to the economic downturn, and data in the 2009 AHAR reinforce this point. Between 2007
and 2008, as well as between 2008 and 2009, there was an increase in the share of people
coming to shelters who were living with family or friends the night before entering a
homeless residential facility. If some of these family support networks already are struggling
to make ends meet, some of the doubled-up families may find their way into the homeless
residential service system during 2010. On the other hand, as the nation comes out of the
Chapter 6: Looking Ahead 75

76 Chapter 6: Looking Ahead
recession, and as the stimulus funding made available through the Homelessness Prevention
and Re-housing Program (HPRP) starts helping families in crisis avoid shelter, it also is
possible that family homelessness will decline over the coming months. Thus, the fortunes of
many families who were affected by the recession may still be in the balance.

The 2009 AHAR is the first to include a companion report on homeless veterans, which will
be published later in 2010. The report on homeless veterans comes at a time when many
service men and women are returning from active duty in Iraq and being deployed to
Afghanistan. This report will provide an important baseline understanding of homelessness
among veterans that, in turn, can be used to assess how homelessness among veterans may
change over time.

6.1 The 2010 AHAR
The 2010 AHAR will continue to provide Congress and the nation with updated counts of
homelessness nationwide, including counts of individuals, persons in families, and special
population groups such as chronically homeless people and persons with disabilities. These
topics will be explored using data from an ever-expanding group of communities that
participate in the AHAR, which now includes the majority of Continuums of Care
nationwide. The 2010 AHAR also will add another full-year of HMIS data to further
highlight trends in homelessness and identify any long-term impacts of the economic
recession.

The 2010 AHAR will be the first to include data on people served in permanent supportive
housing programs, in addition to the data from emergency shelter and transitional housing
programs that have constituted the first five AHARs. The slight decrease in the number of
people using transitional housing programs in 2009 may have been a result of communities
moving families directly from emergency shelters to permanent supportive housing. The
2010 AHAR will be able to assess this question, among many others, in a more nuanced
fashion. The 2010 AHAR will also be the first to examine trends in homelessness among
veterans, comparing the 2009 supplemental report on homeless veterans (to be released later
in 2010) with the 2010 supplemental report.

HUD continues to view the AHAR as the primary resource for up-to-date information about
homelessness based on locally-derived HMIS data and is exploring ways to make these data
readily accessible to states, localities, and the general public. Based on the AHAR,
policymakers and practitioners alike will be able to better understand homelessness in their
communities, allocate local homeless assistance funds effectively, improve program
operations, and work toward the ultimate goal of ending homelessness.

Appendix A:
List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites
and Contributing Communities

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
1 AK-501 Alaska Balance of State CoC Hoonah-Angoon Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
2 AL-502
Florence/Northwest Alabama
CoC
Lawrence County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
3 AZ-500 Arizona Balance of State CoC Flagstaff Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 AZ-502
Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa County
Regional CoC
Phoenix Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 CA-501
City and County of San
Francisco
San Francisco Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6 CA-506 Monterrey County Seaside Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes *
7 CA-507 Marin County CoC Marin County Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
8 CA-510
Turlock/Modesto/Stanislaus
County CoC
Modesto Sample No No No No No
9 CA-514 Fresno/Madera County CoC Fresno Sample Yes No Yes No Yes
10 CA-600 County of Los Angeles Los Angeles Sample No No No No No
11 CA-600 County of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Sample No No No No No
12 CA-600 County of Los Angeles Pico Rivera Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
13 CA-601 City of San Diego San Diego Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
14 CA-602 Orange County CoC Mission Viejo Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
15 CA-607 Pasadena CoC Pasadena Sample Yes No Yes No No
16 CA-608 County of Riverside CoC Moreno Valley Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
17 CO-500 State of Colorado CoC Crowley County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
#
Sample Sites
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-1

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
18 CO-500 Colorado Balance of State Saguache County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
19 CO-503
Metropolitan Denver Homeless
Initiative
Adams County Sample Yes Yes Yes * *
20 CT-502 Hartford CoC Hartford Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
21 CT-503 Bridgeport CoC Stratford Sample Yes * Yes * *
22 DC-500 District of Columbia CoC Washington DC Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
23 DE-500 Wilmington CoC Wilmington Sample Yes Yes No No Yes
24 DE-500 Delaware Statewide Sussex County Sample Yes No Yes Yes No
25 FL-500
Sarasota, Bradenton, Manatee
Counties CoC
Sarasota Sample Yes Yes No Yes *
26 FL-516 Winterhaven/Polk County CoC Polk County Sample Yes * Yes * Yes
27 FL-504
Daytona
Beach/Daytona/Volusia, Flagler
Counties CoC
Deltona Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
28 FL-514 Ocala/Marion County Marion County Sample No No No No No
29 GA-500
Atlanta/Roswell/DeKalb, Fulton
Counties CoC
Atlanta Sample Yes No No No Yes
30 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State Macon County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
31 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State Oconee County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
32 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State Putnam County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
33 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State Seminole County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
34 GA-504 Augusta CoC Augusta-Richmond Sample Yes No Yes No No
Sample Sites
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-2

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
35 IA-501 Iowa Balance of State CoC Monona County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
36 ID-501 Idaho Balance of State CoC Oneida County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
37 IL-510 Chicago CoC Chicago Sample Yes No No No Yes
38 IL-511 Cook County CoC Cook County Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
39 IL-513 Springfield CoC Sangamon County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
40 KS-507 Kansas Balance of State CoC Barton County Sample No No * No No
41 KY-500 Kentucky Balance of State CoC Hardin County Sample Yes * * * Yes
42 LA-502
Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest
CoC
Bossier City Sample Yes * Yes * Yes
43 LA-506 Slidell/Southeast Louisiana CoC Slidell Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes *
44 LA-506 Slidell/Southeast Louisiana CoC St. Tammany Parish Sample Yes * * * Yes
45 MA-500 Boston CoC Boston Sample Yes No No No Yes
46 MA-512 Lawrence CoC Lawrence Sample Yes No No No Yes
47 MA-519
Attleboro/Taunton/Bristol
County CoC
Attleboro Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
48 MD-601 Montgomery County CoC Montgomery County Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
49 ME-500 Maine Balance of State CoC York County Sample Yes No Yes Yes Yes
50 MI-500 Michigan Balance of State CoC Delta County Sample Yes Yes * Yes Yes
Sample Sites
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-3

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
51 MI-500 Michigan Balance of State CoC Berrien County Sample No * * * No
52 MI-501 City of Detroit CoC Detroit Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
53 MI-503 Macomb County CoC Macomb County Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
54 MI-504
Pontiac/Royal Oak/Oakland
County CoC
Farmington Hills Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
55 MI-508
Lansing/East Lansing/Ingham
County CoC
Lansing Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
56 MI-509 Washtenaw County CoC Washtenaw County Sample Yes Yes Yes * Yes
57 MN-500
Minneapolis/Hennepin County
CoC
Hennepin County Sample Yes Yes Yes * *
58 MN-501 St. Paul/Ramsey County CoC St. Paul Sample Yes Yes Yes * Yes
59 MN-502
Rochester/Southeast Minnesota
CoC
Rochester Sample Yes Yes Yes No Yes
60 MN-506 Northwest Minnesota CoC Norman County Sample No No * * *
61 MN-508 West Central Minnesota CoC Moorhead Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
62 MN-512 Washington County CoC Washington County Sample Yes Yes Yes * Yes
63 MS-501
Mississippi Balance of State
CoC
Hattiesburg Sample No No * No No
64 MS-501
Mississippi Balance of State
CoC
Humphreys County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
65 MS-501 Mississippi Balance of State Sunflower County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
66 MT-500 State of Montana CoC Billings Sample No No No No No
67 MT-500 State of Montana CoC Great Falls Sample No No No No No
Sample Sites
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-4

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
68 NE-501 City of Omaha Council Bluffs Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
69 NE-501 Omaha/Council Bluffs Douglas County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
70 NJ-501 Bergen County Bergen County Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
71 NJ-503 Camden City/Camden County Camden Sample Yes Yes No Yes Yes
72 NJ-510 Ocean County CoC Brick Township Sample Yes * Yes * Yes
73 NV-500 Southern Nevada CoC Clark County Sample No No No No No
74 NY-501 Chemung County CoC Elmira Sample Yes Yes * Yes Yes
75 NY-505 Syracuse County CoC Onondaga County Sample Yes * * * Yes
76 NY-512 Troy/ Rensselear County Rensselaer County Sample Yes Yes * Yes *
77 NY-509 Allegany County Allegany County Sample Yes No * No Yes
78 NY-600 New York City Coalition/CoC New York City Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
79 NY-603
Nassau/Suffolk Coalition for the
Homeless
Islip Town Sample Yes Yes * * No
80 OH-502
Cleveland/Cuyahoga
County/Cleveland CoC
Cleveland Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
81 OH-507
Lancaster/Ohio Balance of
State
Lancaster Sample No No No No *
82 OH-507
Springfield/Ohio Balance of
State
Springfield Sample Yes No Yes No No
83 OH-507 Putnam/Ohio Balance of State Putnam County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
84 OK-500 North Central Oklahoma Pawnee County Sample Yes Yes * Yes *
Sample Sites
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-5

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
85 OK-503
Oklahoma Balance of State
CoC
Midwest City Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
86 PA-500 Philadelphia CoC Philadelphia Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
87 PA-507
Altoona/Central Pennsylvania
CoC
Lycoming County Sample Yes * * * Yes
88 PA-507
Altoona/Central Pennsylvania
CoC
Snyder County Sample Yes * Yes No No
89 PA-601 Southwest PA Westmoreland County Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes *
90 SD-500 South Dakota Hamlin County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
91 TX-600 Dallas City & County/Irving CoC Dallas Sample No No No No No
92 TX-700 Houston/Harris County CoC Houston Sample Yes No Yes No Yes
93 TX-603 El Paso CoC El Paso Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
94 VA-500
Richmond/Henrico,
Chesterfield, Hanover Counties
CoC
Chesterfield County Sample No * No * No
95 VA-507 Portsmouth CoC Portsmouth Sample Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
96 VT-501 Chittenden County Chittenden County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
97 WA-500 Seattle-King County CoC Seattle Sample Yes Yes No No Yes
98 WA-501
Washington Balance of State
CoC
Skagit County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
99 WA-501
Washington Balance of State
CoC
Franklin County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
100 WA-501
Washington Balance of State
CoC
Adams County Sample No Shelter Providers * * * *
101 WA-507 Yakima City and County Yakima Sample Yes No Yes No No
102 WI-500
Forest County/State of
Wisconsin CoC
Forest County Sample Yes * Yes Yes *
Sample Sites
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-6

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
103 AK-500 Anchorage CoC Anchorage Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
104 AL-500
'Birmingham/Jefferson, St. Clair,
Shelby Counties CoC
Metropolitan Birmingham Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
105 AL-501
Mobile City & County/Baldwin
County CoC
Mobile Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
106 AL-504 Montgomery City & County CoC Montgomery Contributing Yes No Yes No No
107 AR-500
Little Rock/Central Arkansas
CoC
Little Rock CoC Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
108 AR-501
Fayetteville/Northwest Arkansas
CoC
Fayetteville/Northwest Arkansas
CoC
Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
109 AR-505 Southeast Arkansas Southeast Arkansas Contributing Yes Yes * Yes *
110 AR-506
Johnson, Pope, Yell Counties
CoC
Arkansas Balance of State Contributing Yes No * Yes *
111 AZ-501 Tucson/Pima County Tucson/Pima County Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
112 AZ-502
Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa County
Regional CoC
Maricopa County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
113 CA-500
San Jose/Santa Clara City &
County CoC
Santa Clara County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
114 CA-504
Santa Rosa/Petaluma/Sonoma
County
Sonoma County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
115 CA-505
Richmond/Contra Costa County
CoC
Contra Costa County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
116 CA-506 Salinas/Monterey County CoC Monterey County Contributing Yes No No No Yes
117 CA-512 San Mateo County San Mateo County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
118 CA-513
Visalia, Kings, Tulare Counties
CoC
Kings/Tulare Contributing Yes No Yes No No
119 CA-519
Chico/Paradise/Butte County
CoC
Butte County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-7

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
120 CA-609 San Bernardino County San Bernardino County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
121 CA-610 San Diego County San Diego County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
122 CA-612 Glendale CoC City of Glendale Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes *
123 CO-504
Colorado Springs/El Paso
County CoC
Colorado Springs/El Paso
County
Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
124 CT-503 Greater Bridgeport Bridgeport Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
125 CT-505 Connecticut Balance of State Connecticut Balance of State Contributing Yes No * Yes No
126 CT-506 Greater Norwalk Area Greater Norwalk Area Contributing Yes Yes * Yes *
127 CT-507 New London New London Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
128 CT-508 Stamford/Greenwich CoC Stamford Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
129 CT-509 New Britain CoC New Britain Contributing Yes No * No Yes
130 CT-510 Bristol CoC Bristol Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
131 FL-501 Tampa/Hillsborough County Tampa/Hillsborough County Contributing Yes Yes No Yes No
132 FL-502
St.
Petersburg/Clearwater/Largo/Pi
nellas County CoC
Pinellas Contributing Yes No No Yes No
133 FL-503 Lakeland CoC Lakeland Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
134 FL-504
Daytona
Beach/Daytona/Volusia, Flagler
Counties CoC
Daytona
Beach/Daytona/Volusia/Flagler
County
Contributing Yes * Yes Yes No
135 FL-506 Tallahassee/Leon County CoC Tallahassee/Leon Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
136 FL-507
Orlando/Orange/Osceola/Semin
oleCounty
Orlando/Orange/Osceola/Semin
oleCounty
Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
137 FL-509
Fort Pierce/St. Lucie, Indian
River, Martin Counties CoC
Ft.Pierce/Saint Lucie/Indian
River County
Contributing Yes No Yes No No
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-8

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
138 FL-511
Pensacola/Escambia/Santa
Rosa County
Pensacola/Escambia/Santa
Rosa County
Contributing Yes No Yes No No
139 FL-512 St Johns County St Johns County Contributing Yes * Yes No *
140 FL-520
Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Sumter
Counties CoC
Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Sumter
Counties
Contributing Yes * No No Yes
141 FL-603
Ft Myers/Cape Coral/Lee
County CoC
Lee County Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
142 GA-500
Atlanta/Roswell/DeKalb, Fulton
Counties CoC
Atlanta Suburban (Fulton-
DeKalb Counties)
Contributing Yes No Yes * No
143 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State Georgia Balance of State Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
144 GA-503 Athens/Clark County Athens/Clark County Contributing Yes Yes Yes No No
145 GA-505 Columbus/Muscogee Columbus/Muscogee Contributing Yes No * No Yes
146 GA-506 Cobb Cobb Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
147 GA-507 Savanah/Chatham Savanah/Chatham Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
148 GU-500 Guam Guam Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
149 HI-500 Hawaii Balance of State CoC Hawaii State Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
150 HI-501 Honolulu CoC Honolulu CoC Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
151 IA-500
Sioux City/Dakota, Woodbury
Counties CoC
SiouxCity/Dakota County Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
152 IA-501 Iowa Balance of State CoC* Iowa CoC* Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
153 IA-502 Des Moines/Polk County Des Moines Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
154 ID-500 Boise/Ada County CoC Boise City Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
155 ID-501 Idaho Balance of State CoC Idaho Balance of State Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-9

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
156 IL-502
North Chicago/Lake County
CoC
Waukegan/N.Chicago/Lake
County
Contributing Yes No Yes No No
157 IL-504 Madison County Madison County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
158 IL-505 Evanston CoC Evanston CoC Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
159 IL-506 Joliet/Bolingbrook/WillCounty Joliet/Bolingbrook/WillCounty Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
160 IL-508
E. St.Louis/Belleville/Saint Clair
County
E. St.Louis/Belleville/Saint Clair
County
Contributing Yes No Yes No No
161 IL-509 City of Dekalb CoC City of Dekalb CoC Contributing Yes No Yes No *
162 IL-512 Central Illinois Central Illinois Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
163 IL-513 Springfield/Sangamon County Springfield/Sangamon County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
164 IL-514 DuPage County DuPageCounty Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
165 IL-517 Kane County Kane County Contributing Yes No Yes Yes Yes
166 IL-520 Southern Illinois Southern Illinois Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
167 IN-500 St. Joseph County CoC St. Joseph County/South Bend Contributing Yes No No No Yes
168 IN-502 Indiana Balance of State CoC State of Indiana Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
169 KS-505
Overland Park/Johnson County
CoC
Johnson County Contributing Yes Yes Yes No No
170 KS-507 Kansas Balance of State Kansas Balance of State Contributing Yes Yes No No No
171 KY-500 Kentucky Balance of State
Commonwealth of
Kentucky/Balance of State
Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
172 KY-501 Louisville/Jefferson County Louisville/Jefferson County Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
173 LA-500 Lafayette/Acadiana CoC Acadiana Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-10

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
174 LA-503 New Orleans/Jefferson Parish New Orleans/Jefferson Parish Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
175 LA-504 Baton Rouge CoC Baton Rouge Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
176 LA-505
Monroe/Northeast Louisiana
CoC
Northeast Louisiana Contributing Yes No Yes No No
177 LA-508
Houma-Terrebonne/Thibodaux
CoC
Houma/Terrebonne Contributing Yes No Yes No No
178 MA-503 Cape Cod/Islands CoC Cape Cod/Islands Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
179 MA-506 Worcester City & County CoC Worcester County Area Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
180 MA-508 Lowell CoC City of Lowell Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
181 MA-509 Cambridge CoC Cambridge CoC Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
182 MA-511 Quincy/Weymouth Quincy/Weymouth Contributing Yes Yes No Yes No
183 MA-515 City of Fall River City of Fall River Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
184 MA-516
Massachusetts Balance of
State
MassachusettsBalance of State Contributing Yes No Yes No No
185 MA-518 Brookline/Newton CoC Brookline/Newton Contributing Yes No Yes No No
186 MA-520
Brockton/Plymouth City &
County CoC
Brockton/Plymouth Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
187 MD-501 Baltimore City CoC* Baltimore City CoC* Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
188 MD-503 Anne Arundel County Anne Arundel County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
189 MD-504 Howard County Howard County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes *
190 MD-505 Baltimore County CoC Baltimore County CoC Contributing Yes No Yes No No
191 MD-506 Carroll County Carroll County Contributing Yes Yes * Yes No
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-11

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
192 MD-508
Charles, Calvert, St.Mary's
Counties CoC
Charles/Calvert/St. Mary`s
County
Contributing Yes No No No Yes
193 MD-509 Frederick City/County Frederick City/County Contributing Yes * Yes No No
194 MD-511 Mid-Shore Regional Mid-Shore Regional Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
195 MD-513
Wicomico/Somerset/Worcester
County
Wicomico/Somerset/Worcester
County
Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
196 MD-600
Prince George`s
County/Maryland
Prince George`s
County/Maryland
Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
197 ME-500 Maine Balance of State CoC Statewide CoC Contributing Yes No Yes No No
198 ME-501 Greater Penobscot/Bangor Greater Penobscot/Bangor Contributing Yes No No Yes No
199 ME-502 Portland CoC Portland (ME) Contributing Yes No Yes No No
200 MI-500 Michigan Balance of State Michigan Balance of State Contributing Yes Yes * Yes *
201 MI-502
Dearborn/Dearborn
Heights/Westland/Wayne
County CoC
Out-Wayne Cty Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
202 MI-503
St. Clair
Shores/Warren/Macomb County
Macomb County (C) Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
203 MI-504
Pontiac/Royal Oak/Oakland
County CoC
Oakland County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
204 MI-505 Flint/Genessee County CoC Flint/Genessee County (MI) Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
205 MI-506
Grand Rapids/Wyoming/Kent
County
Grand Rapids CoC* Contributing Yes No Yes No No
206 MI-507
Portage/Kalamazoo City &
County
Kalamazoo Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
207 MI-508 Lansing/Ingham County CoC
Lansing/E Lansing/Ingham
County CoC
Contributing Yes Yes * Yes Yes
208 MI-510 Saginaw County Saginaw County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
209 MI-511 Lenawee County Lenawee County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-12

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
210 MI-512
Grand Traverse/Antrim,
Leelanau Counties
Traverse City/Antrim/Leelanau
County
Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
211 MI-514 Battle Creek/Calhoun County Battle Creek/Calhoun County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
212 MI-516 Muskegon City and County Muskegon City and County Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
213 MI-517 JacksonCity/County JacksonCity/County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
214 MI-518 Livingston County Livingston County Contributing Yes No Yes Yes Yes
215 MI-519 Holland/Ottawa County Holland/Ottawa County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
216 MI-523 Eaton County Eaton County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
217 MN-500 Minneapolis/Hennepin County Minneapolis/Hennepin County Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
218 MN-501 St. Paul/Ramsey County St. Paul/Ramsey County Contributing Yes Yes Yes * *
219 MN-502
Rochester/Southeast Minnesota
CoC
Southeast Minnesota Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
220 MN-503 Dakota County Dakota/Anoka County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
221 MN-504 Northeast Minnesota CoC Northeast Minnesota Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
222 MN-505 St Cloud Central Minnesota Central Minnesota Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes *
223 MN-506 Northwest Minnesota Northwest Minnesota Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
224 MN-508
Moorehead/West Central
Minnesota
West Central Minnesota Contributing Yes * Yes * Yes
225 MN-509 Duluth/St. Louis County Duluth/St. Louis County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
226 MN-510 Scott, Carver Counties
Scott/Carver/Washington
Counties
Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
227 MN-511 Southwest Minnesota Southwest Minnesota Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-13

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
228 MO-500 St. Louis County CoC* St. Louis County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
229 MO-501 City of St.Louis City of St.Louis Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
230 MO-600 Greater Springfield Greater Springfield Contributing Yes Yes Yes No No
231 MO-602 Jasper/Newton County Jasper/Newton County Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
232 MO-603
St. Joseph/Andrew, Buchanan,
DeKalb Counties CoC
Greater St.Joseph Contributing Yes No No Yes No
233 MO-604
Kansas City/Independence/
Lee's Summit/Jackson County
CoC
Kansas City/Jackson County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
234 MO-606 Missouri Balance of State Missouri Balance of State Contributing Yes No No No Yes
235 MS-500 Jackson/Hinds County Jackson/Hinds County Contributing Yes No No Yes No
236 MS-503 Gulf Port/Gulf Coast Regional Gulf Port/Gulf Coast Regional Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
237 MT-500 Montana Montana Contributing Yes No Yes No No
238 NC-501 Asheville-Buncombe Asheville-Buncombe Contributing Yes No * No Yes
239 NC-504 Greensboro Greensboro Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
240 NC-505 Charlotte-Mecklenberg Charlotte-Mecklenberg Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
241 NC-506 Wilmington Tri-County Wilmington Tri-County Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
242 NC-508
Anson/Moore/Montgomery/Rich
mond
North Carolina Balance of State Contributing Yes No Yes No No
243 NC-509 Gaston/Lincoln/Cleveland Gaston/Lincoln/Cleveland Contributing Yes No No Yes No
244 NC-516 Northwest NC Northwest NC Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
245 ND-500 North Dakota Statewide CoC North Dakota Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-14

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
246 NE-500
North Central
Nebraska/Heartland
North Central
Nebraska/Heartland
Contributing Yes * Yes No Yes
247 NE-501 Omaha/Council Bluffs CoC Omaha Area Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
248 NE-502 Lincoln CoC Lincoln Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
249 NE-503 Southwest Nebraska Southwest Nebraska Contributing Yes * Yes Yes No
250 NE-504 Southeast Nebraska Southeast Nebraska Contributing Yes No Yes No No
251 NE-505 Panhandle of Nebraska Panhandle of Nebraska Contributing Yes * No No Yes
252 NH-500 New Hampshire BOS New Hampshire BOS Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
253 NH-501 Manchester CoC City of Manchester Contributing Yes No Yes Yes Yes
254 NH-502 Greater Nashua CoC Greater Nashua CoC Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
255 NJ-502 Burlington County Burlington County Contributing Yes Yes No Yes No
256 NJ-504 Essex County Essex County Contributing Yes No No No Yes
257 NJ-505 Gloucester County Gloucester County Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
258 NJ-506
Jersey City/Bayonne/Hudson
County CoC
Jersey City/Hudson County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
259 NJ-507
New Brunswick/Middlesex
County CoC
Middlesex County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
260 NJ-508 Monmouth County Monmouth County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes *
261 NJ-510 Ocean County Ocean County Contributing Yes No * No Yes
262 NJ-511 Passiac County Passiac County Contributing Yes Yes No No No
263 NJ-512 Salem County Salem County Contributing Yes * Yes * Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-15

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
264 NJ-513 Somerset County Somerset County Contributing Yes No No Yes Yes
265 NJ-514 City of Trenton/Mercer County City of Trenton/Mercer County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
266 NJ-515 Union County Union County Contributing Yes No No No Yes
267 NJ-520 Cumberland County Cumberland County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes *
268 NV-501
Reno/Sparks/Washoe County
CoC
Washoe/Reno Alliance Contributing Yes No No Yes No
269 NY-500
Rochester/Irondequoit/Greece/
Monroe County CoC
Rochester/Monroe County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
270 NY-503 Albany City & County CoC City/Countyof Albany Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
271 NY-507
Schenectady City & County
CoC
City/Countyof Schenectady Contributing Yes No Yes Yes No
272 NY-508 Buffalo/Erie County Buffalo/ErieCounty Contributing Yes No No Yes No
273 NY-510 Tompkins County Tompkins County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
274 NY-511
Binghamton/Union
Town/Broome County CoC
BroomeCounty/City of
Binghamton
Contributing Yes No No Yes No
275 NY-512 City of Troy and Rensselaer City of Troy Contributing Yes No No Yes No
276 NY-518 Utica-Oneida County Utica-Oneida County Contributing Yes No Yes No No
277 NY-523
Glen Falls/Saratoga
Springs/Saratoga County CoC
Saratoga Contributing Yes Yes * Yes No
278 NY-601
Poughkeepsie/Dutchess
County
Dutchess County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
279 NY-603
Islip/Babylon/Huntington/Suffolk
County
Babylon/Huntington/Suffolk
County
Contributing Yes No Yes No No
280 NY-608 Ulster County Ulster County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
281 OH-500
Cincinnati-Hamilton County
CoC*
Cincinnati-Hamilton County
CoC*
Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-16

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
282 OH-501 Greater Toledo Greater Toledo Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
283 OH-503 Columbus/Franklin County Columbus/Franklin County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
284 OH-504
Youngstown/Mahoning County
CoC
Youngstown/Mahoning County
CoC
Contributing Yes No No No Yes
285 OH-505
Dayton/Kettering/MontgomeryC
ounty
Dayton/Kettering/MontgomeryCo
unty
Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
286 OH-506 Akron/Baberton/Summit County Akron/Baberton/Summit County Contributing Yes No Yes No No
287 OK-501 Tulsa CoC Tulsa CoC Contributing Yes Yes No Yes No
288 OK-502 Oklahoma City Oklahoma City Contributing Yes No No No Yes
289 OR-500 Lane County Lane County Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
290 OR-501
Portland-Grasham-Multnomah
County CoC
Portland-Gresham-Multnomah
County CoC
Contributing Yes Yes No Yes No
291 OR-503 Central Oregon Central Oregon Contributing Yes No Yes No No
292 OR-505 Rural Oregon Rural Oregon Contributing Yes No Yes No No
293 OR-506 Washington County, OR Washington County, OR Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
294 OR-507 Clackamas County Clackamas County Contributing Yes Yes Yes * Yes
295 PA-502
Upper
Darby/Chester/Haverford/Delaw
are County CoC
Delaware County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
296 PA-503
Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton/Luzerne
County CoC
Luzerne County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
297 PA-504
Lower
Marion/Norristown/Abington/Mo
ntgomery County CoC
Montgomery County PA Contributing Yes No No Yes No
298 PA-505 Chester County Chester County Contributing Yes No No Yes No
299 PA-506 Reading/Berks County Reading/Berks County Contributing Yes No No Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-17

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
300 PA-508 Scranton/Lackawana PA Scranton/Lackawana PA Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
301 PA-510 Lancaster City/County Lancaster City/County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
302 PA-511 Bucks County Bucks County Contributing Yes Yes No No No
303 PA-600
Pittsburgh/McKeesport/Penn
Hills/Allegheny County CoC
Allegheny County/Pittsburg Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
304 PA-601 Southwest Pennsylvania Southwest Region of PA Contributing Yes No No No Yes
305 PA-602 Northwest Pennsylvania Northwest Region of PA Contributing Yes No Yes No No
306 PA-603 Beaver County Beaver County Contributing Yes Yes Yes * Yes
307 PA-605 Erie City & County CoC* Erie County CoC* Contributing Yes No Yes Yes No
308 RI-500 Rhode Island CoC Rhode Island Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
309 SC-501
Greenville/Anderson/Spartanbur
g Upstate CoC
Upstate CoC Contributing Yes Yes Yes No *
310 SC-502 Columbia/Midlands CoC Midlands Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
311 SC-503 Myrtle Beach/Sumter County Myrtle Beach/Sumter County Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
312 TN-500 Chattanooga CoC* Chattanooga CoC* Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
313 TN-501 Memphis-Shelby CoC Memphis-Shelby CoC Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
314 TN-502 Knoxville/Knox County Knoxville/Knox County Contributing Yes No No No Yes
315 TN-503 South Central TN South Central TN Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
316 TN-504 Nashville/Davidson County Nashville/Davidson County Contributing Yes No Yes No No
317 TN-506 Upper Cumberland Upper Cumberland Contributing Yes * Yes No *
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-18

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
318 TN-507 Jackson West TN Jackson West TN Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
319 TN-509 Appalachian Region Appalachian Region Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
320 TX-503 Austin/Travis County Austin/Travis County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
321 TX-504
Dewitt, Lavaca, Victoria
Counties CoC
Victoria Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
322 TX-601
Fort Worth/Arlington/Tarrant
County
Tarrant County/Ft. Worth Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
323 TX-604 Waco/McLennan County CoC Waco Contributing Yes * Yes Yes Yes
324 TX-610 Denton City & County CoC Denton Contributing Yes * Yes No *
325 TX-611 Amarillo Amarillo Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
326 TX-701
Bryan/College Station/Brazos
Valley CoC
Twin City Mission, Inc. Contributing Yes No Yes Yes Yes
327 TX-704 Galveston/Gulf Coast CoC The Gulf Coast Coalition Contributing Yes No Yes No No
328 VA-500
Richmond/Henrico,
Chesterfield, Hanover Counties
CoC
Richmond/Henrico County Contributing Yes Yes No No No
329 VA-501 Norfolk CoC City of Norfolk Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
330 VA-503 Virginia Beach CoC Virginia Beach Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
331 VA-509 Petersburg CoC Petersburg Contributing Yes Yes * No No
332 VA-512 Chesapeake Chesapeake Contributing Yes Yes Yes * *
333 VA-514
Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania,
Stafford Counties CoC
Frederickburg Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes No
334 VA-601 Fairfax County Fairfax County Contributing Yes Yes No Yes No
335 VA-602 Loudon County Loudon County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-19

CoC Code Continuum of Care Name AHAR Jurisidiction Name AHAR Site Type Participated in the AHAR? 1
Emergency
Shelters for
Families
Transitional
Housing for
Families
Emergency
Shelters for
Individuals
Transitonal
Hosing for
Individuals
#
Reporting Categories Used in the AHAR
336 VI-500 Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
337 VT-500 Vermont Vermont Contributing Yes No Yes No Yes
338 WA-502 Spokane CoC* Spokane CoC Contributing Yes No Yes No No
339 WA-503
Tacoma/Lakewood/Pierce
County
Tacoma/Lakewood/Pierce
County
Contributing Yes Yes Yes No No
340 WA-508 Vancouver/Clark County Vancouver/Clark County Contributing Yes No Yes Yes No
341 WI-500 Wisconsin Wisconsin Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
342 WI-501 Milwaukee Milwaukee Contributing Yes Yes Yes No Yes
343 WI-502 Racine City & County Racine City/County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
344 WI-503 Madison/Dane County Madison/Dane County Contributing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
345 WV-500 Wheeling-Weirton Area CoC* Wheeling-Weirton County Contributing Yes Yes No Yes Yes
346 WV-501 Cabell/Huntington/Wayne Cabell/Huntington/Wayne Contributing Yes No Yes Yes Yes
347 WV-503
Charleston/Kanawha, Putnam,
Boone, Clay Counties CoC
Charleston/Kanawha County Contributing Yes No No Yes Yes
348 WY-500 Wyoming Statewide CoC Wyoming Contributing Yes No Yes No No
1
A commmunity designated as a “complete zero provider” does not have any emergency shelters or transitional housing programs located in their jurisidiciton.
* Indicates a zero-provider reporting category, meaning that the community does not have any programs in the category.
Contributing Communities
Appendix A: List of 2009 AHAR Sample Sites and Contributing Communities A-20

Appendix B:
Data Collection and Analysis Methodology

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 1
Appendix B
Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
B.1 Introduction
This document summarizes the methodology for producing the 2009 Annual Homeless
Assessment Report (AHAR). Abt Associates and the University of Pennsylvania Center for
Mental Health Policy and Services Research (the AHAR research team) developed the
methodology.

The 2009 AHAR is based on two primary sources of data:

1. Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). The HMIS data were collected
from a nationally representative sample of communities
1
and cover a one-year reporting
period, October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009. The data contain information on
homeless persons who used emergency shelters or transitional housing at any point
during this time period. Data are unduplicated at the community-level and reported in the
aggregate. HMIS data include information on the number, characteristics, and service-
use patterns of homeless persons.

Each AHAR incorporates HMIS data for the most recent, one-year reporting period
and compares these data to previous findings. The 2009 AHAR provides
comparisons of HMIS data from 2007-2008 (first reported in the 2008 AHAR) to data
from 2008-2009.

2. Continuum of Care (CoC) applications. The CoC application data were collected
from all CoCs in 2009, and the 2009 AHAR compares these data to data from the
previous two years. The CoC application data complement the HMIS-based data by
including an estimate of the number of unsheltered homeless persons on a single
night in January. They also include an estimate of the number and basic demographic
characteristics of sheltered homeless persons on that night and the number of
emergency shelter and transitional housing beds available to serve homeless persons.
The information comes from the CoC applications that all CoCs must complete to be
eligible for HUD McKinney-Vento Act funding.

1
Data from AHAR sample sites is supplemented with data from other Continuums of Care that were not
selected as part of the original sample but chose to contribute their HMIS data for the AHAR. These
communities are called ‘contributing communities’; unlike AHAR sample sites, contributing communities
only represent themselves in the national estimates, meaning their data is not weighted to represent other
communities to produce the national estimate.

2 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology

The remainder of this appendix describes the AHAR sample data in more detail. Section B-2
discusses the population represented by the AHAR sample and the information collected
about persons experiencing homelessness. Section B-3 describes how the nationally
representative sample was selected and the number of communities that were able to
contribute local HMIS data to the AHAR. Section B-4 presents the results of the data
cleaning process and describes how usable data were identified for the final AHAR analysis
file. Section B-5 describes the process for developing the analysis weights for each site to
produce nationally representative estimates.

B.2 Data and AHAR Reporting Categories
This section describes the target population for inclusion in the AHAR sample, the source of
data, and the data collection process.

Target Population for the AHAR Sample
The HMIS-based data in the AHAR sample includes information on all persons experiencing
homelessness who used an emergency shelter or transitional housing facility at any time during
a one-year period, from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009.

The sample does not include individuals who are homeless but live in an area not within a
Continuum of Care, or individuals who live in a CoC community but do not use an emergency
shelter or transitional housing program. However, given that CoCs cover 97 percent of the
U.S. population,

including all areas thought to face a high rate of homelessness, few homeless
persons are likely to live outside CoC communities. The target population also excludes CoCs
in Puerto Rico and other U.S. Territories. Hence, the estimates represent the 50 states and the
District of Columbia. The unsheltered homeless population—persons who live on the streets
or other places not meant for human habitation—is not represented by the HMIS data in the
sample if such persons do not use an emergency shelter or transitional housing facility at any
time during the one-year data collection period.

One caveat associated with the use of HMIS data for national reporting is that an important
subset of homeless service providers is not permitted to participate fully in data collection.
The 2005 Violence against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act prohibits
“victim service providers”
2
from entering personally identifying information into an HMIS.
Even though CoCs were required to include these programs as part of their housing inventory
in their funding application, we excluded their beds from our extrapolations; thus, the

2
The term victim service provider is defined as “a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization, including rape
crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, domestic violence transitional housing programs, and other
programs whose primary mission is to provide services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, or stalking” (72 FR 5056, March 16, 2007).

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 3
national estimate of the sheltered homeless population does not include persons using
residential “victim service” providers.

Homeless Management Information System Data
The information on homeless persons in the AHAR sample is based on HMIS data collected by
local homeless assistance providers. HMIS are computerized data collection applications
operated by CoCs that store data on homeless individuals and families who use homelessness
assistance services.

HMIS data have some important features. First, they have been standardized nationally in
accordance with HUD’s National HMIS Data and Technical Standards Notice (Data Standards).
3

All HUD McKinney-Vento–funded homeless programs are required to collect 14 universal data
elements from every client served.
4
The Data Standards define each data element. The universal
data elements include information on a client’s demographic characteristics (e.g., date of birth,
ethnicity and race, gender, veteran status, and disability status) and recent residential history (e.g.,
residence before program entry, program entry and exit dates, and zip code of last permanent
address). The data are essential to obtaining an accurate picture of the extent, characteristics, and
patterns of service use of the local homeless population.

Second, HMIS data include personally identifying information that allows local communities to
produce an accurate de-duplicated count of homeless persons in their communities. For each
person served, programs must collect a client’s full name and Social Security Number. The
personally identifying information may be used in combination with other client-level
information to calculate the number of unique users of homeless services and to identify persons
who use several types of services.

Third, HMIS data may be manipulated to produce a more comprehensive picture of
homelessness when compared to older data collection systems (e.g., paper records). Given
that the data are stored electronically in sophisticated software applications, data users may
produce cross-tabulations and other outputs that were impractical or impossible before the
advent of HMIS. As a result, HMIS data offer new opportunities to study the nature and
extent of homelessness.

AHAR Reporting Categories
To facilitate the AHAR reporting process, the AHAR research team developed five reporting
categories that are used to collect information from participating communities. All of the

3
69 FR 45888, July 30, 2004.
4
Two of the universal data elements (Veterans Status and Disabling Condition) are asked of adults only; two
other data elements (Residence Prior to Program Entry and Zip Code of Last Permanent Address) are asked
of adults and unaccompanied youth only.

4 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
information required in the reporting categories is based on the universal data elements
specified in the HMIS Data Standards. The five reporting categories are:

1. Individuals served by emergency shelters (ES-IND)
2. Individuals served by transitional housing facilities (TH-IND)
3. Families served by emergency shelters (ES-FAM)
4. Families served by transitional housing facilities (TH-FAM)
5. A summary table

Reporting categories 1 through 4 contain several sections. The first section is an extrapolation
worksheet for estimating the total number of individuals or persons in families that used an
emergency shelter or transitional housing facility during the data collection period. This
section guides the community through a process for estimating the number of individuals or
persons in families served by providers participating in HMIS as well as by nonparticipating
providers. A limited amount of data from the HMIS and communities’ bed inventory is
required to complete the extrapolation. The remaining sections in each set of reporting
categories are designed to capture information about the homeless population in the
community. Each set of reporting categories is designed with embedded codes to check for
data errors, such as missing values or inconsistent information. A summary sheet of data errors
is automatically generated as communities complete the reporting categories, prompting
communities to review and correct any errors.

The final set of reporting categories —the summary tables—is designed to save time and
increase data accuracy. The tables provide estimates of the total unduplicated count of
persons who used a participating and nonparticipating emergency shelter or transitional
housing program in each jurisdiction during the data collection period. The summary tables
also show estimates of the demographic characteristics of the service-using population,
patterns of program use, and the average daily utilization rate among persons accessing
shelters and transitional housing. The summary tables automate many calculations and are
designed with embedded data quality checks that list error messages when inconsistent
information is entered.

The data submission process is channeled through the AHAR Exchange, a web-based data
collection instrument designed specifically for the AHAR. Communities login to the AHAR
Exchange using a unique username and password and submit the data by either typing the
aggregate data into each reporting category or by uploading all their data via an XML
schema into the appropriate reporting category. Each community is assigned a data quality
reviewer (a member of the research team) who reviews each submission and works
collaboratively with representatives from the community to fix any data quality issues. A
public version of the AHAR Exchange is available for viewing and local use:
http://sandbox.hmis.info/.

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 5

B.3 Sample Selection
This section describes the procedures for selecting a nationally representative sample of 102
jurisdictions for the AHAR.
5

CDBG Jurisdictions Are Primary Sampling Units
The AHAR uses the geographic areas defined for the allocation of CDBG funds as the
primary sampling unit. The four types of CDBG jurisdictions are:

 Principal cities
6

 Cities with 50,000 or more persons (that are not principal cities)
 Urban counties
 Rural areas or non-entitlement jurisdictions

CDBG jurisdictions constitute the basic building blocks of CoCs. In some cases, the CDBG
jurisdiction and the CoC represent the same geographic area (e.g., principal cities are often a
single CoC), but, in other situations, the CDBG jurisdiction is a geographic subunit of the
CoC (e.g., a small city with 50,000 or more persons may be a subunit of a countywide CoC).
The selection of 102 CDBG jurisdictions ensures the inclusion of a wide range of sites in the
AHAR as well as the reasonably precise measurement of the characteristics of homeless
persons and their patterns of service use.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provided a sampling frame for the
selection of CDBG jurisdictions. The sampling frame is a list of all 3,142 CDBG

5
The initial AHAR sample consisted of 80 jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions from the original sample—
especially jurisdictions representing rural areas—were unable to provide data to the AHAR because of
HMIS implementation issues or other data quality concerns. In addition, several of the rural sample sites
did not have any homeless residential service providers located in their jurisdiction. As a result, we were
unable to report data by geography. In an effort to improve the scope and quality of data from rural
jurisdictions, 22 additional rural jurisdictions were added to the AHAR sample. Thus, there are now 102
AHAR sample sites.
6
The original file from which the sample was selected used the category of “central city” for CDBG
jurisdictions rather than “principal city.” However, the CDBG program moved to designation of principal
city rather than central city following the OMB guidance, and the definition of central city and principal
city are slightly different (see 24 CFR Part 570). Of the 482 CDBG central city jurisdictions that existed
both before and after the definition change, 327 central city jurisdictions (68%) became principle cities
with the definition change. A small number of non-central cities (85 out of 2,501) in the original file were
categorized as principal cities in the 2007 CDBG file. In our analysis by CDBG jurisdiction and in
procedures for adjusting the sampling weights, we used the community’s current CDBG jurisdiction to
ensure that our results accurately represented the current system for designating CDBG jurisdictions.

6 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
jurisdictions within the 430 CoCs in the 50 states as of 2002.
7
The next section describes the
decision to stratify the sites based on geographic type, along with the procedures for selecting
certainty and non-certainty sites.

Stratifying the Sample by Type of Geographic Area
A CDBG jurisdiction may be a large principal city of a metropolitan area, a smaller city with a
population of 50,000 or more, one or more suburban or urban fringe counties, or a rural area. As
such, the number of homeless persons in each jurisdiction varies considerably.

Using the relative size of the homeless population in each CDBG jurisdiction to select a sample
may increase the precision of the estimates for any particular sample size. However, with the
number of homeless persons in each CDBG jurisdiction unknown, the study team assumed that
the total population in each CDBG jurisdiction provided a measure of relative size of the
homeless population for purposes of sample selection. The study team premised the assumption
on the likelihood that the number of homeless persons is correlated with the total population in
the area served by the CDBG jurisdiction. The team further refined the assumption by dividing
the sample into strata based on the expected rate of homelessness.
8

Earlier research on homelessness indicates that the rate of homelessness varies by type of
geographic area. For example, Burt (2001) found that 71 percent of the homeless persons
using homeless-related services are located in principal cities but that only 30 percent of the
total U.S. population lives in principal cities.
9
By contrast, rural areas account for 9 percent
of the homeless population, but 20 percent of the overall population. Further,
suburban/urban fringe areas represent 21 percent of homeless persons, but 50 percent of the
overall population. These findings suggest that, before using the total population as a proxy

7
HUD provided a file called “COC_GeoAreasInfo.xls” with a list of 3,219 CDBG jurisdictions, jurisdiction
type, and population of each jurisdiction. Geographic areas in the U.S Territories and Puerto Rico and
three duplicate records were eliminated, resulting in a sampling frame of 3,142 CDBG jurisdictions. In
addition, four CDBG areas in Massachusetts and one in New Hampshire included overlapping geographic
areas and double-counted the population; therefore, the population was evenly divided across the
overlapping CDBG jurisdictions before sampling.
8
Sampling based on the expected rate of homelessness is an attempt to obtain more precise estimates than
those yielded by a simple random sample. If the proxy for the expected rate of homelessness is not
correlated with the actual rate of homelessness, the resulting estimates will still be unbiased; however, the
extra precision gains go unrealized.
9
Burt, Martha. 2001. Homeless Families, Singles, and Others: Findings from the 1996 National Survey of
Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Housing Policy Debate, V12 (4), 737-780. This report
presents the share of the homeless population by urban/rural status. The share of the population in each
type of geographic area comes from the author’s calculations based on March 1996 Current Population
Survey data. The results from the Burt study were based on central cities rather than principal cities, but
we refer to them as principal cities here because of the high degree of overlap and to make the discussion
easier to follow.

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 7
for the relative size of the homeless population, the CDBG jurisdictions should be stratified
by type of geographic area to account for the fact that the ratio of homeless persons to the
population varies across geographic areas. Hence, the study team divided the CDBG
jurisdictions into four groups based on their classification for the allocation of CDBG funds:
principal cities, other cities larger than 50,000, urban counties, and rural areas (i.e., counties
that are part of non-entitlement areas). Such stratification increases the precision of
estimates.

Very Large CDBG Jurisdictions Selected with Certainty
Given that the size of the population across CDBG jurisdictions is skewed by a few very
large jurisdictions covering areas with several million residents, a useful strategy for
reducing sampling variability in the estimated number and characteristics of homeless
persons is to select very large jurisdictions in the sample with certainty. Selecting a CDBG
jurisdiction with certainty means that the CDBG jurisdiction represents only itself in the
sample estimates but ensures that the sample does not exclude the largest jurisdictions, whose
number and characteristics of the homeless population could substantially affect national
estimates. Exhibit B-1 lists the 18 CDBG jurisdictions selected with certainty.

For selecting the certainty sites, the study team divided the CDBG jurisdictions into the four
geographic-type strata. Assuming the rate of homelessness was the same in each area within
each stratum, the study team calculated the standard deviation (square root of the variance) of the
number of homeless persons for the entire stratum. The team then recalculated the standard
deviation by excluding the largest site (as if that site were taken with certainty) to obtain a
relative estimate of the reduction in the variance of the estimates that would occur if that site
were selected with certainty. In the event of substantial reduction in the variance due to the
selection of the certainty unit, the overall variance of the sample estimates will be smaller as the
variance contribution to the estimate from the certainty sites is zero. The process of selecting the
next-largest site as a certainty site continued until the reduction of the variance or standard
deviation was small or marginal. The process resulted in the identification of 11 certainty sites
consisting of eight principal cities, one other city larger than 50,000, and two urban counties (but
no non-entitlement areas).

8 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
Exhibit B-1: Geographic Characteristics and Population of 18 Certainty Sites
Geographic Area
Type of
CDBG Entity
Size of
Housed
Population
Census
Region CoC Name
1 NEW YORK CITY Principal City 8,008,278 Northeast New York City
Coalition/CoC
2 LOS ANGELES
Principal City
3,694,820 West County of Los Angeles, CA
3 CHICAGO
Principal City
2,896,016 Midwest Chicago CoC
4 HOUSTON
Principal City
1,953,631 South Houston/Harris County
5 PHILADELPHIA
Principal City
1,517,550 Northeast City of Philadelphia
6 PHOENIX
Principal City
1,321,045 West Maricopa CoC
7 SAN DIEGO
Principal City
1,223,400 West City of San Diego
Consortium
8 DALLAS
Principal City
1,188,580 South Dallas Homeless CoC
9 DETROIT
Principal City
951,270 Midwest City of Detroit CoC
10 SAN FRANCISCO
Principal City
776733 West City and County of San
Francisco
11 BOSTON
Principal City
589,141 Northeast City of Boston
12 WASHINGTON, DC
Principal City
572,059 South District of Columbia
Homeless Services
13 SEATTLE
Principal City
563,374 West Seattle-King County CoC
14 CLEVELAND
Principal City
478,403 Midwest Cuyahoga
County/Cleveland CoC
15 ATLANTA
Principal City
416,474 South Atlanta Tri- Jurisdictional
16 LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Urban County 2,205,851 West County of Los Angeles, CA
17 COOK COUNTY Urban County 1,712,784 Midwest Cook County CoC
18 ISLIP TOWN City >50,000 322,612 Northeast Suffolk County CoC Group

Based on earlier research findings showing that homeless persons are disproportionately
located in principal cities, the study team identified 7 additional principal cities as certainty
sites, for a total of 15 principal cities in the certainty sample (and 18 certainty sites in total).
The team selected the 7 additional principal cities with certainty because the cities had
among the largest populations of persons living in emergency and transitional shelters in the

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 9
1990 and 2000 Census counts.
10
All 7 certainty sites had one of the 10 largest counts in
either 1990 or 2000.
11
Given that so many homeless persons live in these cities, it is
important to include them with certainty in a nationally representative sample.

Selection of Non-Certainty Sample
There are currently 102 AHAR sample sites. The selection of the non-certainty sites
occurred in two phases. Phase one was completed in 2005 and included 62 non-certainty
sites. The 62 non-certainty sites and the 18 certainty sites (80 total sample sites) constituted
the original sample for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 AHARs. Phase 2 was completed for the
2008 AHAR and added 22 non-certainty sites to the original sample.

Phase 1: Selecting 62 Non-Certainty Sites. To select the 62 non-certainty sites for the
original sample, the study team divided the 3,124 CDBG jurisdictions into 16 strata based on
the four types of geographic areas and Census regions. As discussed earlier, the team
divided the sample into strata based on the type of geographic area because earlier research
indicated that the rate of homelessness is higher in principal cities than in other areas. The
team further divided the sample into Census regions because business cycles might affect
regions differently and result in variation in rates of and trends in homelessness across
regions. Dividing the sample into strata that are more similar in terms of the rate of
homelessness and the characteristics of homeless persons than the overall population reduces
the variance of the sample estimates for a particular sample size. Stratified sampling also
eliminates the possibility of some undesirable samples. For example, with a simple random
sample, one possible sample might include sites only in rural areas or sites only in the
Northeast, both of which are undesirable samples.

One possibility considered for the non-certainty sample was allocation of the sample to the
stratum in proportion to the population in each stratum. However, such an approach ignores
the research indicating that a disproportionate share of the homeless is located in principal
cites. Ignoring information on the location of the homeless population would lead to a
relatively high degree of imprecision in national estimates such that 20 of the 62 non-
certainty sites would be allocated to principal cities, 6 to non– principal cities, 16 to urban
counties, and 20 to rural areas. The same number of rural areas as principal cities would be
selected even though earlier research suggests that only 9 percent of the homeless population
lives in rural areas whereas 70 percent lives in principal cities.

10
For 1990 counts, see U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Allocating Homeless
Assistance by Formula.” A Report to Congress, 1992. For 2000 counts, see U.S. Census Bureau.
“Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population: 2000.” A Census 2000 Special Report.
11
The other 8 certainty sites in principal cities were all ranked in the top 15 in the 1990 or 2000 Census
counts.

10 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
Another possibility under consideration for the non-certainty sample was allocation of the
total non-certainty sample of 62 CDBG jurisdictions to each of the 16 strata in proportion to
the adjusted population in each stratum, where the adjustment accounts for different rates of
homelessness across geographic areas. This allocation method produces the highest degree
of precision of national estimates for a given sample size. The adjusted population is the
population of persons living in an area multiplied by an adjustment factor for the expected
rate of homelessness in that area. With the rate of homelessness in principal cities roughly
five times that of other areas,
12
the study team multiplied the population in principal cities by
five so that the adjusted populations would reflect the relative number of homeless persons
expected in each stratum. If the adjusted population were used to allocate the non-certainty
sites across the strata, 39 of the 62 original non-certainty sample sites would have been
allocated to principal cities, 4 to non– principal cities, 8 to urban counties, and 11 to rural
areas. While optimal for national estimates, the number of sites in the non–principal city
stratum was too small for subnational estimates.

The sampling allocation procedure ultimately used for AHAR data collection strikes a
balance between the most precise national estimates possible with a sample of 62 non-
certainty sites and reasonably sized samples from each of the four types of geographic areas.
The study team allocated the 62 original non-certainty sample sites across the 16 strata based
on the square root of the adjusted population. The result is a sample allocation between the
allocation in proportion to the population and the allocation in proportion to the adjusted
population. Accordingly, 27 of the 62 original non-certainty sites are in principal cities, 8 are
in non-principal cities, 13 are in urban counties, and 14 are in rural areas. The allocation
means lower variances of the estimates than either simple random sampling or sampling in
direct proportion to the population and provides better representation of non– principal city
areas than the allocation in proportion to the adjusted population.

To select the non-certainty sites in each stratum, the study team divided the sites into groups
based on size and then randomly selected one site from each group. The number of non-
certainty sites allocated to each stratum determined the number of groups, and each group in
a stratum contained the same number of sites. Sampling from groups based on population
size is beneficial in that it ensures that the sample has a similar distribution of CDBG
jurisdiction sizes as the population. Given that the size of the homeless population is
expected to correlate with the total population within strata, similarity in distribution is an
important feature of the sample.

12
The ratio was determined as follows. Burt (2001) found that 71 percent of the homeless population lived in
central cities in 1996. At the same time, Current Population Survey data indicate that only 30 percent of
the overall population lived in central cities at that time. The ratio of the share of the homeless population
to the share of the overall population in central cities is 2.36. The ratio is 0.42 for non– principal city
portions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 0.46 for rural areas. Dividing the principal city ratio by the
rural ratio (2.36/0.46) equal 5.1, suggesting that the rate of homelessness is about five times higher in
central cities than in rural areas.

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 11

Phase 2: Adding 22 Rural Non-Certainty Sites. The data collection results from the 2005-
2007 AHAR reports indicated that many rural communities (or non-entitlement CDBG areas)
did not have emergency shelters or transitional housing programs located in these
jurisdictions. Among the few rural sample sites that did have emergency shelters and/or
transitional housing programs, many of those programs were not entering data into an HMIS.
As a result, previous AHAR reports did not capture information from many rural
jurisdictions, and the lack of data increased the variance of the AHAR estimates and made
the analysis of rural/suburban versus urban homelessness less reliable.

In 2008, 22 new rural communities were added to the AHAR sample, increasing the total
number of rural jurisdictions to 36 and the total number of AHAR sample sites to 102. The
22 AHAR sample sites that were added in 2008 were selected in the same manner as the
original non-certainty sample sites. The original 2002 sampling frame of 3,142 CDBG
jurisdictions within the 430 CoCs in the 50 states was used to select the new rural
communities. However, the original file was compared with an updated 2006 CDBG list of
jurisdictions to remove from the sampling frame jurisdictions that had either merged with
other jurisdictions since 2002 or had changed their status from non-entitlement (rural) areas
to entitlement areas.

The sample was stratified to ensure that each of the four census regions was represented. The
goal was to select at least three rural communities from each census region that had at least
one emergency shelter or transitional housing program. In some cases, more than three
communities for a particular region were selected if inventory information reported by CoC
suggested that the communities did not have any emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs. That is, from each region, we randomly selected rural jurisdictions until we had at
least three rural jurisdictions with at least one emergency shelter or transitional housing
program. In total, 22 new rural sample sites were added in 2008; three from the Northeast
region; seven from the South region; seven from the Midwest region; and five from the West
region.

The final AHAR sample contains 102 sample sites, and Exhibit B-2 shows the total number of
certainty and non-certainty sites selected from each region-CDBG type stratum. The sample
sites contain over 40 million persons, or approximately 16 percent of the population living within
CoC communities and 14 percent of the U.S. population. The expectation is that the sample will
contain an even higher proportion of the U.S. homeless population because the selection
procedures intentionally oversampled areas with a high rate of homelessness (i.e., principal cities).
About two-fifths of the selected sites (42 sites) are principal cities, even though only one-third of
the total population lives there. The other 60 sample sites were distributed across the three
remaining CDBG jurisdictions: non-principal cities with a population over 50,000 (9 sites), urban
counties (15 sites), and non-entitlement/rural areas (36 sites). Appendix A lists all CDBG
jurisdictions in the sample.

12 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
Exhibit B-2: Number of Sites in Universe and Sample by Region-CDBG Type
Stratum
Number of
Geographic Areas
in Universe
Number of
Certainty Sites
in Sample
Number of
Noncertainty
Sites
in Sample
Total
Sample
Northeast Principal City 86 3 5 8
South Principal City 151 4 8 12
Midwest Principal City 124 3 7 10
West Principal City 106 5 7 12
Northeast City >50,000 81 1 2 3
South City >50,000 48 0 2 2
Midwest City >50,000 55 0 1 1
West City >50,000 114 0 3 3
Northeast Urban County 33 0 3 3
South Urban County 54 0 4 4
Midwest Urban County 33 1 3 4
West Urban County 34 1 3 4
Northeast Non-entitlement
County
148 0 6 6
South Non-entitlement County 812 0 11 11
Midwest Non-entitlement
County
890 0 11 11
West Non-entitlement County 373 0 8 8
Total 3,142 18 84 102

Addition of Contributing Sites
In addition to the 102 sample sites selected for the study, many other communities nationwide
volunteered to provide data for the report to help produce more precise national estimates. The
additional communities are entire Continuums of Care and are termed “contributing sites.” In the
2009 AHAR, 246 contributing communities provided data for use in the AHAR report. As with the
sites selected with certainty, data from the contributing sites represent themselves in the national
estimates. Appendix A lists the sample and contributing communities in the 2009 AHAR.

B.4 AHAR Data Cleaning
This section presents the data cleaning results for the AHAR. For each AHAR sample site and
contributing community, the study team reviewed each reporting category (e.g., ES-IND) for
reporting irregularities, focusing on three indicators:

 HMIS-bed coverage rate
 Average daily bed utilization rate
 Proportion of missing variables

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 13
Bed Coverage Rate
HMIS-bed coverage rate refers to the proportion of beds in a community that participate in
HMIS. The HMIS-bed coverage rate is equal to the total number of HMIS-participating beds
divided by the total number of beds in a community. The indicator is important because the
accuracy of the extrapolation technique depends on obtaining reasonably high bed coverage
rates.
13
The study team evaluated each reporting category on its own merits—that is,
calculated an HMIS-bed coverage rate for ES-IND, ES-FAM, TH-IND, and TH-FAM
separately—and excluded from the final AHAR analysis any reporting category with an
HMIS-bed coverage rate below 50 percent.

Average Daily Bed Utilization Rate
Average daily bed utilization rate refers to the frequency of bed use on an average day. It is
equal to the number of homeless persons who use a program on an average day during a
specified period divided by the total number of year-round equivalent beds
14
in the current
inventory during the same period. Utilization rates above 100 percent typically indicated
missing exit dates in the HMIS; unusually low utilization rates often suggested that providers
did not enter data on all clients served into HMIS. In situations where unusually high or low
utilization rates could not be explained or confirmed as accurate by the community, the study
team excluded from analysis all data from the reporting category.

Proportion of Missing Variables
Missing data limit the ability to present a complete picture of homelessness. Exhibit B-3
presents the proportion of missing values for the weighted 2009 AHAR data. The data
element most constrained by missing values was length of stay in prior living arrangement,
which was missing for 24 percent of adult clients. Though still a high rate, 2009’s rate of
missing disability status is considerably lower than the missing disability rate in the 2008
AHAR (28.9 percent). The missing data rates for disability status (10.6 percent) and prior
living situation (10.9 percent) were around half the rate in earlier AHARs. Missing rates
have also declined for most other data elements but still remain high for data that

13
Before releasing the AHAR reporting requirements, the study team tested the extrapolation procedures with data
from Philadelphia and Massachusetts under a variety of coverage rate assumptions, taking a random sample of
providers (to match 50, 75, and 90 percent HMIS bed-coverage rates) and comparing the extrapolated estimates
to the true population counts for these jurisdictions. The findings show that extrapolation estimates were
accurate for HMIS bed-coverage rates above 50 percent and were more precise with higher coverage rates. The
threshold of an HMIS bed-coverage rate of 50 percent was as representative as possible of a set of participating
sample sites. (See 2004 National HMIS Conference Breakout Session Materials “Extrapolation Methods” for
more information on the extrapolation testing, available at www.hmis.info.)
14
A year-round equivalent bed counts seasonal beds as partial beds in direct proportion to the length of the covered
period for which the provider makes the bed available. For example, a bed from a provider with a seasonal bed
open in January, February, and March would count as one-fourth of a bed if the covered period were 12 months.

14 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
communities were not required to collect before release of HUD’s Data Standards, such as
ZIP code of last permanent address (19.1 percent).

Exhibit B-3: Proportion of Missing Values across All AHAR Reporting Categories
(weighted data), 2009
Variable
Percentage
Missing Variable
Percentage
Missing
1. Gender of adults 0.2 8. Disability status 10.6
2. Gender of children 0.2 9. Household type 0.3
3. Ethnicity 2.5 10. Living arrangement before program entry 10.9
4. Race 6.7 11. Length of stay in earlier living arrangement 24.2
5. Age 0.5 12. ZIP code of last permanent address

19.1
6. Household size 0.2 13. Number of nights in program (adult males) .1
7. Veteran status 5.4 14. Number of nights in program (adult females) .1

The study team did not exclude reporting categories from the AHAR analysis file because of
missing data. Instead, the estimates are based on non-missing data, and the team has marked
estimates in the AHAR report based on data elements with missing rates over 20 percent.

Based on the data-quality indicators, the study team classified all sample sites and the
contributing communities into five categories describing the usability of their AHAR data.
Exhibit B-4 summarizes the findings. Overall, 334 communities participated in the AHAR,
including 88 sample sites and 246 contributing communities. Overall, 137 communities (42
sample sites and 95 contributing communities) provided usable data across all four reporting
categories; 171 communities (20 sample sites and 151 contributing communities) submitted
usable data for only some of their reporting categories; and 26 had no emergency shelter or
transitional housing providers located within the sample site.
15

15
These sites still contribute to the national count of homelessness because they represent other communities
with no providers.

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 15
Exhibit B-4: 2009 AHAR Participation Status of Sample and Contributing
Communities
Total
Status
Percentage Number
Number of
Sample Sites
Number of
Contributing
Communities
Participating in the AHAR
All table shells 30 137 42 95
Partial table shells 37 171 20 151
Complete Zero Providers 6 26 26 -
Subtotal 72 334 88 246
Not Participating in the AHAR
Submitted unusable data

14 63 9 54
No data submitted 14 66 5 61
Subtotal 28 129 14 115
Total Communities 100 463 102 361

In total, 14 of the 102 sample sites (14 percent) were unable to participate in the AHAR, in
most cases because implementation issues prevented the site from producing information
from their HMIS. A few of the sites were far enough along to submit data but were still
working through implementation problems or had recently made major changes to their
system that raised questions about the data quality. The study team judged data to be
unusable if the bed coverage rate was below 50 percent; if the bed utilization rates were
unreasonably high/low and could not be properly explained; if the community contact
expressed concern over data accuracy; or if the other quality control procedures raised issues
that site staff could not rectify.

The 2009 AHAR witnessed a year-over-year increase of 112 communities contributing useable
data (from 222 in 2008 to 334), an increase of 50 percent. Moreover, the number of usable
reporting categories increased from 507 in the 2008 AHAR to .794 in the 2009 AHAR. (Exhibit
B-5 shows the number of usable reporting categories for the 2009 AHAR.) In total, there were
607,140 person-records reported across the AHAR reporting categories and used to generate the
national estimates.

16 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
Exhibit B-5: Number of Usable Reporting Categories by Program-Household Type,
2009
Program-Household Type Total Sample Sites
Contributing
Communities
Emergency shelters for individuals 179 33 146
Transitional housing for individuals 198 45 (44) 153
Emergency shelters for families 185 39 146
Transitional housing for families 232 44 188
Total 794 161 633
Note: The tallies include only the reporting categories where the site has providers in a given category and provides usable
data. The table does not include the 29 complete zero provider sites.

B.5 AHAR Weighting and Analysis Procedures
This section describes the process of obtaining national estimates from the raw HMIS data
submitted by participating communities. The estimates of the number and characteristics of
the homeless population using homelessness services are based on weighted data. The study
team designed the sampling weights to produce nationally representative estimates from the
sites that provided data. The steps for obtaining the final estimate are listed here and
described in more detail below.

 Step 1: Staff from the AHAR sample sites filled out reporting categories with
information (raw data) from emergency shelters and transitional housing
providers that had entered data into their local HMIS.
 Step 2: The raw data were adjusted by reporting category within each site to
account for providers that did not participate in the site’s HMIS.
 Step 3: Base sampling weights were developed for all selected sites based on the
assumption that 100 percent of the AHAR sample sites provided
information.
 Step 4: Base sampling weights were adjusted to account for contributing sites.
 Step 5: Weights were adjusted for nonresponse to determine the preliminary analysis
weights.
 Step 6: Based on national totals of emergency and transitional housing beds, a
post-stratification adjustment was made to arrive at the final analysis
weights.
 Step 7: A final adjustment factor was derived to account for people who used
more than one type of homeless service provider.
 Step 8: National estimates were calculated by using the final weight (Step 6) and
the final adjustment factor (Step 7).

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 17
Step 1: Staff from AHAR sites filled out reporting categories with information from emergency
shelters and transitional housing providers that had entered data into their local HMIS.
Participating communities logged into the AHAR Exchange—the web-based data collection
tool designed for the AHAR—and entered the information (raw data) on the number of
homeless persons, their characteristics, and their patterns of service use. The information
was reported separately for each reporting category: individuals using emergency shelters
(ES-IND); persons in families using emergency shelters (ES-FAM); individuals using
transitional housing (TH-IND); and persons in families using transitional housing (TH-
FAM). The information was then aggregated into a fifth set of tables, the summary tables, to
provide total cross-program estimates for the site. A public version of the AHAR Exchange
is available for viewing and local use: http://sandbox.hmis.info/.
Step 2: The raw data were adjusted by reporting category within each site to account for
providers that did not participate in the site’s HMIS.
Where participation in the HMIS was less than 100 percent, the raw data at each site were
upwardly adjusted to account for nonparticipating providers (i.e., providers that did not
submit data to HMIS). This adjustment, or extrapolation, was carried out separately by
reporting category within each site. The extrapolation technique assumes that
nonparticipating providers serve the same number of unique persons per available bed as
participating providers during the study period. It makes a small adjustment for the overlap
between users of participating and nonparticipating providers.
16

The post-extrapolation results for each site are estimates of the homeless population served
by each reporting category and the total sheltered homeless population at all emergency
shelters and transitional housing in the entire site during the study period.

Step 3: Base sampling weights were developed on the assumption that 100 percent of the
AHAR sample sites provided information.
The study team selected the largest sites (i.e., the CDBG jurisdictions with the largest
populations) with certainty. As such, each site’s base sampling weight is 1.0, meaning that
each respective site’s data represent only that site. The study team divided the noncertainty
sites into 16 strata based on the four Census regions (East, West, Midwest, and South) and four
CDBG types (three types of entitlement communities—principal city, urban county, other city
with population greater than 50,000—and one type of non-entitlement community). The base
sampling weights for the noncertainty sites are the inverse of the probability of selection. For
example, if 1 out of 100 sites was selected in a stratum, the base sampling weight for selected

16
Given that data from nonparticipating providers were not available, it is impossible to verify this
assumption. However, it is the most reasonable assumption in that it is accurate when nonparticipating
providers are missing at random or at least not systematically missing in a way correlated with the number
of people they serve per available bed.

18 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
sites in that stratum would be 100 (the inverse of 1/100 = 100). Each noncertainty site in a
stratum had the same chance of being selected; therefore, each has the same weight.

If all the sample sites provided full AHAR data (in the absence of contributing sites), national
estimates of the homeless population would be calculated by multiplying each site’s base
sampling weight by the extrapolated number of persons with each characteristic at the site
and then aggregating across sites.

Step 4: Base sample weights were adjusted to account for contributing sites.
Two hundred forty-six communities volunteered to provide their HMIS-based data for the
2009 AHAR. The data from these communities—or contributing communities—increase the
reliability of the AHAR estimates. The study team treated all of these sites as certainty sites
and assigned them a weight of 1.0 such that each site would represent only itself in the
national estimates. The study team adjusted the base sampling weights of the noncertainty
sites downward to represent only the noncontributing sites in their respective stratum. For
example, assume that there were two sample sites in a stratum and that both originally had a
base weight of 100. If the contributing sites represented 10 CDBG jurisdictions in that
stratum, the sample weight for each sample site would be downwardly adjusted to 95. In
other words, the two sample sites originally represented 200 sites in their stratum, but, with
the contributing sites now representing 10 of those 200 sites, the sample site needs to
represent 190 sites. The addition of the contributing sites did not affect the base sampling
weights of the certainty sites.

If all the sample sites and contributing sites provided full AHAR data, the study team would
calculate national estimates of the homeless population by multiplying each site’s base
weight by the extrapolated number of persons with each characteristic at the site and then
aggregating across sites.

Step 5: The base weights were adjusted for nonresponse to derive the preliminary analysis
weights.
The above base weights assume that all the sample and contributing sites provided data for
all four reporting categories except for those for which they have no providers in their
jurisdiction. Unfortunately, 14 sample sites were not able to provide any usable data, and 20
other sample sites were unable to provide data for all their reporting categories (i.e., they
provided partial data). One hundred fifty-one contributing sites also provided only partial
data. In addition, 26 sample sites had no providers (i.e., no emergency shelters or transitional
housing programs). The ‘zero provider sites’ are part of the estimate (because they represent
themselves and all nonsample zero provider sites in the population) but need to be treated
differently from the other sites. Once the study team confirmed that the site had no
providers, it needed no further information. Given that the zero provider sites did not have
any information for the AHAR reporting categories, none of them was a nonrespondent.

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 19

Recognizing that some participating sites provided only partial data (i.e., data on some but
not all of their reporting categories) and that the data proved useful for the AHAR report, the
study team carried out the nonresponse adjustment to the weights separately for each of the
four reporting categories. That is, each site contributing data to the AHAR has four analytic
weights—one for each reporting category. However, for any reporting category for which a
site was not able to provide data, the analytic weight is zero. The respondent sites for that
reporting category represent the site. (Step 8 describes the procedure for aggregating across
reporting categories to arrive at national estimates.)

Below is a description of how the weight for each type of site was adjusted for nonresponse
to derive the final analysis weights.

(a) The weights of the contributing sites did not change; each contributing site
continued to represent itself with an analytic weight of 1.0 for each program-
household type for which it provided data.
(b) The weights of the no-provider sites did not change. Their weight remained the
base weight calculated in Step 4 because all zero provider sites in the sample are
considered respondents. In essence, the no-provider sites produced a response of
100 percent. Stated differently, since none of the non-response sites has no
providers, the no-provider sites would not appropriately represent them.
(c) For the certainty sites providing data, base weights were adjusted so that the
analytic weights represented all certainty sites. The adjustment was made
separately for each program-household type within four weighting classes based
on region: North, South, East, and Midwest.
17
The nonresponse adjustment was
based on the relative number of shelter beds in the nonrespondent sites and
accounts for the possibility of a high degree of size variation among certainty
sites. The nonresponse adjustment formula follows:

Total number of beds within a
reporting category at certainty sites in
region
÷
Number of beds within reporting
category at respondent certainty sites
in region

For example, assume that six of the seven certainty sites in the West provided TH-
IND data and that one site did not. If the nonrespondent certainty site had 1,000 TH-
IND beds and the six participating certainty sites had 5,000 beds, the weight of the
six participating certainty sites would be multiplied by 6/5

(6,000 divided by 5,000).

17
Fifteen of the 18 certainty sites are principal cities; therefore, the nonresponse adjustment essentially occurs
within CDBG type.

20 Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
The adjustment assumes that the nonrespondent certainty sites would serve
approximately the same number of persons per bed as the participating certainty
sites. The nonresponse adjustment for certainty sites was derived separately by
region based on the judgment that homeless providers in principal cities in the same
region were more likely than principal cities overall to serve persons with similar
characteristics.
(d) For the noncertainty sites, the weights of the participating sites were upwardly
adjusted to represent all the sites meant to be represented by the nonrespondent
sample sites. The adjustment was carried out separately for each program-household
type within 16 weighting classes based on type of CDBG jurisdiction and region: (1)
principal city, (2) city with greater than 50,000 population, (3) urban counties, and
(4) and nonentitlement areas. The nonresponse adjustment was the same as that used
for certainty sites--the ratio of total number of beds in the weighting class divided by
number of beds in participating sites.

Step 6: A post-stratification adjustment was carried out to create final analysis weights.
A post-stratification adjustment based on national totals of emergency and transitional
housing beds accounted for new CDBG jurisdictions added since 2002 as well as for any
differences in the average size of sample and nonsample sites. This final adjustment to the
analysis weights applied only to noncertainty sample sites. The preliminary analysis weight
(from Step 5) is the final analysis weight for certainty sites, no-provider sites, and
contributing sites.
The initial AHAR sample was drawn from the number of CDBG jurisdictions in existence in
2002. Since that time, however, the number of CDBG jurisdictions has increased from 3,142
to 4,115.
18
Therefore, the study team adjusted the analysis weights to account for the
expansion. The increase in CDBG jurisdictions was not evenly distributed; most of the
growth occurred in the South, particularly in the rural South. Thus, we adjusted the weights
separately for each of the 16 strata. The adjustment factor was the ratio of total number of
beds in the strata in 2009 (after excluding beds from certainty and contributing communities)
to the weighted number of beds in the noncertainty sample sites in the strata providing usable
data. The number of beds for the adjustment was based on the housing inventory chart
submitted as part of the 2009 CoC application.

The adjustment both corrected for the difference in the number of CDBG jurisdictions in
CoCs between 2002 and 2009 and adjusted for any differences in the number of beds per
CDBG sample site and CDBG nonsample site in the same stratum.

18
The 4,115 CDBG jurisdictions also include nonfunded CDBG jurisdictions not part of the original
sampling frame.

Appendix B: Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 21
The Step 6 weights are the final analysis weights for use with the sample and data provided to
produce separate national estimates of the homeless population for each reporting category.
However, to aggregate the data across reporting categories, a further adjustment is needed to
account for persons who used more than one program type during the study period.

Step 7: Final adjustment factor was derived to account for users of several program types.
To calculate national estimates that require data aggregation across the four reporting
categories, an adjustment is needed for persons who used more than one program-household
type during the study period. That is, if a person used an emergency shelter for individuals and
then a transitional housing program for individuals, the person will appear in more than one set
of reporting categories for the study period; aggregation of the numbers from the four reporting
categories would double count that person. The needed adjustment is the same type of
adjustment embedded in the AHAR summary table for sites providing data on all four reporting
categories. For the 137 participating sites (42 sample sites and 95 contributing communities)
providing data on all four reporting categories, the adjustment factor was the actual adjustment
factor calculated from how much overlap the sites reported with their HMIS data. However,
for the 171 participating sites that provided only partial data, it was not possible to calculate the
overlap adjustment factor from their data. Instead, for all partial reporting sites, the study team
used the average overlap adjustment factor from the 137 sites providing full data. Thus, for
partial reporting sites, the overlap adjustment factor was assumed to be 0.956.

The overlap adjustment factor was calculated as follows:

Total unduplicated number of persons
served at the full-reporting sites
÷
Total number of persons served at the full-
reporting sites before accounting for persons
served by more than one program-household
type

Step 8: Calculate national estimates.
To calculate national estimates, the study team first calculated the total number of persons
with each characteristic within each of the four reporting categories. Then, within each
reporting category, the team multiplied the final analysis weight (from Step 7) for each site by
the number of persons with that characteristic in that site’s reporting category. Next, the team
summed the number of persons in each site across sites to arrive at the estimated number of
persons with that characteristic who were served in that reporting category. For estimates of
the number of persons served by all four reporting categories, the team summed totals across
the four reporting categories and then multiplied by the adjustment factor from Step 7.
Percentage calculations followed the same procedures by calculating both the numerator and
denominator of the desired percentage.

Appendix C:
Continuum of Care Point-in-Time
Counts of Homeless Persons

CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
CA-600 Los Angeles City & County CoC
CA-601 San Diego CoC
CA-602 Santa Ana/Anaheim/Orange County CoC
CA-603 Santa Maria/Santa Barbara County
CA-604 Bakersfield/Kern County CoC
CA-605 San Buena Ventura/Ventura County
CA-606 Long Beach CoC
CA-607 Pasadena CoC
CA-608 Riverside City & County CoC
CA-609 San Bernardino City & County CoC
CA-610 San Diego County CoC
CA-611 Oxnard CoC
CA-612 Glendale CoC
CA-613 Imperial County CoC
CA-614 San Luis Obispo County CoC
CO-500 Colorado Balance of State CoC
CO-503 Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative
CO-504 Colorado Springs/El Paso County CoC
CT-500 Danbury CoC
CT-501 New Haven CoC
CT-502 Hartford CoC
CT-503 Bridgeport/Stratford/Fairfield CoC
CT-504 Middletown/Middlesex County CoC
CT-505 Connecticut Balance of State CoC
CT-506 Norwalk/Fairfield County CoC
CT-507 Norwich/New London City & County CoC
CT-508 Stamford/Greenwich CoC
CT-509 New Britain CoC
CT-510 Bristol CoC
CT-512 City of Waterbury CoC
DC-500 District of Columbia CoC
DE-500 Delaware Statewide CoC
FL-500 Sarasota, Bradenton, Manatee Counties CoC
FL-501 Tampa/Hillsborough County CoC
FL-502 St. Petersburg/Clearwater/Largo/Pinellas County CoC
FL-503 Lakeland CoC
FL-504 Daytona Beach/Daytona/Volusia, Flagler Counties CoC
FL-505 Fort Walton Beach/Okaloosa, Walton Counties CoC
FL-506 Tallahassee/Leon County CoC
FL-507 Orlando/Orange, Osceola, Seminole Counties CoC
FL-508 Gainesville/Alachua, Putnam Counties CoC
FL-509 Fort Pierce/St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin Counties CoC
FL-510 Jacksonville-Duval, Clay Counties CoC
FL-511 Pensacola/Esca/Santa Rosa County CoC
FL-512 Saint Johns County CoC
FL-513 Palm Bay/Melbourne/Brevard County CoC
FL-514 Ocala/Marion County CoC
FL-515 Panama City/Bay, Jackson Counties CoC

CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
FL-516 Winterhaven/Polk County CoC
FL-517 Hendry, Hardee, Highlands Counties CoC
FL-518 Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Suwannee Counties CoC
FL-519 Pasco County CoC
FL-520 Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Sumter Counties CoC
FL-600 Miami/Dade County CoC
FL-601 Ft Lauderdale/Broward County CoC
FL-602 Punta Gorda/Charlotte County CoC
FL-603 Ft Myers/Cape Coral/Lee County CoC
FL-604 Monroe County CoC
FL-605 West Palm Beach/Palm Beach County
FL-606 Naples/Collier County CoC
GA-500 Atlanta/Roswell/DeKalb, Fulton Counties CoC
GA-501 Georgia Balance of State CoC
GA-503 Athens/Clarke County CoC
GA-504 Augusta CoC
GA-505 Columbus-Muscogee/Russell County CoC
GA-506 Marietta/Cobb County CoC
GA-507 Savannah/Chatham County CoC
GU-500 Guam CoC
HI-500 Hawaii Balance of State CoC
HI-501 Honolulu CoC
IA-500 Sioux City/Dakota, Woodbury Counties CoC
IA-501 Iowa Balance of State CoC
IA-502 Des Moines/Polk County CoC
ID-500 Boise/Ada County CoC
ID-501 Idaho Balance of State CoC
IL-500 McHenry County CoC
IL-501 Rockford/Winnebago, Boone Counties CoC
IL-502 North Chicago/Lake County CoC
IL-503 Champaign/Urbana/Rantoul/Champaign County CoC
IL-504 Madison County CoC
IL-505 Evanston CoC
IL-506 Joliet/Bolingbrook/Will County CoC
IL-507 Peoria/Perkin/Fulton, Peoria, Tazewell, Woodford CoC
IL-508 East Saint Louis/Belleville/Saint Clair County CoC
IL-509 DeKalb City & County CoC
IL-510 Chicago CoC
IL-511 Cook County CoC
IL-512 Bloomington/Central Illinois CoC
IL-513 Springfield/Sangamon County CoC
IL-514 Dupage County CoC
IL-515 South Central Illinois CoC
IL-516 Decatur/Macon County CoC
IL-517 Aurora/Elgin/Kane County CoC
IL-518 Rock Island/Moline/Northwestern Illinois CoC
IL-519 West Central Illinois CoC
IL-520 Southern Illinois CoC


CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
IN-500 St. Joseph County CoC
IN-502 Indiana Balance of State CoC
IN-503 Indianapolis CoC
KS-501 Kansas City/Wyandotte County CoC
KS-502 Wichita/Sedgwick County CoC
KS-503 Topeka/Shawnee County CoC
KS-505 Overland Park/Johnson County CoC
KS-507 Kansas Balance of State CoC
KY-500 Kentucky Balance of State CoC
KY-501 Louisville/Jefferson County CoC
KY-502 Lexington/Fayette County CoC
LA-500 Lafayette/Acadiana CoC
LA-501 Lake Charles/Southwestern Louisiana CoC
LA-502 Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest CoC
LA-503 New Orleans/Jefferson Parish CoC
LA-504 Baton Rouge CoC
LA-505 Monroe/Northeast Louisiana CoC
LA-506 Slidell/Southeast Louisiana CoC
LA-507 Alexandria/Central Louisiana CoC
LA-508 Houma-Terrebonne/Thibodaux CoC
MA-500 Boston CoC
MA-501 Holyoke/Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire Counties CoC
MA-502 Lynn CoC
MA-503 Cape Cod Islands CoC
MA-504 Springfield CoC
MA-505 New Bedford CoC
MA-506 Worcester City & County CoC
MA-507 Pittsfield/Berkshire County CoC
MA-508 Lowell CoC
MA-509 Cambridge CoC
MA-510 Gloucester/Haverhill/Salem/Essex County CoC
MA-511 Quincy/Weymouth CoC
MA-512 Lawrence CoC
MA-513 Malden/Medford CoC
MA-515 Fall River CoC
MA-516 Massachusetts Balance of State CoC
MA-517 Somerville CoC
MA-518 Brookline/Newton CoC
MA-519 Attleboro/Taunton/Bristol County CoC
MA-520 Brockton/Plymouth City & County CoC
MD-500 Cumberland/Allegany County CoC
MD-501 Baltimore City CoC
MD-502 Harford County CoC
MD-503 Annapolis/Anne Arundel County CoC
MD-504 Howard County CoC
MD-505 Baltimore County CoC
MD-506 Carroll County CoC
MD-507 Cecil County CoC

CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
MO-602 Joplin/Jasper, Newton Counties CoC
MO-603 St. Joseph/Andrew, Buchanan, DeKalb Counties CoC
MO-604 Kansas City/Independence/ Lee's Summit/Jackson County CoC
MO-606 Missouri Balance of State CoC
MS-500 Jackson/Rankin, Madison Counties CoC
MS-501 Mississippi Balance of State CoC
MS-503 Gulf Port/Gulf Coast Regional CoC
MT-500 Montana Statewide CoC
NC-500 Winston Salem/Forsyth County CoC
NC-501 Asheville/Buncombe County CoC

NC-502 Durham City & County CoC
NC-503 North Carolina Balance of State CoC
NC-504 Greensboro/High Point CoC
NC-505 Charlotte/Mecklenburg County CoC
NC-506 Wilmington/Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender Counties CoC
NC-507 Raleigh/Wake County CoC
NC-509 Gastonia/Cleveland, Gaston, Lincoln Counties CoC
NC-511 Fayetteville/Cumberland County CoC
NC-513 Chapel Hill/Orange County CoC
NC-516 Northwest North Carolina CoC
ND-500 North Dakota Statewide CoC
NE-500 North Central Nebraska CoC
NE-501 Omaha/Council Bluffs CoC
NE-502 Lincoln CoC
NE-503 Southwest Nebraska CoC
NE-504 Southeast Nebraska CoC
NE-505 Panhandle of Nebraska CoC
NE-506 Northeast Nebraska CoC
NH-500 New Hampshire Balance of State CoC
NH-501 Manchester CoC
NH-502 Nashua/Hillsborough County CoC
NJ-500 Atlantic City & County CoC
NJ-501 Bergen County CoC
NJ-502 Burlington County CoC
NJ-503 Camden City & County CoC
NJ-504 Newark/Essex County CoC
NJ-505 Gloucester County CoC
NJ-506 Jersey City/Bayonne/Hudson County CoC
NJ-507 New Brunswick/Middlesex County CoC
NJ-508 Monmouth County CoC
NJ-509 Morris County CoC
NJ-510 Lakewood Township/Ocean County CoC
NJ-511 Paterson/Passaic County CoC
NJ-512 Salem County CoC
NJ-513 Somerset County CoC
NJ-514 Trenton/Mercer County CoC
NJ-515 Elizabeth/Union County CoC
NJ-516 Warren County CoC

CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
NJ-518 Ocean City/Cape May County CoC
NJ-519 Sussex County CoC
NJ-520 Cumberland County CoC
NM-500 Albuquerque CoC
NM-501 New Mexico Balance of State CoC
NV-500 Las Vegas/Clark County CoC
NV-501 Reno/Sparks/Washoe County CoC
NV-502 Nevada Balance of State CoC
NY-500 Rochester/Irondequoit/Greece/Monroe County CoC
NY-501 Elmira/Steuben, Allegany, Chemung, Schuyler Counties COC
NY-502 Auburn/Cayuga County CoC
NY-503 Albany City & County CoC
NY-504 Cattaraugus County CoC
NY-505 Syracuse/Onondaga County CoC
NY-506 Fulton, Montgomery, Schoharie Counties CoC
NY-507 Schenectady City & County CoC
NY-508 Buffalo/Erie County CoC
NY-509 Oswego County CoC
NY-510 Tompkins County CoC
NY-511 Binghamton/Union Town/Broome County CoC
NY-512 Troy/Rensselaer County CoC
NY-513 Wayne, Ontario, Seneca, Yates Counties CoC
NY-514 Jamestown/Dunkirk/Chautauqua County CoC
NY-515 Cortland County CoC
NY-516 Clinton County CoC
NY-517 Orleans County CoC
NY-518 Utica/Rome/Oneida County CoC
NY-519 Columbia/Greene County CoC
NY-520 Franklin County CoC
NY-522 Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence Counties CoC
NY-523 Glen Falls/Saratoga Springs/Saratoga County CoC
NY-524 Niagara CoC
NY-600 New York City CoC
NY-601 Poughkeepsie/Dutchess County CoC
NY-602 Newburgh/Middletown/Orange County CoC
NY-603 Islip/Babylon/Huntington/Suffolk County CoC
NY-604 Yonkers/Mount Vernon/New Rochelle/Westchester County CoC
NY-605 Nassau County CoC
NY-606 Rockland County CoC
NY-607 Sullivan County CoC
NY-608 Kingston/Ulster County CoC
OH-500 Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC
OH-501 Toledo/Lucas County CoC
OH-502 Cleveland/Cuyahoga County CoC
OH-503 Columbus/Franklin County CoC
OH-504 Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC
OH-505 Dayton/Kettering/Montgomery CoC
OH-506 Akron/Baberton/Summit County CoC

CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
OH-507 Ohio Balance of State CoC
OH-508 Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC
OK-500 North Central Oklahoma CoC
OK-501 Tulsa City & County/Broken Arrow CoC
OK-502 Oklahoma City CoC
OK-503 Oklahoma Balance of State CoC
OK-504 Norman / Cleveland County
OK-505 Northeast Oklahoma CoC
OK-506 Southewst Oklahoma CoC
OK-507 Southeastern Oklahoma Regional CoC
OR-500 Eugene/Springfield/Lane County CoC
OR-501 Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County CoC
OR-502 Medford/Ashland/Jackson County CoC
OR-503 Central Oregon CoC
OR-504 Salem/Marion/Polk Counties CoC
OR-505 Oregon Balance of State CoC
OR-506 Hillsboro/Beaverton/Washington County CoC
OR-507 Clackamas County CoC
PA-500 Philadelphia CoC
PA-501 Harrisburg/Dauphin County CoC
PA-502 Upper Darby/Chester/Haverford/Delaware County CoC
PA-503 Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton/Luzerne County CoC
PA-504 Lower Marion/Norristown/Abington/Montgomery County CoC
PA-505 Chester County CoC
PA-506 Reading/Berks County CoC
PA-507 Altoona/Central Pennsylvania CoC
PA-508 Scranton/Lackawanna County CoC
PA-509 Allentown/Northeast Pennsylvania CoC
PA-510 Lancaster City & County CoC
PA-511 Bristol/Bensalem/Bucks County CoC
PA-600 Pittsburgh/McKeesport/Penn Hills/Allegheny County CoC
PA-601 Southwest Pennsylvania CoC
PA-602 Northwest Pennsylvania CoC
PA-603 Beaver County CoC
PA-605 Erie City & County CoC
PR-502 Puerto Rico Balance of Commonwealth CoC
PR-503 South/Southeast Puerto Rico CoC
RI-500 Rhode Island Statewide CoC
SC-500 Charleston/Low Country CoC
SC-501 Greenville/Anderson/Spartanburg Upstate CoC
SC-502 Columbia/Midlands CoC
SC-503 Myrtle Beach/Sumter City & County CoC
SC-504 Florence City & County/Pee Dee CoC
SD-500 South Dakota Statewide CoC
TN-500 Chattanooga/Southeast Tennessee CoC
TN-501 Memphis/Shelby County CoC
TN-502 Knoxville/Knox County CoC
TN-503 South Central Tennessee CoC

CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
TN-504 Nashville/Davidson County CoC
TN-506 Oak Ridge/Upper Cumberland CoC
TN-507 Jackson/West Tennessee CoC
TN-509 Appalachian Regional CoC
TN-510 Murfreesboro/Rutherford City CoC
TN-512 Morristown/Blount, Sevier, Campbell, Cocke Counties CoC
TX-500 San Antonio/Bexar County CoC
TX-501 Corpus Christi/Nueces County CoC
TX-503 Austin/Travis County CoC
TX-504 Dewitt, Lavaca, Victoria Counties CoC
TX-600 Dallas City & County/Irving CoC
TX-601 Fort Worth/Arlington/Tarrant County
TX-603 El Paso City & County CoC
TX-604 Waco/McLennan County CoC
TX-607 Texas Balance of State CoC
TX-610 Denton City & County CoC
TX-611 Amarillo CoC
TX-613 Longview/Marshall Area CoC
TX-624 Wichita Falls/Wise, Palo Pinto, Wichita, Archer Counties CoC
TX-700 Houston/Harris County CoC
TX-701 Bryan/College Station/Brazos Valley CoC
TX-702 Montgomery County CoC
TX-703 Beaumont/Port Arthur/South East Texas CoC
TX-704 Galveston/Gulf Coast CoC
UT-500 Salt Lake City & County CoC
UT-503 Utah Balance of State CoC
UT-504 Provo/Mountainland CoC
VA-500 Richmond/Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover Counties CoC
VA-501 Norfolk CoC
VA-502 Roanoke City & County/Salem CoC
VA-503 Virginia Beach CoC
VA-504 Charlottesville CoC
VA-505 Newport News/Hampton/Virginia Peninsula CoC
VA-507 Portsmouth CoC
VA-508 Lynchburg CoC
VA-509 Petersburg CoC
VA-510 Staunton/Waynesboro/Augusta, Highland Counties CoC
VA-512 Chesapeake CoC
VA-513 Winchester/Shenandoah, Frederick, Warren Counties CoC
VA-514 Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania, Stafford Counties CoC
VA-517 Danville/Martinsville CoC
VA-518 Harrisburg/ Rockingham County CoC
VA-519 Suffolk CoC
VA-521 Virginia Balance of State CoC
VA-600 Arlington County CoC
VA-601 Fairfax County CoC
VA-602 Loudoun County CoC
VA-603 Alexandria CoC

CoC Number CoC Name
Appendix C-1
2010 List of Continuums of Care
VA-604 Prince William County CoC
VI-500 Virgin Islands CoC
VT-500 Vermont Balance of State CoC
VT-501 Burlington/Chittenden County CoC
WA-500 Seattle/King County CoC
WA-501 Washington Balance of State CoC
WA-502 Spokane City & County CoC
WA-503 Tacoma/Lakewood/Pierce County CoC
WA-504 Everett/Snohomish County CoC
WA-507 Yakima City & County CoC
WA-508 Vancouver/Clark County CoC
WI-500 Wisconsin Balance of State CoC
WI-501 Milwaukee City & County CoC
WI-502 Racine City & County CoC
WI-503 Madison/Dane County CoC
WV-500 Wheeling/Weirton Area CoC
WV-501 Huntington/Cabell, Wayne Counties
WV-503 Charleston/Kanawha, Putnam, Boone, Clay Counties CoC
WV-508 West Virginia Balance of State CoC
WY-500 Wyoming Statewide CoC

State
2009 Total
Homeless
Population
2008 Total
Homeless
Population
2007 Total
Homeless
Population
2008-2009 Total
Change
2008-2009
Percent
Change
2007-2009 Total
Change
2007-2009
Percent
Change
Alabama 6,080 5,387 5,452 693 12.86% 628 11.52%
Alaska 1,992 1,646 1,642 346 21.02% 350 21.32%
Arizona 14,721 12,488 14,646 2,233 17.88% 75 0.51%
Arkansas 2,852 3,255 3,836 -403 -12.38% -984 -25.65%
California 133,129 157,277 159,732 -24,148 -15.35% -26,603 -16.65%
Colorado 15,268 14,747 14,225 521 3.53% 1,043 7.33%
Connecticut 4,605 4,627 4,482 -22 -0.48% 123 2.74%
Delaware 1,130 933 1,061 197 21.11% 69 6.50%
District Of Columbia 6,228 6,044 5,320 184 3.04% 908 17.07%
Florida 55,599 50,158 48,069 5,441 10.85% 7,530 15.66%
Georgia 20,360 19,095 19,639 1,265 6.62% 721 3.67%
Guam 1,088 725 725 363 50.07% 363 50.07%
Hawaii 5,782 6,061 6,070 -279 -4.60% -288 -4.74%
Idaho 1,939 1,464 1,749 475 32.45% 190 10.86%
Illinois 14,055 14,724 15,487 -669 -4.54% -1,432 -9.25%
Indiana 6,984 7,395 7,358 -411 -5.56% -374 -5.08%
Iowa 3,380 3,346 2,734 34 1.02% 646 23.63%
Kansas 1,892 1,738 2,111 154 8.86% -219 -10.37%
Kentucky 5,999 8,137 8,061 -2,138 -26.28% -2,062 -25.58%
Louisiana 12,504 5,481 5,494 7,023 128.13% 7,010 127.59%
Maine 2,444 2,632 2,638 -188 -7.14% -194 -7.35%
Maryland 11,698 9,219 9,628 2,479 26.89% 2,070 21.50%
Massachusetts 15,482 14,506 15,127 976 6.73% 355 2.35%
Michigan 14,005 28,248 28,295 -14,243 -50.42% -14,290 -50.50%
Minnesota 7,718 7,644 7,323 74 0.97% 395 5.39%
Mississippi 2,797 1,961 1,377 836 42.63% 1,420 103.12%
Missouri 6,959 7,687 6,247 -728 -9.47% 712 11.40%
Montana 1,196 1,417 1,150 -221 -15.60% 46 4.00%
Nebraska 3,718 3,985 3,531 -267 -6.70% 187 5.30%
Nevada 14,478 12,610 12,526 1,868 14.81% 1,952 15.58%
New Hampshire 1,645 2,019 2,248 -374 -18.52% -603 -26.82%
New Jersey 13,169 13,832 17,314 -663 -4.79% -4,145 -23.94%
New Mexico 3,475 3,015 3,015 460 15.26% 460 15.26%
New York 61,067 61,125 62,601 -58 -0.09% -1,534 -2.45%
North Carolina 12,918 12,411 11,802 507 4.09% 1,116 9.46%
North Dakota 773 615 636 158 25.69% 137 21.54%
Ohio 12,700 12,912 11,264 -212 -1.64% 1,436 12.75%
Oklahoma 4,838 3,846 4,221 992 25.79% 617 14.62%
Oregon 17,309 20,653 17,590 -3,344 -16.19% -281 -1.60%
Pennsylvania 15,096 15,378 16,220 -282 -1.83% -1,124 -6.93%
Puerto Rico 4,070 3,012 4,309 1,058 35.13% -239 -5.55%
Rhode Island 1,607 1,196 1,372 411 34.36% 235 17.13%
South Carolina 4,473 5,660 5,660 -1,187 -20.97% -1,187 -20.97%
South Dakota 731 579 579 152 26.25% 152 26.25%
Tennessee 10,532 9,705 11,210 827 8.52% -678 -6.05%
Texas 36,761 40,190 39,788 -3,429 -8.53% -3,027 -7.61%
Utah 3,795 3,434 3,011 361 10.51% 784 26.04%
Vermont 1,214 954 1,035 260 27.25% 179 17.29%
Virgin Islands 471 602 559 -131 -21.76% -88 -15.74%
Virginia 8,852 8,469 9,746 383 4.52% -894 -9.17%
Washington 22,782 21,954 23,379 828 3.77% -597 -2.55%
West Virginia 1,667 2,016 2,409 -349 -17.31% -742 -30.80%
Wisconsin 6,525 5,449 5,648 1,076 19.75% 877 15.53%
Wyoming 515 751 537 -236 -31.42% -22 -4.10%
TOTAL 643,067 664,414 671,888 -21,347 -3.21% -28,821 -4.29%
Appendix C-2
Changes in Point-In-Time Estimates of Homeless Population by State, 2007-2009

State
Total
Sheltered
Population
Total
Unsheltered
Population
Total
Homeless
Population
State
Population
Homeless
Rate
Alabama 3,913 2,167 6,080 4,708,708 0.13%
Alaska 1,665 327 1,992 698,473 0.29%
Arizona 8,366 6,355 14,721 6,595,778 0.22%
Arkansas 1,730 1,122 2,852 2,889,450 0.10%
California 50,777 82,352 133,129 36,961,664 0.36%
Colorado 9,031 6,237 15,268 5,024,748 0.30%
Connecticut 4,103 502 4,605 3,518,288 0.13%
Delaware 1,083 47 1,130 885,122 0.13%
District of Columbia 5,907 321 6,228 599,657 1.04%
Florida 21,867 33,732 55,599 18,537,969 0.30%
Georgia 9,419 10,941 20,360 9,829,211 0.21%
Guam 182 906 1,088 178,430 0.61%
Hawaii 3,268 2,514 5,782 1,295,178 0.45%
Idaho 1,477 462 1,939 1,545,801 0.13%
Illinois 11,851 2,204 14,055 12,910,409 0.11%
Indiana 5,206 1,778 6,984 6,423,113 0.11%
Iowa 3,221 159 3,380 3,007,856 0.11%
Kansas 1,696 196 1,892 2,818,747 0.07%
Kentucky 5,299 700 5,999 4,314,113 0.14%
Louisiana 4,118 8,386 12,504 4,492,076 0.28%
Maine 2,406 38 2,444 1,318,301 0.19%
Maryland 7,446 4,252 11,698 5,699,478 0.21%
Massachusetts 14,476 1,006 15,482 6,593,587 0.23%
Michigan 11,298 2,707 14,005 9,969,727 0.14%
Minnesota 6,772 946 7,718 5,266,214 0.15%
Mississippi 1,221 1,576 2,797 2,951,996 0.09%
Missouri 5,469 1,490 6,959 5,987,580 0.12%
Montana 833 363 1,196 974,989 0.12%
Nebraska 3,079 639 3,718 1,796,619 0.21%
Nevada 7,792 6,686 14,478 2,643,085 0.55%
New Hampshire 1,406 239 1,645 1,324,575 0.12%
New Jersey 11,871 1,298 13,169 8,707,739 0.15%
New Mexico 2,108 1,367 3,475 2,009,671 0.17%
New York 57,454 3,613 61,067 19,541,453 0.31%
North Carolina 8,473 4,445 12,918 9,380,884 0.14%
North Dakota 765 8 773 646,844 0.12%
Ohio 10,929 1,771 12,700 11,542,645 0.11%
Oklahoma 3,307 1,531 4,838 3,687,050 0.13%
Oregon 7,442 9,867 17,309 3,825,657 0.45%
Pennsylvania 13,819 1,277 15,096 12,604,767 0.12%
Puerto Rico 1,325 2,745 4,070 3,967,179 0.10%
Rhode Island 1,556 51 1,607 1,053,209 0.15%
South Carolina 3,036 1,437 4,473 4,561,242 0.10%
South Dakota 667 64 731 812,383 0.09%
Tennessee 7,133 3,399 10,532 6,296,254 0.17%
Texas 21,658 15,103 36,761 24,782,302 0.15%
Utah 3,540 255 3,795 2,784,572 0.14%
Vermont 1,057 157 1,214 621,760 0.20%
Virgin Islands 76 395 471 109,825 0.43%
Virginia 7,284 1,568 8,852 7,882,590 0.11%
Washington 16,237 6,545 22,782 6,664,195 0.34%
West Virginia 1,278 389 1,667 1,819,777 0.09%
Wisconsin 5,465 1,060 6,525 5,654,774 0.12%
Wyoming 451 64 515 544,270 0.09%
TOTAL 403,308 239,759 643,067 311,261,984 0.21%
Appendix C-3
Point-In-Time Estimates from January 2009 of Homeless Population by State

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total Change
08-09
% Change 08-
09
Total Change
07-08
% Change 07-
08
Total Change
06-07
% Change 06-
07
Total Change
06-09
% Change 06-
09
Continuum of Care Sheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Sheltered PIT Counts Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Sheltered
Count
60 CA-612 Glendale CoC 138 233 233 104 -95 -40.8% 0 0.0% 129 124.0% 34 32.7% 0.27%
61 CA-613 El Centro/Imperial County CoC 157 156 113 0 1 0.6% 43 38.1% 113 - 157 - 0.31%
62 CA-614 San Luis Obispo County CoC 242 281 187 222 -39 -13.9% 94 50.3% -35 -15.8% 20 9.0% 0.48%
63 CO-500 Colorado Balance of State CoC 1,087 1,233 1,093 1,578 -146 -11.8% 140 12.8% -485 -30.7% -491 -31.1% 12.04%
64 CO-503 Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative 7,053 4,951 5,185 5,390 2,102 42.5% -234 -4.5% -205 -3.8% 1,663 30.9% 78.10%
65 CO-504 Colorado Springs/El Paso County CoC 891 693 693 752 198 28.6% 0 0.0% -59 -7.8% 139 18.5% 9.87%
66 CT-500 Danbury CoC 126 116 127 258 10 8.6% -11 -8.7% -131 -50.8% -132 -51.2% 3.07%
67 CT-501 New Haven CoC 717 722 641 858 -5 -0.7% 81 12.6% -217 -25.3% -141 -16.4% 17.48%
68 CT-502 Hartford CoC 1,205 1,251 891 829 -46 -3.7% 360 40.4% 62 7.5% 376 45.4% 29.37%
69 CT-503 Bridgeport/Stratford/Fairfield CoC 269 311 324 338 -42 -13.5% -13 -4.0% -14 -4.1% -69 -20.4% 6.56%
70 CT-504 Middletown/Middlesex County CoC 206 187 201 289 19 10.2% -14 -7.0% -88 -30.4% -83 -28.7% 5.02%
71 CT-505 Connecticut Balance of State CoC 512 387 492 399 125 32.3% -105 -21.3% 93 23.3% 113 28.3% 12.48%
72 CT-506 Norwalk/Fairfield County CoC 186 183 213 191 3 1.6% -30 -14.1% 22 11.5% -5 -2.6% 4.53%
73 CT-507 Norwich/New London City & Couny 273 288 248 250 -15 -5.2% 40 16.1% -2 -0.8% 23 9.2% 6.65%
74 CT-508 Stamford/Greenwich CoC 265 255 252 403 10 3.9% 3 1.2% -151 -37.5% -138 -34.2% 6.46%
75 CT-509 New Britain CoC 127 103 91 162 24 23.3% 12 13.2% -71 -43.8% -35 -21.6% 3.10%
76 CT-510 Bristol CoC 58 62 59 58 -4 -6.5% 3 5.1% 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 1.41%
77 CT-512 City of Waterbury CoC 159 155 132 171 4 2.6% 23 17.4% -39 -22.8% -12 -7.0% 3.88%
78 DC-500 District of Columbia CoC 5,907 5,666 4,980 5,286 241 4.3% 686 13.8% -306 -5.8% 621 11.7% 100.00%
79 DE-500 Delaware Statewide CoC 1,083 862 854 876 221 25.6% 8 0.9% -22 -2.5% 207 23.6% 100.00%
80 FL-500 Sarasota, Bradenton, Manatee Counties 348 530 494 945 -182 -34.3% 36 7.3% -451 -47.7% -597 -63.2% 1.59%
81 FL-501 Tampa/Hillsborough County CoC 726 1,050 1,050 6,241 -324 -30.9% 0 0.0% -5,191 -83.2% -5,515 -88.4% 3.32%
82 FL-502 St. Petersburg/Pinellas County CoC 1,691 1,305 1,305 2,214 386 29.6% 0 0.0% -909 -41.1% -523 -23.6% 7.73%
83 FL-503 Lakeland/Highlands Counties CoC 366 499 487 420 -133 -26.7% 12 2.5% 67 16.0% -54 -12.9% 1.67%
84 FL-504 Daytona Beach/Flagler Counties CoC 593 576 569 514 17 3.0% 7 1.2% 55 10.7% 79 15.4% 2.71%
85 FL-505 Fort Walton Beach/Walton Counties CoC 309 330 105 116 -21 -6.4% 225 214.3% -11 -9.5% 193 166.4% 1.41%
86 FL-506 Tallahassee/Leon County CoC 536 495 495 580 41 8.3% 0 0.0% -85 -14.7% -44 -7.6% 2.45%
87 FL-507 Orlando/Orange/Seminole Counties CoC 2,454 2,366 2,003 2,308 88 3.7% 363 18.1% -305 -13.2% 146 6.3% 11.22%
88 FL-508 Gainesville/Alachua, Putnam 301 279 263 278 22 7.9% 16 6.1% -15 -5.4% 23 8.3% 1.38%
89 FL-509 Fort Pierce/St. Lucie/Martin Counties CoC 289 298 458 494 -9 -3.0% -160 -34.9% -36 -7.3% -205 -41.5% 1.32%
90 FL-510 Jacksonville-Duval, Clay Counties CoC 2,019 1,492 1,585 1,462 527 35.3% -93 -5.9% 123 8.4% 557 38.1% 9.23%
91 FL-511 Pensacola/Esca/Santa Rosa County CoC 412 375 347 294 37 9.9% 28 8.1% 53 18.0% 118 40.1% 1.88%
92 FL-512 Saint Johns County CoC 106 106 106 163 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -57 -35.0% -57 -35.0% 0.48%
93 FL-513 Palm Bay/Brevard County CoC 1,002 502 502 1,002 500 99.6% 0 0.0% -500 -49.9% 0 0.0% 4.58%
94 FL-514 Ocala/Marion County CoC 297 312 312 331 -15 -4.8% 0 0.0% -19 -5.7% -34 -10.3% 1.36%
95 FL-515 Panama City CoC 249 211 211 226 38 18.0% 0 0.0% -15 -6.6% 23 10.2% 1.14%
96 FL-516 Winterhaven/Polk County CoC 0 209 0 0 -209 -100.0% 209 - 0 - 0 - 0.00%
97 FL-517 Hardee/Highlands Counties CoC 101 101 664 2,531 0 0.0% -563 -84.8% -1,867 -73.8% -2,430 -96.0% 0.46%
98 FL-518 Columbia/Suwannee CoC 165 92 85 110 73 79.3% 7 8.2% -25 -22.7% 55 50.0% 0.75%
99 FL-519 Passo County 1,674 1,500 1,379 2,499 174 11.6% 121 8.8% -1,120 -44.8% -825 -33.0% 7.66%
100 FL-520 Citrus/Hernando/Lake 236 216 192 411 20 9.3% 24 12.5% -219 -53.3% -175 -42.6% 1.08%
101 FL-600 Miami/Dade County CoC 3,339 3,227 3,012 2,955 112 3.5% 215 7.1% 57 1.9% 384 13.0% 15.27%
102 FL-601 Ft Lauderdale/Broward County CoC 2,425 2,453 2,453 2,672 -28 -1.1% 0 0.0% -219 -8.2% -247 -9.2% 11.09%
103 FL-602 Punta Gorda/Charlotte County CoC 394 450 450 123 -56 -12.4% 0 0.0% 327 265.9% 271 220.3% 1.80%
104 FL-603 Ft Myers/Cape Coral/Lee County CoC 515 386 433 706 129 33.4% -47 -10.9% -273 -38.7% -191 -27.1% 2.36%
105 FL-604 Monroe County CoC 324 477 477 437 -153 -32.1% 0 0.0% 40 9.2% -113 -25.9% 1.48%
106 FL-605 West Palm Beach/Palm Beach County 740 727 727 860 13 1.8% 0 0.0% -133 -15.5% -120 -14.0% 3.38%
107 FL-606 Collier County CoC 256 160 365 277 96 60.0% -205 -56.2% 88 31.8% -21 -7.6% 1.17%
108 GA-500 City of Atlanta CoC 4,855 4,725 4,725 4,368 130 2.8% 0 0.0% 357 8.2% 487 11.1% 51.54%
109 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State CoC 2,134 2,267 1,971 3,319 -133 -5.9% 296 15.0% -1,348 -40.6% -1,185 -35.7% 22.66%
110 GA-503 Athens/Clarke County CoC 248 303 333 388 -55 -18.2% -30 -9.0% -55 -14.2% -140 -36.1% 2.63%
111 GA-504 Augusta CoC 512 496 451 532 16 3.2% 45 10.0% -81 -15.2% -20 -3.8% 5.44%
112 GA-505 Columbus-Muscogee/Russell County CoC 254 244 188 246 10 4.1% 56 29.8% -58 -23.6% 8 3.3% 2.70%
113 GA-506 Marietta/Cobb County CoC 354 329 329 330 25 7.6% 0 0.0% -1 -0.3% 24 7.3% 3.76%
114 GA-507 Savannah/Chatham County CoC 1,062 501 344 316 561 112.0% 157 45.6% 28 8.9% 746 236.1% 11.28%
115 GU-500 Guam CoC 182 103 103 258 79 76.7% 0 0.0% -155 -60.1% -76 -29.5% 100.00%
116 HI-500 Hawaii Balance of State CoC 823 746 755 926 77 10.3% -9 -1.2% -171 -18.5% -103 -11.1% 25.18%
117 HI-501 Honolulu CoC 2,445 1,957 1,957 1,050 488 24.9% 0 0.0% 907 86.4% 1,395 132.9% 74.82%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total Change
08-09
% Change 08-
09
Total Change
07-08
% Change 07-
08
Total Change
06-07
% Change 06-
07
Total Change
06-09
% Change 06-
09
Continuum of Care Sheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Sheltered PIT Counts Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Sheltered
Count
118 IA-500 Sioux City/Dakota County CoC 259 260 159 165 -1 -0.4% 101 63.5% -6 -3.6% 94 57.0% 8.04%
119 IA-501 Iowa Balance of State CoC 1,891 1,824 1,340 1,746 67 3.7% 484 36.1% -406 -23.3% 145 8.3% 58.71%
120 IA-502 Des Moines/Polk County CoC 1,071 1,003 942 1,209 68 6.8% 61 6.5% -267 -22.1% -138 -11.4% 33.25%
121 ID-500 Boise/Ada County CoC 644 553 472 133 91 16.5% 81 17.2% 339 254.9% 511 384.2% 43.60%
122 ID-501 Idaho Balance of State CoC 833 697 653 997 136 19.5% 44 6.7% -344 -34.5% -164 -16.4% 56.40%
123 IL-500 McHenry County CoC 247 195 235 177 52 26.7% -40 -17.0% 58 32.8% 70 39.5% 2.08%
124 IL-501 Rockford/Winnebago, Boone Counties 347 525 525 448 -178 -33.9% 0 0.0% 77 17.2% -101 -22.5% 2.93%
125 IL-502 North Chicago/Lake County CoC 368 430 486 405 -62 -14.4% -56 -11.5% 81 20.0% -37 -9.1% 3.11%
126 IL-503 Champaign/Urbana/Champaign County CoC 530 416 416 295 114 27.4% 0 0.0% 121 41.0% 235 79.7% 4.47%
127 IL-504 Madison County CoC 161 189 203 308 -28 -14.8% -14 -6.9% -105 -34.1% -147 -47.7% 1.36%
128 IL-505 Evanston CoC 93 93 93 95 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -2 -2.1% -2 -2.1% 0.78%
129 IL-506 Joliet/Bolingbrook/Will County CoC 331 299 379 345 32 10.7% -80 -21.1% 34 9.9% -14 -4.1% 2.79%
130 IL-507 Peoria/Perkin/Woodford CoC 330 342 336 362 -12 -3.5% 6 1.8% -26 -7.2% -32 -8.8% 2.78%
131 IL-508 East Saint Louis/Saint Clair County CoC 242 218 442 349 24 11.0% -224 -50.7% 93 26.6% -107 -30.7% 2.04%
132 IL-509 DeKalb City & County CoC 84 106 106 67 -22 -20.8% 0 0.0% 39 58.2% 17 25.4% 0.71%
133 IL-510 Chicago CoC 5,356 4,346 4,346 4,969 1,010 23.2% 0 0.0% -623 -12.5% 387 7.8% 45.19%
134 IL-511 Cook County CoC 1,034 1,069 1,069 1,024 -35 -3.3% 0 0.0% 45 4.4% 10 1.0% 8.73%
135 IL-512 Bloomington/Central Illinois CoC 482 399 399 339 83 20.8% 0 0.0% 60 17.7% 143 42.2% 4.07%
136 IL-513 Springfield/Sangamon County CoC 248 228 245 297 20 8.8% -17 -6.9% -52 -17.5% -49 -16.5% 2.09%
137 IL-514 Dupage County CoC 587 642 642 538 -55 -8.6% 0 0.0% 104 19.3% 49 9.1% 4.95%
138 IL-515 South Central Illinois CoC 234 235 214 127 -1 -0.4% 21 9.8% 87 68.5% 107 84.3% 1.97%
139 IL-516 Decatur/Macon County CoC 150 167 167 180 -17 -10.2% 0 0.0% -13 -7.2% -30 -16.7% 1.27%
140 IL-517 Aurora/Elgin/Kane County CoC 392 418 418 452 -26 -6.2% 0 0.0% -34 -7.5% -60 -13.3% 3.31%
141 IL-518 Rock Island...Northwestern Illinois CoC 348 268 506 676 80 29.9% -238 -47.0% -170 -25.1% -328 -48.5% 2.94%
142 IL-519 West Central Illinois CoC 127 99 148 140 28 28.3% -49 -33.1% 8 5.7% -13 -9.3% 1.07%
143 IL-520 Southern Illinois CoC 160 796 796 401 -636 -79.9% 0 0.0% 395 98.5% -241 -60.1% 1.35%
144 IN-500 South Bend/Mishawaka/St. Joseph County CoC 527 681 584 0 -154 -22.6% 97 16.6% 584 - 527 - 10.12%
145 IN-502 Indiana Balance of State CoC 3,412 3,878 3,878 5,086 -466 -12.0% 0 0.0% -1,208 -23.8% -1,674 -32.9% 65.54%
146 IN-503 Indianapolis CoC 1,267 1,364 1,634 1,993 -97 -7.1% -270 -16.5% -359 -18.0% -726 -36.4% 24.34%
147 KS-501 Kansas City/Wyandotte County CoC 180 109 130 100 71 65.1% -21 -16.2% 30 30.0% 80 80.0% 10.61%
148 KS-502 Wichita/Sedgwick County CoC 352 445 473 394 -93 -20.9% -28 -5.9% 79 20.1% -42 -10.7% 20.75%
149 KS-503 Topeka/Shawnee County CoC 198 316 226 457 -118 -37.3% 90 39.8% -231 -50.5% -259 -56.7% 11.67%
150 KS-505 Overland Park/Johnson County CoC 166 147 147 157 19 12.9% 0 0.0% -10 -6.4% 9 5.7% 9.79%
151 KS-507 Kansas Balance of State CoC 800 483 483 2,026 317 65.6% 0 0.0% -1,543 -76.2% -1,226 -60.5% 47.17%
152 KY-500 Kentucky Balance of State CoC 2,688 2,416 2,421 3,611 272 11.3% -5 -0.2% -1,190 -33.0% -923 -25.6% 50.73%
153 KY-501 Louisville/Jefferson County CoC 1,361 2,537 2,407 1,465 -1,176 -46.4% 130 5.4% 942 64.3% -104 -7.1% 25.68%
154 KY-502 Lexington/Fayette County CoC 1,250 1,242 1,112 841 8 0.6% 130 11.7% 271 32.2% 409 48.6% 23.59%
155 LA-500 Lafayette/Acadiana CoC 538 457 457 508 81 17.7% 0 0.0% -51 -10.0% 30 5.9% 13.06%
156 LA-501 Lake Charles/Southwestern Louisiana 29 54 219 158 -25 -46.3% -165 -75.3% 61 38.6% -129 -81.6% 0.70%
157 LA-502 Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest CoC 739 898 723 605 -159 -17.7% 175 24.2% 118 19.5% 134 22.1% 17.95%
158 LA-503 New Orleans/Jefferson Parish CoC 1,340 990 990 1,460 350 35.4% 0 0.0% -470 -32.2% -120 -8.2% 32.54%
159 LA-504 Baton Rouge CoC 739 675 801 722 64 9.5% -126 -15.7% 79 10.9% 17 2.4% 17.95%
160 LA-505 Monroe/Northeast Louisiana CoC 187 201 262 316 -14 -7.0% -61 -23.3% -54 -17.1% -129 -40.8% 4.54%
161 LA-506 Slidell/Livingston/Southeast Louisiana CoC 217 210 203 246 7 3.3% 7 3.4% -43 -17.5% -29 -11.8% 5.27%
162 LA-507 Alexandria/Central Louisiana CoC 104 93 140 1,379 11 11.8% -47 -33.6% -1,239 -89.8% -1,275 -92.5% 2.53%
163 LA-508 Houma-Terrebonne CoC 225 122 122 135 103 84.4% 0 0.0% -13 -9.6% 90 66.7% 5.46%
164 MA-500 Boston CoC 4,882 5,014 4,798 4,956 -132 -2.6% 216 4.5% -158 -3.2% -74 -1.5% 33.72%
165 MA-501 Franklin/Holyoke County CoC 1,336 1,013 911 517 323 31.9% 102 11.2% 394 76.2% 819 158.4% 9.23%
166 MA-502 Lynn CoC 580 350 208 189 230 65.7% 142 68.3% 19 10.1% 391 206.9% 4.01%
167 MA-503 Cape Cod/Islands CoC 407 424 368 510 -17 -4.0% 56 15.2% -142 -27.8% -103 -20.2% 2.81%
168 MA-504 Springfield CoC 762 676 1,020 410 86 12.7% -344 -33.7% 610 148.8% 352 85.9% 5.26%
169 MA-505 New Bedford CoC 408 299 356 384 109 36.5% -57 -16.0% -28 -7.3% 24 6.3% 2.82%
170 MA-506 Worcester City & County CoC 1,361 1,257 1,268 1,149 104 8.3% -11 -0.9% 119 10.4% 212 18.5% 9.40%
171 MA-507 Pittsfield/Berkshire County CoC 191 210 315 288 -19 -9.0% -105 -33.3% 27 9.4% -97 -33.7% 1.32%
172 MA-508 Lowell CoC 298 390 418 314 -92 -23.6% -28 -6.7% 104 33.1% -16 -5.1% 2.06%
173 MA-509 Cambridge CoC 594 424 376 405 170 40.1% 48 12.8% -29 -7.2% 189 46.7% 4.10%
174 MA-510 Gloucester...Essex County 744 625 584 516 119 19.0% 41 7.0% 68 13.2% 228 44.2% 5.14%
175 MA-511 Quincy/Weymouth CoC 309 233 246 221 76 32.6% -13 -5.3% 25 11.3% 88 39.8% 2.13%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total Change
08-09
% Change 08-
09
Total Change
07-08
% Change 07-
08
Total Change
06-07
% Change 06-
07
Total Change
06-09
% Change 06-
09
Continuum of Care Sheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Sheltered PIT Counts Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Sheltered
Count
234 MN-510 Scott, Carver Counties CoC 188 188 106 75 0 0.0% 82 77.4% 31 41.3% 113 150.7% 2.78%
235 MN-511 Southwest Minnesota CoC 81 125 80 37 -44 -35.2% 45 56.3% 43 116.2% 44 118.9% 1.20%
236 MO-500 St. Louis County CoC 414 396 290 326 18 4.5% 106 36.6% -36 -11.0% 88 27.0% 7.57%
237 MO-501 St. Louis City CoC 973 1,173 1,173 930 -200 -17.1% 0 0.0% 243 26.1% 43 4.6% 17.79%
238 MO-503 St. Charles CoC 549 305 227 133 244 80.0% 78 34.4% 94 70.7% 416 312.8% 10.04%
239 MO-600 Springfield/Webster Counties CoC 383 506 478 495 -123 -24.3% 28 5.9% -17 -3.4% -112 -22.6% 7.00%
240 MO-602 Joplin/Jasper/Newton County CoC 285 307 298 232 -22 -7.2% 9 3.0% 66 28.4% 53 22.8% 5.21%
241 MO-603 St. Joseph/Buchanan County CoC 155 131 100 88 24 18.3% 31 31.0% 12 13.6% 67 76.1% 2.83%
242 MO-604 Kansas City/Lee's Summit CoC 1,390 1,560 1,445 3,590 -170 -10.9% 115 8.0% -2,145 -59.7% -2,200 -61.3% 25.42%
243 MO-606 Clay, Platte Counties CoC 1,320 1,229 1,050 914 91 7.4% 179 17.0% 136 14.9% 406 44.4% 24.14%
244 MS-500 Jackson/Rankin, Madison Counties CoC 426 795 440 514 -369 -46.4% 355 80.7% -74 -14.4% -88 -17.1% 34.89%
245 MS-501 Mississippi Balance of State CoC 660 344 344 1,665 316 91.9% 0 0.0% -1,321 -79.3% -1,005 -60.4% 54.05%
246 MS-503 Gulf Port/Gulf Coast Regional CoC 135 67 67 454 68 101.5% 0 0.0% -387 -85.2% -319 -70.3% 11.06%
247 MT-500 Montana Statewide CoC 833 1,007 855 879 -174 -17.3% 152 17.8% -24 -2.7% -46 -5.2% 100.00%
248 NC-500 Winston Salem/Forsyth County CoC 421 423 479 1,001 -2 -0.5% -56 -11.7% -522 -52.1% -580 -57.9% 4.97%
249 NC-501 Asheville/Buncombe County CoC 426 429 448 418 -3 -0.7% -19 -4.2% 30 7.2% 8 1.9% 5.03%
250 NC-502 Durham City & County CoC 502 554 502 460 -52 -9.4% 52 10.4% 42 9.1% 42 9.1% 5.92%
251 NC-503 North Carolina Balance of State 2,009 1,732 1,460 645 277 16.0% 272 18.6% 815 126.4% 1,364 211.5% 23.71%
252 NC-504 Greensboro/High Point CoC 948 879 980 880 69 7.8% -101 -10.3% 100 11.4% 68 7.7% 11.19%
253 NC-505 Charlotte/Mecklenburg County CoC 2,044 1,550 1,648 1,448 494 31.9% -98 -5.9% 200 13.8% 596 41.2% 24.12%
254 NC-506 Wilmington/Brunswick/Pender CoC 468 427 419 285 41 9.6% 8 1.9% 134 47.0% 183 64.2% 5.52%
255 NC-507 Raleigh/Wake County CoC 905 1,071 973 875 -166 -15.5% 98 10.1% 98 11.2% 30 3.4% 10.68%
256 NC-509 Gastonia/Cleveland/Lincoln CoC 224 257 214 204 -33 -12.8% 43 20.1% 10 4.9% 20 9.8% 2.64%
257 NC-511 Fayetteville/Cumberland County CoC 263 266 313 331 -3 -1.1% -47 -15.0% -18 -5.4% -68 -20.5% 3.10%
258 NC-513 Chapel Hill/Orange County CoC 151 177 183 205 -26 -14.7% -6 -3.3% -22 -10.7% -54 -26.3% 1.78%
259 NC-516 Northwest North Carolina CoC 112 162 168 116 -50 -30.9% -6 -3.6% 52 44.8% -4 -3.4% 1.32%
260 ND-500 North Dakota Statewide CoC 765 596 577 537 169 28.4% 19 3.3% 40 7.4% 228 42.5% 100.00%
261 NE-500 North Central Nebraska CoC 492 840 167 240 -348 -41.4% 673 403.0% -73 -30.4% 252 105.0% 15.98%
262 NE-501 Omaha/Council Bluffs CoC 1,201 1,125 1,632 1,443 76 6.8% -507 -31.1% 189 13.1% -242 -16.8% 39.01%
263 NE-502 Lincoln CoC 947 865 838 833 82 9.5% 27 3.2% 5 0.6% 114 13.7% 30.76%
264 NE-503 Southwest Nebraska CoC 95 72 72 80 23 31.9% 0 0.0% -8 -10.0% 15 18.8% 3.09%
265 NE-504 Southeast Nebraska CoC 144 177 101 149 -33 -18.6% 76 75.2% -48 -32.2% -5 -3.4% 4.68%
266 NE-505 Panhandle of Nebraska CoC 85 79 122 179 6 7.6% -43 -35.2% -57 -31.8% -94 -52.5% 2.76%
267 NE-506 Northeast Nebraska CoC 115 69 75 67 46 66.7% -6 -8.0% 8 11.9% 48 71.6% 3.73%
268 NH-500 New Hampshire Balance of State CoC 719 830 769 612 -111 -13.4% 61 7.9% 157 25.7% 107 17.5% 51.14%
269 NH-501 Manchester CoC 337 373 307 484 -36 -9.7% 66 21.5% -177 -36.6% -147 -30.4% 23.97%
270 NH-502 Nashua/Hillsborough County CoC 350 332 197 212 18 5.4% 135 68.5% -15 -7.1% 138 65.1% 24.89%
271 NJ-500 Atlantic City & County CoC 339 398 425 396 -59 -14.8% -27 -6.4% 29 7.3% -57 -14.4% 2.86%
272 NJ-501 Bergen County CoC 1,354 1,514 1,210 993 -160 -10.6% 304 25.1% 217 21.9% 361 36.4% 11.41%
273 NJ-502 Burlington County CoC 949 780 780 742 169 21.7% 0 0.0% 38 5.1% 207 27.9% 7.99%
274 NJ-503 Camden City & County CoC 425 446 639 595 -21 -4.7% -193 -30.2% 44 7.4% -170 -28.6% 3.58%
275 NJ-504 Newark/Essex County CoC 1,539 884 1,906 1,262 655 74.1% -1,022 -53.6% 644 51.0% 277 21.9% 12.96%
276 NJ-505 Gloucester County CoC 190 176 137 200 14 8.0% 39 28.5% -63 -31.5% -10 -5.0% 1.60%
277 NJ-506 Jersey City/Hudson County CoC 1,650 1,976 2,678 2,677 -326 -16.5% -702 -26.2% 1 0.0% -1,027 -38.4% 13.90%
278 NJ-507 New Brunswick/Middlesex County CoC 583 545 728 468 38 7.0% -183 -25.1% 260 55.6% 115 24.6% 4.91%
279 NJ-508 Monmouth County CoC 638 676 757 1,064 -38 -5.6% -81 -10.7% -307 -28.9% -426 -40.0% 5.37%
280 NJ-509 Morris County CoC 257 189 229 330 68 36.0% -40 -17.5% -101 -30.6% -73 -22.1% 2.16%
281 NJ-510 Lakewood Township/Ocean County 406 309 381 515 97 31.4% -72 -18.9% -134 -26.0% -109 -21.2% 3.42%
282 NJ-511 Paterson/Passaic County CoC 207 314 831 856 -107 -34.1% -517 -62.2% -25 -2.9% -649 -75.8% 1.74%
283 NJ-512 Salem County CoC 146 302 454 178 -156 -51.7% -152 -33.5% 276 155.1% -32 -18.0% 1.23%
284 NJ-513 Somerset County CoC 283 285 343 450 -2 -0.7% -58 -16.9% -107 -23.8% -167 -37.1% 2.38%
285 NJ-514 Trenton/Mercer County CoC 1,020 851 1,242 648 169 19.9% -391 -31.5% 594 91.7% 372 57.4% 8.59%
286 NJ-515 Elizabeth/Union County CoC 1,077 1,072 1,072 1,267 5 0.5% 0 0.0% -195 -15.4% -190 -15.0% 9.07%
287 NJ-516 Warren County CoC 397 394 215 230 3 0.8% 179 83.3% -15 -6.5% 167 72.6% 3.34%
288 NJ-518 Cape May County CoC 221 286 242 259 -65 -22.7% 44 18.2% -17 -6.6% -38 -14.7% 1.86%
289 NJ-519 Sussex County CoC 104 260 355 354 -156 -60.0% -95 -26.8% 1 0.3% -250 -70.6% 0.88%
290 NJ-520 Cumberland County CoC 86 203 106 84 -117 -57.6% 97 91.5% 22 26.2% 2 2.4% 0.72%
291 NM-500 Albuquerque CoC 1,071 989 989 1,168 82 8.3% 0 0.0% -179 -15.3% -97 -8.3% 50.81%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total Change
08-09
% Change 08-
09
Total Change
07-08
% Change 07-
08
Total Change
06-07
% Change 06-
07
Total Change
06-09
% Change 06-
09
Continuum of Care Sheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Sheltered PIT Counts Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Sheltered
Count
292 NM-501 New Mexico Balance of State CoC 1,037 759 759 881 278 36.6% 0 0.0% -122 -13.8% 156 17.7% 49.19%
293 NV-500 Las Vegas/Clark County CoC 7,004 3,844 3,844 2,774 3,160 82.2% 0 0.0% 1,070 38.6% 4,230 152.5% 89.89%
294 NV-501 Reno/Sparks/Washoe County CoC 645 765 765 377 -120 -15.7% 0 0.0% 388 102.9% 268 71.1% 8.28%
295 NV-502 Nevada Balance of State CoC 143 254 209 185 -111 -43.7% 45 21.5% 24 13.0% -42 -22.7% 1.84%
296 NY-500 Rochester/Monroe County 663 591 602 666 72 12.2% -11 -1.8% -64 -9.6% -3 -0.5% 1.15%
297 NY-501 Elmira/Chemung County CoC 178 176 174 158 2 1.1% 2 1.1% 16 10.1% 20 12.7% 0.31%
298 NY-502 City of Auburn/Cayuga County CoC 39 33 33 44 6 18.2% 0 0.0% -11 -25.0% -5 -11.4% 0.07%
299 NY-503 Albany City & County CoC 604 466 539 361 138 29.6% -73 -13.5% 178 49.3% 243 67.3% 1.05%
300 NY-504 Cattaraugus County CoC 57 54 104 559 3 5.6% -50 -48.1% -455 -81.4% -502 -89.8% 0.10%
301 NY-505 Syracuse/Onondaga County CoC 785 675 729 737 110 16.3% -54 -7.4% -8 -1.1% 48 6.5% 1.37%
302 NY-506 Fulton/Montgomery/Schoharie 20 -----------0.03%
303 NY-507 Schenectady City & County CoC 196 129 209 253 67 51.9% -80 -38.3% -44 -17.4% -57 -22.5% 0.34%
304 NY-508 Buffalo/Erie County CoC 747 859 1,008 1,036 -112 -13.0% -149 -14.8% -28 -2.7% -289 -27.9% 1.30%
305 NY-509 Oswego County CoC 18 -----------0.03%
306 NY-510 Tompkins County CoC 65 62 62 72 3 4.8% 0 0.0% -10 -13.9% -7 -9.7% 0.11%
307 NY-511 Broome County/City of Binghamton 202 - 167 190 -----23-12.1% 12 6.3% 0.35%
308 NY-512 Troy/Rensselaer County CoC 260 134 166 237 126 94.0% -32 -19.3% -71 -30.0% 23 9.7% 0.45%
309 NY-513 Wayne County CoC 81 88 98 40 -7 -8.0% -10 -10.2% 58 145.0% 41 102.5% 0.14%
310 NY-514 Jamestown/Dunkirk/Chautauqua County CoC 123 63 67 0 60 95.2% -4 -6.0% 67 - 123 - 0.21%
311 NY-515 Cortland County CoC 0 -----------0.00%
312 NY-516 Clinton County CoC 124 48 48 0 76 158.3% 0 0.0% 48 - 124 - 0.22%
313 NY-517 Orleans County CoC 25 34 34 28 -9 -26.5% 0 0.0% 6 21.4% -3 -10.7% 0.04%
314 NY-518 Utica/Rome/Oneida County CoC 326 300 300 314 26 8.7% 0 0.0% -14 -4.5% 12 3.8% 0.57%
315 NY-519 Columbia/Greene County CoC 260 172 311 311 88 51.2% -139 -44.7% 0 0.0% -51 -16.4% 0.45%
316 NY-520 Franklin County CoC 5 6 27 27 -1 -16.7% -21 -77.8% 0 0.0% -22 -81.5% 0.01%
317 NY-522 Jefferson County CoC 275 292 0 144 -17 -5.8% 292 - -144 -100.0% 131 91.0% 0.48%
318 NY-523 Saratoga 164 117 146 234 47 40.2% -29 -19.9% -88 -37.6% -70 -29.9% 0.29%
319 NY-524 Niagara CoC 168 138 161 155 30 21.7% -23 -14.3% 6 3.9% 13 8.4% 0.29%
320 NY-600 New York City CoC 47,015 46,955 46,617 51,664 60 0.1% 338 0.7% -5,047 -9.8% -4,649 -9.0% 81.83%
321 NY-601 Poughkeepsie/Dutchess County CoC 404 463 463 457 -59 -12.7% 0 0.0% 6 1.3% -53 -11.6% 0.70%
322 NY-602 Newburgh/Middletown/Orange County CoC 345 217 227 302 128 59.0% -10 -4.4% -75 -24.8% 43 14.2% 0.60%
323 NY-603 Islip/Suffolk County CoC 1,735 1,661 1,661 2,532 74 4.5% 0 0.0% -871 -34.4% -797 -31.5% 3.02%
324 NY-604 Yonkers/Westchester County CoC 1,365 1,693 1,693 1,878 -328 -19.4% 0 0.0% -185 -9.9% -513 -27.3% 2.38%
325 NY-605 Nassau County CoC 595 690 690 1,124 -95 -13.8% 0 0.0% -434 -38.6% -529 -47.1% 1.04%
326 NY-606 Rockland County CoC 77 84 435 214 -7 -8.3% -351 -80.7% 221 103.3% -137 -64.0% 0.13%
327 NY-607 Sullivan County CoC 366 109 267 225 257 235.8% -158 -59.2% 42 18.7% 141 62.7% 0.64%
328 NY-608 Ulster County CoC 167 207 158 255 -40 -19.3% 49 31.0% -97 -38.0% -88 -34.5% 0.29%
329 OH-500 Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC 1,097 1,061 987 1,145 36 3.4% 74 7.5% -158 -13.8% -48 -4.2% 10.04%
330 OH-501 Toledo/Lucas County CoC 727 705 631 597 22 3.1% 74 11.7% 34 5.7% 130 21.8% 6.65%
331 OH-502 Cleveland/Cuyahoga County CoC 2,105 2,091 2,001 2,059 14 0.7% 90 4.5% -58 -2.8% 46 2.2% 19.26%
332 OH-503 Columbus/Franklin County CoC 1,251 1,224 1,259 1,168 27 2.2% -35 -2.8% 91 7.8% 83 7.1% 11.45%
333 OH-504 Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC 177 225 232 239 -48 -21.3% -7 -3.0% -7 -2.9% -62 -25.9% 1.62%
334 OH-505 Dayton/Kettering/Montgomery CoC 823 814 719 523 9 1.1% 95 13.2% 196 37.5% 300 57.4% 7.53%
335 OH-506 Akron/Baberton/Summit County CoC 658 636 632 833 22 3.5% 4 0.6% -201 -24.1% -175 -21.0% 6.02%
336 OH-507 Ohio Balance of State CoC 3,758 3,225 2,498 4,392 533 16.5% 727 29.1% -1,894 -43.1% -634 -14.4% 34.39%
337 OH-508 Canton/Stark County CoC 333 396 421 399 -63 -15.9% -25 -5.9% 22 5.5% -66 -16.5% 3.05%
338 OK-500 North Central Oklahoma CoC 172 215 173 173 -43 -20.0% 42 24.3% 0 0.0% -1 -0.6% 5.20%
339 OK-501 Tulsa City & County/Broken Arrow 797 694 594 524 103 14.8% 100 16.8% 70 13.4% 273 52.1% 24.10%
340 OK-502 Oklahoma City CoC 1,103 1,013 1,278 1,293 90 8.9% -265 -20.7% -15 -1.2% -190 -14.7% 33.35%
341 OK-503 Oklahoma Balance of State CoC 289 151 149 138 138 91.4% 2 1.3% 11 8.0% 151 109.4% 8.74%
342 OK-504 Norman / Cleveland County 289 178 322 201 111 62.4% -144 -44.7% 121 60.2% 88 43.8% 8.74%
343 OK-505 Northeast Oklahoma CoC 264 202 150 177 62 30.7% 52 34.7% -27 -15.3% 87 49.2% 7.98%
344 OK-506 Southewst Oklahoma CoC 252 152 226 77 100 65.8% -74 -32.7% 149 193.5% 175 227.3% 7.62%
345 OK-507 Southeastern CoC 141 198 197 160 -57 -28.8% 1 0.5% 37 23.1% -19 -11.9% 4.26%
346 OR-500 Eugene/Springfield/Lane County CoC 999 1,365 1,560 1,184 -366 -26.8% -195 -12.5% 376 31.8% -185 -15.6% 13.42%
347 OR-501 Portland/Gresham/Multnomah 2,494 2,284 2,284 2,749 210 9.2% 0 0.0% -465 -16.9% -255 -9.3% 33.51%
348 OR-502 Medford/Ashland/Jackson County CoC 854 628 351 199 226 36.0% 277 78.9% 152 76.4% 655 329.1% 11.48%
349 OR-503 Central Oregon CoC 310 270 315 352 40 14.8% -45 -14.3% -37 -10.5% -42 -11.9% 4.17%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total Change
08-09
% Change 08-
09
Total Change
07-08
% Change 07-
08
Total Change
06-07
% Change 06-
07
Total Change
06-09
% Change 06-
09
Continuum of Care Sheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Sheltered PIT Counts Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Sheltered
Count
408 UT-500 Salt Lake City & County CoC 1,699 2,138 1,881 2,202 -439 -20.5% 257 13.7% -321 -14.6% -503 -22.8% 47.99%
409 UT-503 Utah Balance of State CoC 1,586 827 630 834 759 91.8% 197 31.3% -204 -24.5% 752 90.2% 44.80%
410 UT-504 Provo/Mountainland CoC 255 213 187 211 42 19.7% 26 13.9% -24 -11.4% 44 20.9% 7.20%
411 VA-500 Richmond/Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover Counties CoC 1,078 907 1,014 727 171 18.9% -107 -10.6% 287 39.5% 351 48.3% 14.80%
412 VA-501 Norfolk CoC 486 441 436 536 45 10.2% 5 1.1% -100 -18.7% -50 -9.3% 6.67%
413 VA-502 Roanoke City & County/Salem CoC 586 497 528 363 89 17.9% -31 -5.9% 165 45.5% 223 61.4% 8.05%
414 VA-503 Virginia Beach CoC 394 406 430 335 -12 -3.0% -24 -5.6% 95 28.4% 59 17.6% 5.41%
415 VA-504 Charlottesville CoC 185 224 237 163 -39 -17.4% -13 -5.5% 74 45.4% 22 13.5% 2.54%
416 VA-505 Newport News/Virginia Peninsula CoC 514 486 569 622 28 5.8% -83 -14.6% -53 -8.5% -108 -17.4% 7.06%
417 VA-507 Portsmouth CoC 193 177 165 217 16 9.0% 12 7.3% -52 -24.0% -24 -11.1% 2.65%
418 VA-508 Lynchburg CoC 211 211 98 98 0 0.0% 113 115.3% 0 0.0% 113 115.3% 2.90%
419 VA-509 Petersburg CoC 67 29 39 69 38 131.0% -10 -25.6% -30 -43.5% -2 -2.9% 0.92%
420 VA-510 Staunton/Waynesboro/Augusta, Highland Counties CoC 99 94 94 0 5 5.3% 0 0.0% 94 - 99 - 1.36%
421 VA-512 Chesapeake CoC 17 38 86 21 -21 -55.3% -48 -55.8% 65 309.5% -4 -19.0% 0.23%
422 VA-513 Shenandoah/Warren Counties CoC 57 127 218 827 -70 -55.1% -91 -41.7% -609 -73.6% -770 -93.1% 0.78%
423 VA-514 Fredericksburg/Stafford Counties CoC 95 127 515 413 -32 -25.2% -388 -75.3% 102 24.7% -318 -77.0% 1.30%
424 VA-517 Danville, Martinsville CoC 56 77 69 59 -21 -27.3% 8 11.6% 10 16.9% -3 -5.1% 0.77%
425 VA-518 Harrisburg/ Rockingham County CoC 111 61 108 89 50 82.0% -47 -43.5% 19 21.3% 22 24.7% 1.52%
426 VA-519 Suffolk CoC 50 30 21 9 20 66.7% 9 42.9% 12 133.3% 41 455.6% 0.69%
427 VA-521 Virginia Balance of State 377 359 505 474 18 5.0% -146 -28.9% 31 6.5% -97 -20.5% 5.18%
428 VA-600 Arlington County CoC 304 231 243 218 73 31.6% -12 -4.9% 25 11.5% 86 39.4% 4.17%
429 VA-601 Fairfax County CoC 1,601 1,623 1,439 1,337 -22 -1.4% 184 12.8% 102 7.6% 264 19.7% 21.98%
430 VA-602 Loudoun County CoC 108 136 114 103 -28 -20.6% 22 19.3% 11 10.7% 5 4.9% 1.48%
431 VA-603 Alexandria CoC 303 238 283 271 65 27.3% -45 -15.9% 12 4.4% 32 11.8% 4.16%
432 VA-604 Prince William County CoC 392 376 356 318 16 4.3% 20 5.6% 38 11.9% 74 23.3% 5.38%
433 VI-500 Virgin Islands CoC 76 115 72 94 -39 -33.9% 43 59.7% -22 -23.4% -18 -19.1% 100.00%
434 VT-500 Vermont Balance of State CoC 524 439 516 575 85 19.4% -77 -14.9% -59 -10.3% -51 -8.9% 49.57%
435 VT-501 Burlington/Chittenden County CoC 533 257 204 167 276 107.4% 53 26.0% 37 22.2% 366 219.2% 50.43%
436 WA-500 Seattle/King County CoC 6,089 5,808 5,680 5,964 281 4.8% 128 2.3% -284 -4.8% 125 2.1% 37.50%
437 WA-501 Washington Balance of State CoC 4,750 4,660 4,968 4,370 90 1.9% -308 -6.2% 598 13.7% 380 8.7% 29.25%
438 WA-502 City of Spokane CoC 1,072 1,080 889 1,030 -8 -0.7% 191 21.5% -141 -13.7% 42 4.1% 6.60%
439 WA-503 Tacoma/Lakewood/Pierce County CoC 1,853 1,478 1,342 952 375 25.4% 136 10.1% 390 41.0% 901 94.6% 11.41%
440 WA-504 Everett/Snohomish County CoC 1,246 1,205 2,150 1,579 41 3.4% -945 -44.0% 571 36.2% -333 -21.1% 7.67%
441 WA-507 Yakima City & County CoC 300 345 541 458 -45 -13.0% -196 -36.2% 83 18.1% -158 -34.5% 1.85%
442 WA-508 Vancouver-Clarke County CoC 927 880 1,164 1,120 47 5.3% -284 -24.4% 44 3.9% -193 -17.2% 5.71%
443 WI-500 Wisconsin Balance of State CoC 3,207 2,817 2,817 2,907 390 13.8% 0 0.0% -90 -3.1% 300 10.3% 58.68%
444 WI-501 Milwaukee City & County CoC 1,317 1,295 1,295 1,308 22 1.7% 0 0.0% -13 -1.0% 9 0.7% 24.10%
445 WI-502 Racine City & County CoC 353 258 250 278 95 36.8% 8 3.2% -28 -10.1% 75 27.0% 6.46%
446 WI-503 Madison/Dane County CoC 588 564 723 990 24 4.3% -159 -22.0% -267 -27.0% -402 -40.6% 10.76%
447 WV-500 Wheeling/Weirton Area CoC 87 85 96 61 2 2.4% -11 -11.5% 35 57.4% 26 42.6% 6.81%
448 WV-501 Huntington/Cabell, Wayne Counties 190 232 273 227 -42 -18.1% -41 -15.0% 46 20.3% -37 -16.3% 14.87%
449 WV-503 Charleston/Kanawha/Clay Counties CoC 331 264 263 326 67 25.4% 1 0.4% -63 -19.3% 5 1.5% 25.90%
450 WV-508 West Virginia Balance of State CoC 670 841 1,515 354 -171 -20.3% -674 -44.5% 1,161 328.0% 316 89.3% 52.43%
451 WY-500 Wyoming Statewide CoC 451 619 397 337 -168 -27.1% 222 55.9% 60 17.8% 114 33.8% 100.00%
TOTAL 403,308 386,361 391,401 427,971 16,947 4.4% -5,040 -1.3% -36,570 -8.5% -24,663 -5.8% -
1 Only active 2009 CoCs are reported in this table. All inactive or closed CoCs have been included in the national totals for 2006, 2007 and 2008, but are not individually reported.

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change 08-
09
% Change 08-
09
Total
Change 07-
08
% Change 07-
08
Total
Change 06-
07
% Change 06-
07
Total
Change 06-
09
% Change 06-
09
Unsheltered PIT Counts
Continuum of Care Unsheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Unsheltered
Count
60 CA-612 Glendale CoC 168 63 63 185 105 166.7% 0 0.0% -122 -65.9% -17 -9.2% 0.20%
61 CA-613 El Centro/Imperial County CoC 348 237 229 0 111 46.8% 8 3.5% 229 - 348 - 0.42%
62 CA-614 San Luis Obispo County CoC 3,587 569 2,221 2,186 3,018 530.4% -1,652 -74.4% 35 1.6% 1,401 64.1% 4.36%
63 CO-500 Colorado Balance of State CoC 4,180 3,955 3,357 8,736 225 5.7% 598 17.8% -5,379 -61.6% -4,556 -52.2% 67.02%
64 CO-503 Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative 1,699 3,531 3,513 3,271 -1,832 -51.9% 18 0.5% 242 7.4% -1,572 -48.1% 27.24%
65 CO-504 Colorado Springs/El Paso County CoC 358 384 384 407 -26 -6.8% 0 0.0% -23 -5.7% -49 -12.0% 5.74%
66 CT-500 Danbury CoC 9 7 25 32 2 28.6% -18 -72.0% -7 -21.9% -23 -71.9% 1.79%
67 CT-501 New Haven CoC 27 94 137 319 -67 -71.3% -43 -31.4% -182 -57.1% -292 -91.5% 5.38%
68 CT-502 Hartford CoC 19 18 16 0 1 5.6% 2 12.5% 16 - 19 - 3.78%
69 CT-503 Bridgeport/Stratford/Fairfield CoC 46 31 32 40 15 48.4% -1 -3.1% -8 -20.0% 6 15.0% 9.16%
70 CT-504 Middletown/Middlesex County CoC 25 89 101 22 -64 -71.9% -12 -11.9% 79 359.1% 3 13.6% 4.98%
71 CT-505 Connecticut Balance of State CoC 249 184 155 53 65 35.3% 29 18.7% 102 192.5% 196 369.8% 49.60%
72 CT-506 Norwalk/Fairfield County CoC 39 15 49 8 24 160.0% -34 -69.4% 41 512.5% 31 387.5% 7.77%
73 CT-507 Norwich/New London City & Couny 23 16 37 110 7 43.8% -21 -56.8% -73 -66.4% -87 -79.1% 4.58%
74 CT-508 Stamford/Greenwich CoC 20 51 49 23 -31 -60.8% 2 4.1% 26 113.0% -3 -13.0% 3.98%
75 CT-509 New Britain CoC 13 54 74 21 -41 -75.9% -20 -27.0% 53 252.4% -8 -38.1% 2.59%
76 CT-510 Bristol CoC 17 19 32 47 -2 -10.5% -13 -40.6% -15 -31.9% -30 -63.8% 3.39%
77 CT-512 City of Waterbury CoC 15 29 104 35 -14 -48.3% -75 -72.1% 69 197.1% -20 -57.1% 2.99%
78 DC-500 District of Columbia CoC 321 378 340 347 -57 -15.1% 38 11.2% -7 -2.0% -26 -7.5% 100.00%
79 DE-500 Delaware Statewide CoC 47 71 207 213 -24 -33.8% -136 -65.7% -6 -2.8% -166 -77.9% 100.00%
80 FL-500 Sarasota, Bradenton, Manatee Counties 1,651 831 518 385 820 98.7% 313 60.4% 133 34.5% 1,266 328.8% 4.89%
81 FL-501 Tampa/Hillsborough County CoC 6,747 5,433 5,433 3,630 1,314 24.2% 0 0.0% 1,803 49.7% 3,117 85.9% 20.00%
82 FL-502 St. Petersburg/Pinellas County CoC 1,728 1,221 1,221 1,389 507 41.5% 0 0.0% -168 -12.1% 339 24.4% 5.12%
83 FL-503 Lakeland/Highlands Counties CoC 309 156 315 413 153 98.1% -159 -50.5% -98 -23.7% -104 -25.2% 0.92%
84 FL-504 Daytona Beach/Flagler Counties CoC 1,320 1,225 909 2,146 95 7.8% 316 34.8% -1,237 -57.6% -826 -38.5% 3.91%
85 FL-505 Fort Walton Beach/Walton Counties CoC 2,137 1,433 2,074 2,065 704 49.1% -641 -30.9% 9 0.4% 72 3.5% 6.34%
86 FL-506 Tallahassee/Leon County CoC 104 95 95 111 9 9.5% 0 0.0% -16 -14.4% -7 -6.3% 0.31%
87 FL-507 Orlando/Orange/Seminole Counties CoC 1,516 1,368 1,820 1,989 148 10.8% -452 -24.8% -169 -8.5% -473 -23.8% 4.49%
88 FL-508 Gainesville/Alachua, Putnam 623 465 415 487 158 34.0% 50 12.0% -72 -14.8% 136 27.9% 1.85%
89 FL-509 Fort Pierce/St. Lucie/Martin Counties CoC 1,661 1,205 1,276 1,819 456 37.8% -71 -5.6% -543 -29.9% -158 -8.7% 4.92%
90 FL-510 Jacksonville-Duval, Clay Counties CoC 423 1,093 1,158 1,263 -670 -61.3% -65 -5.6% -105 -8.3% -840 -66.5% 1.25%
91 FL-511 Pensacola/Esca/Santa Rosa County CoC 618 653 282 894 -35 -5.4% 371 131.6% -612 -68.5% -276 -30.9% 1.83%
92 FL-512 Saint Johns County CoC 1,131 1,132 1,132 834 -1 -0.1% 0 0.0% 298 35.7% 297 35.6% 3.35%
93 FL-513 Palm Bay/Brevard County CoC 219 1,397 1,397 663 -1,178 -84.3% 0 0.0% 734 110.7% -444 -67.0% 0.65%
94 FL-514 Ocala/Marion County CoC 194 168 168 1,079 26 15.5% 0 0.0% -911 -84.4% -885 -82.0% 0.58%
95 FL-515 Panama City CoC 38 102 102 833 -64 -62.7% 0 0.0% -731 -87.8% -795 -95.4% 0.11%
96 FL-516 Winterhaven/Polk County CoC 50 285 0 0 -235 -82.5% 285 - 0 - 50 - 0.15%
97 FL-517 Hardee/Highlands Counties CoC 4,119 2,867 240 546 1,252 43.7% 2,627 1094.6% -306 -56.0% 3,573 654.4% 12.21%
98 FL-518 Columbia/Suwannee CoC 949 190 165 82 759 399.5% 25 15.2% 83 101.2% 867 1057.3% 2.81%
99 FL-519 Passo County 2,853 2,574 881 1,178 279 10.8% 1,693 192.2% -297 -25.2% 1,675 142.2% 8.46%
100 FL-520 Citrus/Hernando/Lake 789 888 1,827 1,001 -99 -11.1% -939 -51.4% 826 82.5% -212 -21.2% 2.34%
101 FL-600 Miami/Dade County CoC 994 1,347 1,380 1,754 -353 -26.2% -33 -2.4% -374 -21.3% -760 -43.3% 2.95%
102 FL-601 Ft Lauderdale/Broward County CoC 800 701 701 442 99 14.1% 0 0.0% 259 58.6% 358 81.0% 2.37%
103 FL-602 Punta Gorda/Charlotte County CoC 147 280 280 3,191 -133 -47.5% 0 0.0% -2,911 -91.2% -3,044 -95.4% 0.44%
104 FL-603 Ft Myers/Cape Coral/Lee County CoC 416 513 1,949 1,372 -97 -18.9% -1,436 -73.7% 577 42.1% -956 -69.7% 1.23%
105 FL-604 Monroe County CoC 716 644 644 544 72 11.2% 0 0.0% 100 18.4% 172 31.6% 2.12%
106 FL-605 West Palm Beach/Palm Beach County 1,407 1,039 1,039 714 368 35.4% 0 0.0% 325 45.5% 693 97.1% 4.17%
107 FL-606 Collier County CoC 73 129 119 236 -56 -43.4% 10 8.4% -117 -49.6% -163 -69.1% 0.22%
108 GA-500 City of Atlanta CoC 2,164 2,115 2,115 2,115 49 2.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 49 2.3% 19.78%
109 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State CoC 7,807 7,073 8,284 9,162 734 10.4% -1,211 -14.6% -878 -9.6% -1,355 -14.8% 71.36%
110 GA-503 Athens/Clarke County CoC 206 159 131 87 47 29.6% 28 21.4% 44 50.6% 119 136.8% 1.88%
111 GA-504 Augusta CoC 44 32 38 37 12 37.5% -6 -15.8% 1 2.7% 7 18.9% 0.40%
112 GA-505 Columbus-Muscogee/Russell County CoC 204 374 352 220 -170 -45.5% 22 6.3% 132 60.0% -16 -7.3% 1.86%
113 GA-506 Marietta/Cobb County CoC 126 208 208 330 -82 -39.4% 0 0.0% -122 -37.0% -204 -61.8% 1.15%
114 GA-507 Savannah/Chatham County CoC 390 269 170 343 121 45.0% 99 58.2% -173 -50.4% 47 13.7% 3.56%
115 GU-500 Guam CoC 906 622 622 792 284 45.7% 0 0.0% -170 -21.5% 114 14.4% 100.00%
116 HI-500 Hawaii Balance of State CoC 1,321 1,565 1,565 1,522 -244 -15.6% 0 0.0% 43 2.8% -201 -13.2% 52.55%
117 HI-501 Honolulu CoC 1,193 1,793 1,793 1,085 -600 -33.5% 0 0.0% 708 65.3% 108 10.0% 47.45%
118 IA-500 Sioux City/Dakota County CoC 30 11 5 26 19 172.7% 6 120.0% -21 -80.8% 4 15.4% 18.87%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change 08-
09
% Change 08-
09
Total
Change 07-
08
% Change 07-
08
Total
Change 06-
07
% Change 06-
07
Total
Change 06-
09
% Change 06-
09
Unsheltered PIT Counts
Continuum of Care Unsheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Unsheltered
Count
119 IA-501 Iowa Balance of State CoC 71 126 189 497 -55 -43.7% -63 -33.3% -308 -62.0% -426 -85.7% 44.65%
120 IA-502 Des Moines/Polk County CoC 58 122 99 1,530 -64 -52.5% 23 23.2% -1,431 -93.5% -1,472 -96.2% 36.48%
121 ID-500 Boise/Ada County CoC 142 58 109 11 84 144.8% -51 -46.8% 98 890.9% 131 1190.9% 30.74%
122 ID-501 Idaho Balance of State CoC 320 156 515 310 164 105.1% -359 -69.7% 205 66.1% 10 3.2% 69.26%
123 IL-500 McHenry County CoC 10 4 18 16 6 150.0% -14 -77.8% 2 12.5% -6 -37.5% 0.45%
124 IL-501 Rockford/Winnebago, Boone Counties 105 50 50 1,219 55 110.0% 0 0.0% -1,169 -95.9% -1,114 -91.4% 4.76%
125 IL-502 North Chicago/Lake County CoC 2 9 10 9 -7 -77.8% -1 -10.0% 1 11.1% -7 -77.8% 0.09%
126 IL-503 Champaign/Urbana/Champaign County CoC 4 13 13 13 -9 -69.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -9 -69.2% 0.18%
127 IL-504 Madison County CoC 41 25 37 79 16 64.0% -12 -32.4% -42 -53.2% -38 -48.1% 1.86%
128 IL-505 Evanston CoC 95 90 90 89 5 5.6% 0 0.0% 1 1.1% 6 6.7% 4.31%
129 IL-506 Joliet/Bolingbrook/Will County CoC 9 10 18 43 -1 -10.0% -8 -44.4% -25 -58.1% -34 -79.1% 0.41%
130 IL-507 Peoria/Perkin/Woodford CoC 67 8 98 124 59 737.5% -90 -91.8% -26 -21.0% -57 -46.0% 3.04%
131 IL-508 East Saint Louis/Saint Clair County CoC 294 452 357 757 -158 -35.0% 95 26.6% -400 -52.8% -463 -61.2% 13.34%
132 IL-509 DeKalb City & County CoC 31 24 24 29 7 29.2% 0 0.0% -5 -17.2% 2 6.9% 1.41%
133 IL-510 Chicago CoC 884 1,633 1,633 1,702 -749 -45.9% 0 0.0% -69 -4.1% -818 -48.1% 40.11%
134 IL-511 Cook County CoC 156 168 168 61 -12 -7.1% 0 0.0% 107 175.4% 95 155.7% 7.08%
135 IL-512 Bloomington/Central Illinois CoC 33 68 68 47 -35 -51.5% 0 0.0% 21 44.7% -14 -29.8% 1.50%
136 IL-513 Springfield/Sangamon County CoC 9 7 15 58 2 28.6% -8 -53.3% -43 -74.1% -49 -84.5% 0.41%
137 IL-514 Dupage County CoC 108 124 124 19 -16 -12.9% 0 0.0% 105 552.6% 89 468.4% 4.90%
138 IL-515 South Central Illinois CoC 95 35 32 141 60 171.4% 3 9.4% -109 -77.3% -46 -32.6% 4.31%
139 IL-516 Decatur/Macon County CoC 26 180 180 197 -154 -85.6% 0 0.0% -17 -8.6% -171 -86.8% 1.18%
140 IL-517 Aurora/Elgin/Kane County CoC 53 56 56 54 -3 -5.4% 0 0.0% 2 3.7% -1 -1.9% 2.40%
141 IL-518 Rock Island...Northwestern Illinois CoC 52 84 94 126 -32 -38.1% -10 -10.6% -32 -25.4% -74 -58.7% 2.36%
142 IL-519 West Central Illinois CoC 0 130 157 138 -130 -100.0% -27 -17.2% 19 13.8% -138 -100.0% 0.00%
143 IL-520 Southern Illinois CoC 130 74 74 218 56 75.7% 0 0.0% -144 -66.1% -88 -40.4% 5.90%
144 IN-500 South Bend/Mishawaka/St. Joseph County CoC 716 317 0 0 399 125.9% 317 - 0 - 716 - 40.27%
145 IN-502 Indiana Balance of State CoC 875 1,028 1,028 2,504 -153 -14.9% 0 0.0% -1,476 -58.9% -1,629 -65.1% 49.21%
146 IN-503 Indianapolis CoC 187 127 234 147 60 47.2% -107 -45.7% 87 59.2% 40 27.2% 10.52%
147 KS-501 Kansas City/Wyandotte County CoC 42 57 57 75 -15 -26.3% 0 0.0% -18 -24.0% -33 -44.0% 21.43%
148 KS-502 Wichita/Sedgwick County CoC 32 28 53 195 4 14.3% -25 -47.2% -142 -72.8% -163 -83.6% 16.33%
149 KS-503 Topeka/Shawnee County CoC 19 25 1 19 -6 -24.0% 24 2400.0% -18 -94.7% 0 0.0% 9.69%
150 KS-505 Overland Park/Johnson County CoC 44 87 87 80 -43 -49.4% 0 0.0% 7 8.8% -36 -45.0% 22.45%
151 KS-507 Kansas Balance of State CoC 59 41 41 1,452 18 43.9% 0 0.0% -1,411 -97.2% -1,393 -95.9% 30.10%
152 KY-500 Kentucky Balance of State CoC 486 1,611 1,895 476 -1,125 -69.8% -284 -15.0% 1,419 298.1% 10 2.1% 69.43%
153 KY-501 Louisville/Jefferson County CoC 154 145 180 602 9 6.2% -35 -19.4% -422 -70.1% -448 -74.4% 22.00%
154 KY-502 Lexington/Fayette County CoC 60 186 46 50 -126 -67.7% 140 304.3% -4 -8.0% 10 20.0% 8.57%
155 LA-500 Lafayette/Acadiana CoC 193 174 174 172 19 10.9% 0 0.0% 2 1.2% 21 12.2% 2.30%
156 LA-501 Lake Charles/Southwestern Louisiana 43 40 28 36 3 7.5% 12 42.9% -8 -22.2% 7 19.4% 0.51%
157 LA-502 Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest CoC 91 144 134 143 -53 -36.8% 10 7.5% -9 -6.3% -52 -36.4% 1.09%
158 LA-503 New Orleans/Jefferson Parish CoC 7,385 629 629 591 6,756 1074.1% 0 0.0% 38 6.4% 6,794 1149.6% 88.06%
159 LA-504 Baton Rouge CoC 379 331 241 22 48 14.5% 90 37.3% 219 995.5% 357 1622.7% 4.52%
160 LA-505 Monroe/Northeast Louisiana CoC 41 75 51 78 -34 -45.3% 24 47.1% -27 -34.6% -37 -47.4% 0.49%
161 LA-506 Slidell/Livingston/Southeast Louisiana CoC 162 312 231 154 -150 -48.1% 81 35.1% 77 50.0% 8 5.2% 1.93%
162 LA-507 Alexandria/Central Louisiana CoC 47 35 48 147 12 34.3% -13 -27.1% -99 -67.3% -100 -68.0% 0.56%
163 LA-508 Houma-Terrebonne CoC 45 41 41 65 4 9.8% 0 0.0% -24 -36.9% -20 -30.8% 0.54%
164 MA-500 Boston CoC 219 184 306 261 35 19.0% -122 -39.9% 45 17.2% -42 -16.1% 21.77%
165 MA-501 Franklin/Holyoke County CoC 58 77 53 40 -19 -24.7% 24 45.3% 13 32.5% 18 45.0% 5.77%
166 MA-502 Lynn CoC 30 39 28 3 -9 -23.1% 11 39.3% 25 833.3% 27 900.0% 2.98%
167 MA-503 Cape Cod/Islands CoC 204 317 329 498 -113 -35.6% -12 -3.6% -169 -33.9% -294 -59.0% 20.28%
168 MA-504 Springfield CoC 12 20 33 37 -8 -40.0% -13 -39.4% -4 -10.8% -25 -67.6% 1.19%
169 MA-505 New Bedford CoC 102 81 34 50 21 25.9% 47 138.2% -16 -32.0% 52 104.0% 10.14%
170 MA-506 Worcester City & County CoC 36 34 34 23 2 5.9% 0 0.0% 11 47.8% 13 56.5% 3.58%
171 MA-507 Pittsfield/Berkshire County CoC 95 27 59 67 68 251.9% -32 -54.2% -8 -11.9% 28 41.8% 9.44%
172 MA-508 Lowell CoC 11 8 14 28 3 37.5% -6 -42.9% -14 -50.0% -17 -60.7% 1.09%
173 MA-509 Cambridge CoC 43 62 56 44 -19 -30.6% 6 10.7% 12 27.3% -1 -2.3% 4.27%
174 MA-510 Gloucester...Essex County 69 31 22 54 38 122.6% 9 40.9% -32 -59.3% 15 27.8% 6.86%
175 MA-511 Quincy/Weymouth CoC 13 23 34 35 -10 -43.5% -11 -32.4% -1 -2.9% -22 -62.9% 1.29%
176 MA-512 Lawrence CoC 22 30 19 12 -8 -26.7% 11 57.9% 7 58.3% 10 83.3% 2.19%
177 MA-513 Malden/Medford CoC 8 7 22 18 1 14.3% -15 -68.2% 4 22.2% -10 -55.6% 0.80%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change 08-
09
% Change 08-
09
Total
Change 07-
08
% Change 07-
08
Total
Change 06-
07
% Change 06-
07
Total
Change 06-
09
% Change 06-
09
Unsheltered PIT Counts
Continuum of Care Unsheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Unsheltered
Count
237 MO-501 St. Louis City CoC 333 213 213 108 120 56.3% 0 0.0% 105 97.2% 225 208.3% 22.35%
238 MO-503 St. Charles CoC 281 288 271 351 -7 -2.4% 17 6.3% -80 -22.8% -70 -19.9% 18.86%
239 MO-600 Springfield/Webster Counties CoC 35 207 40 59 -172 -83.1% 167 417.5% -19 -32.2% -24 -40.7% 2.35%
240 MO-602 Joplin/Jasper/Newton County CoC 37 73 8 147 -36 -49.3% 65 812.5% -139 -94.6% -110 -74.8% 2.48%
241 MO-603 St. Joseph/Buchanan County CoC 4 28 0 0 -24 -85.7% 28 - 0 - 4 - 0.27%
242 MO-604 Kansas City/Lee's Summit CoC 197 534 154 203 -337 -63.1% 380 246.8% -49 -24.1% -6 -3.0% 13.22%
243 MO-606 Clay, Platte Counties CoC 374 675 346 148 -301 -44.6% 329 95.1% 198 133.8% 226 152.7% 25.10%
244 MS-500 Jackson/Rankin, Madison Counties CoC 496 507 278 71 -11 -2.2% 229 82.4% 207 291.5% 425 598.6% 31.47%
245 MS-501 Mississippi Balance of State CoC 582 41 41 338 541 1319.5% 0 0.0% -297 -87.9% 244 72.2% 36.93%
246 MS-503 Gulf Port/Gulf Coast Regional CoC 498 207 207 139 291 140.6% 0 0.0% 68 48.9% 359 258.3% 31.60%
247 MT-500 Montana Statewide CoC 363 410 295 452 -47 -11.5% 115 39.0% -157 -34.7% -89 -19.7% 100.00%
248 NC-500 Winston Salem/Forsyth County CoC 68 29 24 39 39 134.5% 5 20.8% -15 -38.5% 29 74.4% 1.53%
249 NC-501 Asheville/Buncombe County CoC 92 80 187 80 12 15.0% -107 -57.2% 107 133.8% 12 15.0% 2.07%
250 NC-502 Durham City & County CoC 34 36 37 42 -2 -5.6% -1 -2.7% -5 -11.9% -8 -19.0% 0.76%
251 NC-503 North Carolina Balance of State 812 777 961 573 35 4.5% -184 -19.1% 388 67.7% 239 41.7% 18.27%
252 NC-504 Greensboro/High Point CoC 130 108 202 228 22 20.4% -94 -46.5% -26 -11.4% -98 -43.0% 2.92%
253 NC-505 Charlotte/Mecklenburg County CoC 550 438 328 1,143 112 25.6% 110 33.5% -815 -71.3% -593 -51.9% 12.37%
254 NC-506 Wilmington/Brunswick/Pender CoC 162 69 209 388 93 134.8% -140 -67.0% -179 -46.1% -226 -58.2% 3.64%
255 NC-507 Raleigh/Wake County CoC 247 73 70 106 174 238.4% 3 4.3% -36 -34.0% 141 133.0% 5.56%
256 NC-509 Gastonia/Cleveland/Lincoln CoC 356 663 438 588 -307 -46.3% 225 51.4% -150 -25.5% -232 -39.5% 8.01%
257 NC-511 Fayetteville/Cumberland County CoC 702 808 444 510 -106 -13.1% 364 82.0% -66 -12.9% 192 37.6% 15.79%
258 NC-513 Chapel Hill/Orange County CoC 5 18 25 32 -13 -72.2% -7 -28.0% -7 -21.9% -27 -84.4% 0.11%
259 NC-516 Northwest North Carolina CoC 1,287 1,152 901 860 135 11.7% 251 27.9% 41 4.8% 427 49.7% 28.95%
260 ND-500 North Dakota Statewide CoC 8 19 59 77 -11 -57.9% -40 -67.8% -18 -23.4% -69 -89.6% 100.00%
261 NE-500 North Central Nebraska CoC 499 335 90 159 164 49.0% 245 272.2% -69 -43.4% 340 213.8% 78.09%
262 NE-501 Omaha/Council Bluffs CoC 61 72 238 189 -11 -15.3% -166 -69.7% 49 25.9% -128 -67.7% 9.55%
263 NE-502 Lincoln CoC 26 286 128 614 -260 -90.9% 158 123.4% -486 -79.2% -588 -95.8% 4.07%
264 NE-503 Southwest Nebraska CoC 1 13 13 19 -12 -92.3% 0 0.0% -6 -31.6% -18 -94.7% 0.16%
265 NE-504 Southeast Nebraska CoC 18 7 7 4 11 157.1% 0 0.0% 3 75.0% 14 350.0% 2.82%
266 NE-505 Panhandle of Nebraska CoC 31 42 47 100 -11 -26.2% -5 -10.6% -53 -53.0% -69 -69.0% 4.85%
267 NE-506 Northeast Nebraska CoC 3 3 1 32 0 0.0% 2 200.0% -31 -96.9% -29 -90.6% 0.47%
268 NH-500 New Hampshire Balance of State CoC 50 156 531 632 -106 -67.9% -375 -70.6% -101 -16.0% -582 -92.1% 20.92%
269 NH-501 Manchester CoC 171 203 197 771 -32 -15.8% 6 3.0% -574 -74.4% -600 -77.8% 71.55%
270 NH-502 Nashua/Hillsborough County CoC 18 125 247 370 -107 -85.6% -122 -49.4% -123 -33.2% -352 -95.1% 7.53%
271 NJ-500 Atlantic City & County CoC 122 78 89 252 44 56.4% -11 -12.4% -163 -64.7% -130 -51.6% 9.40%
272 NJ-501 Bergen County CoC 79 113 182 502 -34 -30.1% -69 -37.9% -320 -63.7% -423 -84.3% 6.09%
273 NJ-502 Burlington County CoC 30 116 116 238 -86 -74.1% 0 0.0% -122 -51.3% -208 -87.4% 2.31%
274 NJ-503 Camden City & County CoC 154 272 214 401 -118 -43.4% 58 27.1% -187 -46.6% -247 -61.6% 11.86%
275 NJ-504 Newark/Essex County CoC 191 152 420 420 39 25.7% -268 -63.8% 0 0.0% -229 -54.5% 14.71%
276 NJ-505 Gloucester County CoC 16 14 30 28 2 14.3% -16 -53.3% 2 7.1% -12 -42.9% 1.23%
277 NJ-506 Jersey City/Hudson County CoC 129 251 164 296 -122 -48.6% 87 53.0% -132 -44.6% -167 -56.4% 9.94%
278 NJ-507 New Brunswick/Middlesex County CoC 213 247 268 182 -34 -13.8% -21 -7.8% 86 47.3% 31 17.0% 16.41%
279 NJ-508 Monmouth County CoC 38 87 73 112 -49 -56.3% 14 19.2% -39 -34.8% -74 -66.1% 2.93%
280 NJ-509 Morris County CoC 45 35 63 37 10 28.6% -28 -44.4% 26 70.3% 8 21.6% 3.47%
281 NJ-510 Lakewood Township/Ocean County 47 28 43 41 19 67.9% -15 -34.9% 2 4.9% 6 14.6% 3.62%
282 NJ-511 Paterson/Passaic County CoC 99 204 231 140 -105 -51.5% -27 -11.7% 91 65.0% -41 -29.3% 7.63%
283 NJ-512 Salem County CoC 2 8 11 8 -6 -75.0% -3 -27.3% 3 37.5% -6 -75.0% 0.15%
284 NJ-513 Somerset County CoC 15 17 23 35 -2 -11.8% -6 -26.1% -12 -34.3% -20 -57.1% 1.16%
285 NJ-514 Trenton/Mercer County CoC 42 138 356 186 -96 -69.6% -218 -61.2% 170 91.4% -144 -77.4% 3.24%
286 NJ-515 Elizabeth/Union County CoC 39 116 116 297 -77 -66.4% 0 0.0% -181 -60.9% -258 -86.9% 3.00%
287 NJ-516 Warren County CoC 5 23 7 1 -18 -78.3% 16 228.6% 6 600.0% 4 400.0% 0.39%
288 NJ-518 Cape May County CoC 3 14 8 7 -11 -78.6% 6 75.0% 1 14.3% -4 -57.1% 0.23%
289 NJ-519 Sussex County CoC 8 16 4 17 -8 -50.0% 12 300.0% -13 -76.5% -9 -52.9% 0.62%
290 NJ-520 Cumberland County CoC 21 43 57 66 -22 -51.2% -14 -24.6% -9 -13.6% -45 -68.2% 1.62%
291 NM-500 Albuquerque CoC 931 287 287 2,481 644 224.4% 0 0.0% -2,194 -88.4% -1,550 -62.5% 68.11%
292 NM-501 New Mexico Balance of State CoC 436 980 980 726 -544 -55.5% 0 0.0% 254 35.0% -290 -39.9% 31.89%
293 NV-500 Las Vegas/Clark County CoC 6,334 7,573 7,573 9,424 -1,239 -16.4% 0 0.0% -1,851 -19.6% -3,090 -32.8% 94.74%
294 NV-501 Reno/Sparks/Washoe County CoC 55 98 98 83 -43 -43.9% 0 0.0% 15 18.1% -28 -33.7% 0.82%
295 NV-502 Nevada Balance of State CoC 297 76 37 147 221 290.8% 39 105.4% -110 -74.8% 150 102.0% 4.44%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change 08-
09
% Change 08-
09
Total
Change 07-
08
% Change 07-
08
Total
Change 06-
07
% Change 06-
07
Total
Change 06-
09
% Change 06-
09
Unsheltered PIT Counts
Continuum of Care Unsheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Unsheltered
Count
296 NY-500 Rochester/Monroe County 0 4 10 16 -4 -100.0% -6 -60.0% -6 -37.5% -16 -100.0% 0.00%
297 NY-501 Elmira/Chemung County CoC 6 1 1 28 5 500.0% 0 0.0% -27 -96.4% -22 -78.6% 0.17%
298 NY-502 City of Auburn/Cayuga County CoC 0 12 22 73 -12 -100.0% -10 -45.5% -51 -69.9% -73 -100.0% 0.00%
299 NY-503 Albany City & County CoC 35 72 80 46 -37 -51.4% -8 -10.0% 34 73.9% -11 -23.9% 0.97%
300 NY-504 Cattaraugus County CoC 17 15 38 90 2 13.3% -23 -60.5% -52 -57.8% -73 -81.1% 0.47%
301 NY-505 Syracuse/Onondaga County CoC 6 11 11 12 -5 -45.5% 0 0.0% -1 -8.3% -6 -50.0% 0.17%
302 NY-506 Fulton/Montgomery/Schoharie 4 -----------0.11%
303 NY-507 Schenectady City & County CoC 62 66 79 69 -4 -6.1% -13 -16.5% 10 14.5% -7 -10.1% 1.72%
304 NY-508 Buffalo/Erie County CoC 115 208 161 138 -93 -44.7% 47 29.2% 23 16.7% -23 -16.7% 3.18%
305 NY-509 Oswego County CoC 26 -----------0.72%
306 NY-510 Tompkins County CoC 10 16 16 34 -6 -37.5% 0 0.0% -18 -52.9% -24 -70.6% 0.28%
307 NY-511 Broome County/City of Binghamton 11 -----------0.30%
308 NY-512 Troy/Rensselaer County CoC 38 59 46 222 -21 -35.6% 13 28.3% -176 -79.3% -184 -82.9% 1.05%
309 NY-513 Wayne County CoC 00020-0--2-100.0% -2 -100.0% 0.00%
310 NY-514 Jamestown/Dunkirk/Chautauqua County CoC 52803150.0% -6 -75.0% 8 - 5 - 0.14%
311 NY-515 Cortland County CoC 0 -----------0.00%
312 NY-516 Clinton County CoC 12 5507140.0% 0 0.0% 5 - 12 - 0.33%
313 NY-517 Orleans County CoC 5 5 5 20 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -15 -75.0% -15 -75.0% 0.14%
314 NY-518 Utica/Rome/Oneida County CoC 17 16 16 36 1 6.3% 0 0.0% -20 -55.6% -19 -52.8% 0.47%
315 NY-519 Columbia/Greene County CoC 7 0 14 14 7 - -14 -100.0% 0 0.0% -7 -50.0% 0.19%
316 NY-520 Franklin County CoC 94115125.0% 3 300.0% 0 0.0% 8 800.0% 0.25%
317 NY-522 Jefferson County CoC 1 5 0 34 -4 -80.0% 5 - -34 -100.0% -33 -97.1% 0.03%
318 NY-523 Saratoga 31 49 109 135 -18 -36.7% -60 -55.0% -26 -19.3% -104 -77.0% 0.86%
319 NY-524 Niagara CoC 9684350.0% -2 -25.0% 4 100.0% 5 125.0% 0.25%
320 NY-600 New York City CoC 2,328 3,306 3,755 3,843 -978 -29.6% -449 -12.0% -88 -2.3% -1,515 -39.4% 64.43%
321 NY-601 Poughkeepsie/Dutchess County CoC 70 84 84 89 -14 -16.7% 0 0.0% -5 -5.6% -19 -21.3% 1.94%
322 NY-602 Newburgh/Middletown/Orange County CoC 105 94 187 83 11 11.7% -93 -49.7% 104 125.3% 22 26.5% 2.91%
323 NY-603 Islip/Suffolk County CoC 207 67 67 196 140 209.0% 0 0.0% -129 -65.8% 11 5.6% 5.73%
324 NY-604 Yonkers/Westchester County CoC 166 136 136 89 30 22.1% 0 0.0% 47 52.8% 77 86.5% 4.59%
325 NY-605 Nassau County CoC 102 91 91 91 11 12.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 12.1% 2.82%
326 NY-606 Rockland County CoC 62 57 53 0 5 8.8% 4 7.5% 53 - 62 - 1.72%
327 NY-607 Sullivan County CoC 3 30 76 32 -27 -90.0% -46 -60.5% 44 137.5% -29 -90.6% 0.08%
328 NY-608 Ulster County CoC 144 188 201 147 -44 -23.4% -13 -6.5% 54 36.7% -3 -2.0% 3.99%
329 OH-500 Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC 43 55 59 199 -12 -21.8% -4 -6.8% -140 -70.4% -156 -78.4% 2.43%
330 OH-501 Toledo/Lucas County CoC 218 254 114 142 -36 -14.2% 140 122.8% -28 -19.7% 76 53.5% 12.31%
331 OH-502 Cleveland/Cuyahoga County CoC 131 151 184 210 -20 -13.2% -33 -17.9% -26 -12.4% -79 -37.6% 7.40%
332 OH-503 Columbus/Franklin County CoC 108 117 114 189 -9 -7.7% 3 2.6% -75 -39.7% -81 -42.9% 6.10%
333 OH-504 Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC 6 11 17 7 -5 -45.5% -6 -35.3% 10 142.9% -1 -14.3% 0.34%
334 OH-505 Dayton/Kettering/Montgomery CoC 14 30 66 0 -16 -53.3% -36 -54.5% 66 - 14 - 0.79%
335 OH-506 Akron/Baberton/Summit County CoC 162 104 192 195 58 55.8% -88 -45.8% -3 -1.5% -33 -16.9% 9.15%
336 OH-507 Ohio Balance of State CoC 1,012 1,300 1,023 2,780 -288 -22.2% 277 27.1% -1,757 -63.2% -1,768 -63.6% 57.14%
337 OH-508 Canton/Stark County CoC 77 513 115 358 -436 -85.0% 398 346.1% -243 -67.9% -281 -78.5% 4.35%
338 OK-500 North Central Oklahoma CoC 144 26 39 33 118 453.8% -13 -33.3% 6 18.2% 111 336.4% 9.41%
339 OK-501 Tulsa City & County/Broken Arrow 29 35 72 49 -6 -17.1% -37 -51.4% 23 46.9% -20 -40.8% 1.89%
340 OK-502 Oklahoma City CoC 372 322 456 133 50 15.5% -134 -29.4% 323 242.9% 239 179.7% 24.30%
341 OK-503 Oklahoma Balance of State CoC 51 6 82 96 45 750.0% -76 -92.7% -14 -14.6% -45 -46.9% 3.33%
342 OK-504 Norman / Cleveland County 296 400 272 218 -104 -26.0% 128 47.1% 54 24.8% 78 35.8% 19.33%
343 OK-505 Northeast Oklahoma CoC 371 168 155 140 203 120.8% 13 8.4% 15 10.7% 231 165.0% 24.23%
344 OK-506 Southewst Oklahoma CoC 20 16 24 19 4 25.0% -8 -33.3% 5 26.3% 1 5.3% 1.31%
345 OK-507 Southeastern CoC 248 70 32 18 178 254.3% 38 118.8% 14 77.8% 230 1277.8% 16.20%
346 OR-500 Eugene/Springfield/Lane County CoC 1,233 772 772 109 461 59.7% 0 0.0% 663 608.3% 1,124 1031.2% 12.50%
347 OR-501 Portland/Gresham/Multnomah 1,591 1,634 1,634 2,355 -43 -2.6% 0 0.0% -721 -30.6% -764 -32.4% 16.12%
348 OR-502 Medford/Ashland/Jackson County CoC 45 26 273 571 19 73.1% -247 -90.5% -298 -52.2% -526 -92.1% 0.46%
349 OR-503 Central Oregon CoC 432 1,466 1,714 472 -1,034 -70.5% -248 -14.5% 1,242 263.1% -40 -8.5% 4.38%
350 OR-504 Salem/Marion/Polk County CoC 1,700 1,416 1,416 921 284 20.1% 0 0.0% 495 53.7% 779 84.6% 17.23%
351 OR-505 Oregon Balance of State CoC 2,631 3,574 1,630 1,048 -943 -26.4% 1,944 119.3% 582 55.5% 1,583 151.0% 26.66%
352 OR-506 Hillsboro/Beaverton/Washington County 536 409 412 416 127 31.1% -3 -0.7% -4 -1.0% 120 28.8% 5.43%
353 OR-507 Clackamas County CoC 1,699 1,410 1,410 1,601 289 20.5% 0 0.0% -191 -11.9% 98 6.1% 17.22%
354 PA-500 Philadelphia CoC 506 457 447 176 49 10.7% 10 2.2% 271 154.0% 330 187.5% 39.62%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change 08-
09
% Change 08-
09
Total
Change 07-
08
% Change 07-
08
Total
Change 06-
07
% Change 06-
07
Total
Change 06-
09
% Change 06-
09
Unsheltered PIT Counts
Continuum of Care Unsheltered Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
Change 2006 to 2009
% of
Statewide
Unsheltered
Count
414 VA-503 Virginia Beach CoC 39 78 46 293 -39 -50.0% 32 69.6% -247 -84.3% -254 -86.7% 2.49%
415 VA-504 Charlottesville CoC 14 15 28 94 -1 -6.7% -13 -46.4% -66 -70.2% -80 -85.1% 0.89%
416 VA-505 Newport News/Virginia Peninsula CoC 55 40 339 257 15 37.5% -299 -88.2% 82 31.9% -202 -78.6% 3.51%
417 VA-507 Portsmouth CoC 110 45 52 54 65 144.4% -7 -13.5% -2 -3.7% 56 103.7% 7.02%
418 VA-508 Lynchburg CoC 44 45 191 191 -1 -2.2% -146 -76.4% 0 0.0% -147 -77.0% 2.81%
419 VA-509 Petersburg CoC 23 45 41 25 -22 -48.9% 4 9.8% 16 64.0% -2 -8.0% 1.47%
420 VA-510 Staunton/Waynesboro/Augusta, Highland Counties CoC 1 15 1 0 -14 -93.3% 14 1400.0% 1 - 1 - 0.06%
421 VA-512 Chesapeake CoC 20 14 43 186 6 42.9% -29 -67.4% -143 -76.9% -166 -89.2% 1.28%
422 VA-513 Shenandoah/Warren Counties CoC 40 50 47 26 -10 -20.0% 3 6.4% 21 80.8% 14 53.8% 2.55%
423 VA-514 Fredericksburg/Stafford Counties CoC 107 67 46 34 40 59.7% 21 45.7% 12 35.3% 73 214.7% 6.82%
424 VA-517 Danville, Martinsville CoC 76 133 118 22 -57 -42.9% 15 12.7% 96 436.4% 54 245.5% 4.85%
425 VA-518 Harrisburg/ Rockingham County CoC 21 7 9 3 14 200.0% -2 -22.2% 6 200.0% 18 600.0% 1.34%
426 VA-519 Suffolk CoC 21 18 9 65 3 16.7% 9 100.0% -56 -86.2% -44 -67.7% 1.34%
427 VA-521 Virginia Balance of State 182 111 103 201 71 64.0% 8 7.8% -98 -48.8% -19 -9.5% 11.61%
428 VA-600 Arlington County CoC 207 179 219 142 28 15.6% -40 -18.3% 77 54.2% 65 45.8% 13.20%
429 VA-601 Fairfax County CoC 129 212 154 228 -83 -39.2% 58 37.7% -74 -32.5% -99 -43.4% 8.23%
430 VA-602 Loudoun County CoC 35 24 97 81 11 45.8% -73 -75.3% 16 19.8% -46 -56.8% 2.23%
431 VA-603 Alexandria CoC 32 68 92 108 -36 -52.9% -24 -26.1% -16 -14.8% -76 -70.4% 2.04%
432 VA-604 Prince William County CoC 238 174 258 180 64 36.8% -84 -32.6% 78 43.3% 58 32.2% 15.18%
433 VI-500 Virgin Islands CoC 395 487 487 354 -92 -18.9% 0 0.0% 133 37.6% 41 11.6% 100.00%
434 VT-500 Vermont Balance of State CoC 125 194 280 195 -69 -35.6% -86 -30.7% 85 43.6% -70 -35.9% 79.62%
435 VT-501 Burlington/Chittenden County CoC 32 64 35 52 -32 -50.0% 29 82.9% -17 -32.7% -20 -38.5% 20.38%
436 WA-500 Seattle/King County CoC 2,863 2,693 2,222 1,946 170 6.3% 471 21.2% 276 14.2% 917 47.1% 43.74%
437 WA-501 Washington Balance of State CoC 1,807 1,971 2,027 1,634 -164 -8.3% -56 -2.8% 393 24.1% 173 10.6% 27.61%
438 WA-502 City of Spokane CoC 157 290 194 505 -133 -45.9% 96 49.5% -311 -61.6% -348 -68.9% 2.40%
439 WA-503 Tacoma/Lakewood/Pierce County CoC 230 265 254 239 -35 -13.2% 11 4.3% 15 6.3% -9 -3.8% 3.51%
440 WA-504 Everett/Snohomish County CoC 1,110 956 1,303 1,662 154 16.1% -347 -26.6% -359 -21.6% -552 -33.2% 16.96%
441 WA-507 Yakima City & County CoC 146 141 143 152 5 3.5% -2 -1.4% -9 -5.9% -6 -3.9% 2.23%
442 WA-508 Vancouver-Clarke County CoC 232 182 228 271 50 27.5% -46 -20.2% -43 -15.9% -39 -14.4% 3.54%
443 WI-500 Wisconsin Balance of State CoC 785 288 288 357 497 172.6% 0 0.0% -69 -19.3% 428 119.9% 74.06%
444 WI-501 Milwaukee City & County CoC 220 175 175 548 45 25.7% 0 0.0% -373 -68.1% -328 -59.9% 20.75%
445 WI-502 Racine City & County CoC 1 1 6 27 0 0.0% -5 -83.3% -21 -77.8% -26 -96.3% 0.09%
446 WI-503 Madison/Dane County CoC 54 51 94 94 3 5.9% -43 -45.7% 0 0.0% -40 -42.6% 5.09%
447 WV-500 Wheeling/Weirton Area CoC 0 7 22 54 -7 -100.0% -15 -68.2% -32 -59.3% -54 -100.0% 0.00%
448 WV-501 Huntington/Cabell, Wayne Counties 5 32 58 85 -27 -84.4% -26 -44.8% -27 -31.8% -80 -94.1% 1.29%
449 WV-503 Charleston/Kanawha/Clay Counties CoC 51 99 62 76 -48 -48.5% 37 59.7% -14 -18.4% -25 -32.9% 13.11%
450 WV-508 West Virginia Balance of State CoC 333 456 120 124 -123 -27.0% 336 280.0% -4 -3.2% 209 168.5% 85.60%
451 WY-500 Wyoming Statewide CoC 64 132 140 192 -68 -51.5% -8 -5.7% -52 -27.1% -128 -66.7% 100.00%
TOTAL 239,759 278,053 280,487 331,130 -38,294 -13.8% -2,434 -0.9% -50,643 -15.3% -91,371 -27.6%
1 Only active 2009 CoCs are reported in this table. All inactive or closed CoCs have been included in the national totals for 2006, 2007 and 2008, but are not individually reported.

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change
08-09
% Change
08-09
Total
Change
07-08
%
Change
07-08
Total
Change
06-07
%
Change
06-07
Total
Change
06-09
%
Change
06-09
Continuum of Care Total Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
% of 2009
Statewide
Total Count
Change 2006 to 2009Total PIT Counts
58 CA-610 San Diego County CoC 3,657 4,101 3,841 5,031 -444 -10.8% 260 6.8% -1,190 -23.7% -1,374 -27.3% 2.75%
59 CA-611 Oxnard CoC 679 671 671 642 8 1.2% 0 0.0% 29 4.5% 37 5.8% 0.51%
60 CA-612 Glendale CoC 306 296 296 289 10 3.4% 0 0.0% 7 2.4% 17 5.9% 0.23%
61 CA-613 Imperial County CoC 505 393 342 0 112 28.5% 51 14.9% 342 - 505 - 0.38%
62 CA-614 San Luis Obispo County CoC 3,829 850 2,408 2,408 2,979 350.5% -1,558 -64.7% 0 0.0% 1,421 59.0% 2.88%
63 CO-500 Colorado Balance of State CoC 5,267 5,188 4,450 10,314 79 1.5% 738 16.6% -5,864 -56.9% -5,047 -48.9% 34.50%
64 CO-503 Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative 8,752 8,482 8,698 8,661 270 3.2% -216 -2.5% 37 0.4% 91 1.1% 57.32%
65 CO-504 Colorado Springs/El Paso County CoC 1,249 1,077 1,077 1,159 172 16.0% 0 0.0% -82 -7.1% 90 7.8% 8.18%
66 CT-500 Danbury CoC 135 123 152 290 12 9.8% -29 -19.1% -138 -47.6% -155 -53.4% 2.93%
67 CT-501 New Haven CoC 744 816 778 1,177 -72 -8.8% 38 4.9% -399 -33.9% -433 -36.8% 16.16%
68 CT-502 Hartford CoC 1,224 1,269 907 829 -45 -3.5% 362 39.9% 78 9.4% 395 47.6% 26.58%
69 CT-503 Bridgeport/Stratford/Fairfield CoC 315 342 356 378 -27 -7.9% -14 -3.9% -22 -5.8% -63 -16.7% 6.84%
70 CT-504 Middletown/Middlesex County CoC 231 276 302 311 -45 -16.3% -26 -8.6% -9 -2.9% -80 -25.7% 5.02%
71 CT-505 Connecticut Balance of State CoC 761 571 647 452 190 33.3% -76 -11.7% 195 43.1% 309 68.4% 16.53%
72 CT-506 Norwalk/Fairfield County CoC 225 198 262 199 27 13.6% -64 -24.4% 63 31.7% 26 13.1% 4.89%
73 CT-507 Norwich/New London City & County CoC 296 304 285 360 -8 -2.6% 19 6.7% -75 -20.8% -64 -17.8% 6.43%
74 CT-508 Stamford/Greenwich CoC 285 306 301 426 -21 -6.9% 5 1.7% -125 -29.3% -141 -33.1% 6.19%
75 CT-509 New Britain CoC 140 157 165 183 -17 -10.8% -8 -4.8% -18 -9.8% -43 -23.5% 3.04%
76 CT-510 Bristol CoC 75 81 91 105 -6 -7.4% -10 -11.0% -14 -13.3% -30 -28.6% 1.63%
77 CT-512 City of Waterbury CoC 174 184 236 206 -10 -5.4% -52 -22.0% 30 14.6% -32 -15.5% 3.78%
78 DC-500 District of Columbia CoC 6,228 6,044 5,320 5,633 184 3.0% 724 13.6% -313 -5.6% 595 10.6% 100.00%
79 DE-500 Delaware Statewide CoC 1,130 933 1,061 1,089 197 21.1% -128 -12.1% -28 -2.6% 41 3.8% 100.00%
80 FL-500 Sarasota, Bradenton, Manatee Counties CoC 1,999 1,361 1,012 1,330 638 46.9% 349 34.5% -318 -23.9% 669 50.3% 3.60%
81 FL-501 Tampa/Hillsborough County CoC 7,473 6,483 6,483 9,871 990 15.3% 0 0.0% -3,388 -34.3% -2,398 -24.3% 13.44%
82 FL-502 St. Petersburg/Clearwater/Largo/Pinellas County CoC 3,419 2,526 2,526 3,603 893 35.4% 0 0.0% -1,077 -29.9% -184 -5.1% 6.15%
83 FL-503 Lakeland CoC 675 655 802 833 20 3.1% -147 -18.3% -31 -3.7% -158 -19.0% 1.21%
84 FL-504 Daytona Beach/Daytona/Volusia, Flagler Counties CoC 1,913 1,801 1,478 2,660 112 6.2% 323 21.9% -1,182 -44.4% -747 -28.1% 3.44%
85 FL-505 Fort Walton Beach/Okaloosa, Walton Counties CoC 2,446 1,763 2,179 2,181 683 38.7% -416 -19.1% -2 -0.1% 265 12.2% 4.40%
86 FL-506 Tallahassee/Leon County CoC 640 590 590 691 50 8.5% 0 0.0% -101 -14.6% -51 -7.4% 1.15%
87 FL-507 Orlando/Orange, Osceola, Seminole Counties CoC 3,970 3,734 3,823 4,297 236 6.3% -89 -2.3% -474 -11.0% -327 -7.6% 7.14%
88 FL-508 Gainesville/Alachua, Putnam Counties CoC 924 744 678 765 180 24.2% 66 9.7% -87 -11.4% 159 20.8% 1.66%
89 FL-509 Fort Pierce/St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin Counties CoC 1,950 1,503 1,734 2,313 447 29.7% -231 -13.3% -579 -25.0% -363 -15.7% 3.51%
90 FL-510 Jacksonville-Duval, Clay Counties CoC 2,442 2,585 2,743 2,725 -143 -5.5% -158 -5.8% 18 0.7% -283 -10.4% 4.39%
91 FL-511 Pensacola/Esca/Santa Rosa County CoC 1,030 1,028 629 1,188 2 0.2% 399 63.4% -559 -47.1% -158 -13.3% 1.85%
92 FL-512 Saint Johns County CoC 1,237 1,238 1,238 997 -1 -0.1% 0 0.0% 241 24.2% 240 24.1% 2.22%
93 FL-513 Palm Bay/Melbourne/Brevard County CoC 1,221 1,899 1,899 1,665 -678 -35.7% 0 0.0% 234 14.1% -444 -26.7% 2.20%
94 FL-514 Ocala/Marion County CoC 491 480 480 1,410 11 2.3% 0 0.0% -930 -66.0% -919 -65.2% 0.88%
95 FL-515 Panama City/Bay, Jackson Counties CoC 287 313 313 1,059 -26 -8.3% 0 0.0% -746 -70.4% -772 -72.9% 0.52%
96 FL-516 Winterhaven/Polk County CoC 50 494 0 0 -444 -89.9% 0 0.0% 0 - 50 - 0.09%
97 FL-517 Hendry, Hardee, Highlands Counties CoC 4,220 2,968 904 3,077 1,252 42.2% 2,064 228.3% -2,173 -70.6% 1,143 37.1% 7.59%
98 FL-518 Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Suwannee Counties CoC 1,114 282 250 192 832 295.0% 32 12.8% 58 30.2% 922 480.2% 2.00%
99 FL-519 Pasco County CoC 4,527 4,074 2,260 3,677 453 11.1% 1,814 80.3% -1,417 -38.5% 850 23.1% 8.14%
100 FL-520 Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Sumter Counties CoC 1,025 1,104 2,019 1,412 -79 -7.2% -915 -45.3% 607 43.0% -387 -27.4% 1.84%
101 FL-600 Miami/Dade County CoC 4,333 4,574 4,392 4,709 -241 -5.3% 182 4.1% -317 -6.7% -376 -8.0% 7.79%
102 FL-601 Ft Lauderdale/Broward County CoC 3,225 3,154 3,154 3,114 71 2.3% 0 0.0% 40 1.3% 111 3.6% 5.80%
103 FL-602 Punta Gorda/Charlotte County CoC 541 730 730 3,314 -189 -25.9% 0 0.0% -2,584 -78.0% -2,773 -83.7% 0.97%
104 FL-603 Ft Myers/Cape Coral/Lee County CoC 931 899 2,382 2,078 32 3.6% -1,483 -62.3% 304 14.6% -1,147 -55.2% 1.67%
105 FL-604 Monroe County CoC 1,040 1,121 1,121 981 -81 -7.2% 0 0.0% 140 14.3% 59 6.0% 1.87%
106 FL-605 West Palm Beach/Palm Beach County 2,147 1,766 1,766 1,574 381 21.6% 0 0.0% 192 12.2% 573 36.4% 3.86%
107 FL-606 Naples/Collier County CoC 329 289 484 513 40 13.8% -195 -40.3% -29 -5.7% -184 -35.9% 0.59%
108 GA-500 Atlanta/Roswell/DeKalb, Fulton Counties CoC 7,019 6,840 6,840 6,483 179 2.6% 0 0.0% 357 5.5% 536 8.3% 34.47%
109 GA-501 Georgia Balance of State CoC 9,941 9,340 10,255 12,481 601 6.4% -915 -8.9% -2,226 -17.8% -2,540 -20.4% 48.83%
110 GA-503 Athens/Clarke County CoC 454 462 464 475 -8 -1.7% -2 -0.4% -11 -2.3% -21 -4.4% 2.23%
111 GA-504 Augusta CoC 556 528 489 569 28 5.3% 39 8.0% -80 -14.1% -13 -2.3% 2.73%
112 GA-505 Columbus-Muscogee/Russell County CoC 458 618 540 466 -160 -25.9% 78 14.4% 74 15.9% -8 -1.7% 2.25%
113 GA-506 Marietta/Cobb County CoC 480 537 537 660 -57 -10.6% 0 0.0% -123 -18.6% -180 -27.3% 2.36%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change
08-09
% Change
08-09
Total
Change
07-08
%
Change
07-08
Total
Change
06-07
%
Change
06-07
Total
Change
06-09
%
Change
06-09
Continuum of Care Total Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
% of 2009
Statewide
Total Count
Change 2006 to 2009Total PIT Counts
114 GA-507 Savannah/Chatham County CoC 1,452 770 514 659 682 88.6% 256 49.8% -145 -22.0% 793 120.3% 7.13%
115 GU-500 Guam CoC 1,088 725 725 1,050 363 50.1% 0 0.0% -325 -31.0% 38 3.6% 100.00%
116 HI-500 Hawaii Balance of State CoC 2,144 2,311 2,320 2,448 -167 -7.2% -9 -0.4% -128 -5.2% -304 -12.4% 37.08%
117 HI-501 Honolulu CoC 3,638 3,750 3,750 2,135 -112 -3.0% 0 0.0% 1,615 75.6% 1,503 70.4% 62.92%
118 IA-500 Sioux City/Dakota, Woodbury Counties CoC 289 271 164 191 18 6.6% 107 65.2% -27 -14.1% 98 51.3% 8.55%
119 IA-501 Iowa Balance of State CoC 1,962 1,950 1,529 2,243 12 0.6% 421 27.5% -714 -31.8% -281 -12.5% 58.05%
120 IA-502 Des Moines/Polk County CoC 1,129 1,125 1,041 2,739 4 0.4% 84 8.1% -1,698 -62.0% -1,610 -58.8% 33.40%
121 ID-500 Boise/Ada County CoC 786 611 581 144 175 28.6% 30 5.2% 437 303.5% 642 445.8% 40.54%
122 ID-501 Idaho Balance of State CoC 1,153 853 1,168 1,307 300 35.2% -315 -27.0% -139 -10.6% -154 -11.8% 59.46%
123 IL-500 McHenry County CoC 257 199 253 193 58 29.1% -54 -21.3% 60 31.1% 64 33.2% 1.83%
124 IL-501 Rockford/Winnebago, Boone Counties CoC 452 575 575 1,667 -123 -21.4% 0 0.0% -1,092 -65.5% -1,215 -72.9% 3.22%
125 IL-502 North Chicago/Lake County CoC 370 439 496 414 -69 -15.7% -57 -11.5% 82 19.8% -44 -10.6% 2.63%
126 IL-503 Champaign/Urbana/Rantoul/Champaign County CoC 534 429 429 308 105 24.5% 0 0.0% 121 39.3% 226 73.4% 3.80%
127 IL-504 Madison County CoC 202 214 240 387 -12 -5.6% -26 -10.8% -147 -38.0% -185 -47.8% 1.44%
128 IL-505 Evanston CoC 188 183 183 184 5 2.7% 0 0.0% -1 -0.5% 4 2.2% 1.34%
129 IL-506 Joliet/Bolingbrook/Will County CoC 340 309 397 388 31 10.0% -88 -22.2% 9 2.3% -48 -12.4% 2.42%
130 IL-507 Peoria/Perkin/Fulton, Peoria, Tazewell, Woodford CoC 397 350 434 486 47 13.4% -84 -19.4% -52 -10.7% -89 -18.3% 2.82%
131 IL-508 East Saint Louis/Belleville/Saint Clair County CoC 536 670 799 1,106 -134 -20.0% -129 -16.1% -307 -27.8% -570 -51.5% 3.81%
132 IL-509 DeKalb City & County CoC 115 130 130 96 -15 -11.5% 0 0.0% 34 35.4% 19 19.8% 0.82%
133 IL-510 Chicago CoC 6,240 5,979 5,979 6,671 261 4.4% 0 0.0% -692 -10.4% -431 -6.5% 44.40%
134 IL-511 Cook County CoC 1,190 1,237 1,237 1,085 -47 -3.8% 0 0.0% 152 14.0% 105 9.7% 8.47%
135 IL-512 Bloomington/Central Illinois CoC 515 467 467 386 48 10.3% 0 0.0% 81 21.0% 129 33.4% 3.66%
136 IL-513 Springfield/Sangamon County CoC 257 235 260 355 22 9.4% -25 -9.6% -95 -26.8% -98 -27.6% 1.83%
137 IL-514 Dupage County CoC 695 766 766 557 -71 -9.3% 0 0.0% 209 37.5% 138 24.8% 4.94%
138 IL-515 South Central Illinois CoC 329 270 246 268 59 21.9% 24 9.8% -22 -8.2% 61 22.8% 2.34%
139 IL-516 Decatur/Macon County CoC 176 347 347 377 -171 -49.3% 0 0.0% -30 -8.0% -201 -53.3% 1.25%
140 IL-517 Aurora/Elgin/Kane County CoC 445 474 474 506 -29 -6.1% 0 0.0% -32 -6.3% -61 -12.1% 3.17%
141 IL-518 Rock Island/Moline/Northwestern Illinois CoC 400 352 600 802 48 13.6% -248 -41.3% -202 -25.2% -402 -50.1% 2.85%
142 IL-519 West Central Illinois CoC 127 229 305 278 -102 -44.5% -76 -24.9% 27 9.7% -151 -54.3% 0.90%
143 IL-520 Southern Illinois CoC 290 870 870 619 -580 -66.7% 0 0.0% 251 40.5% -329 -53.2% 2.06%
144 IN-500 St. Joseph County CoC 1,243 998 584 0 245 24.5% 414 70.9% 584 - 1,243 - 17.80%
145 IN-502 Indiana Balance of State CoC 4,287 4,906 4,906 7,590 -619 -12.6% 0 0.0% -2,684 -35.4% -3,303 -43.5% 61.38%
146 IN-503 Indianapolis CoC 1,454 1,491 1,868 2,140 -37 -2.5% -377 -20.2% -272 -12.7% -686 -32.1% 20.82%
147 KS-501 Kansas City/Wyandotte County CoC 222 166 187 175 56 33.7% -21 -11.2% 12 6.9% 47 26.9% 11.73%
148 KS-502 Wichita/Sedgwick County CoC 384 473 526 589 -89 -18.8% -53 -10.1% -63 -10.7% -205 -34.8% 20.30%
149 KS-503 Topeka/Shawnee County CoC 217 341 227 476 -124 -36.4% 114 50.2% -249 -52.3% -259 -54.4% 11.47%
150 KS-505 Overland Park/Johnson County CoC 210 234 234 237 -24 -10.3% 0 0.0% -3 -1.3% -27 -11.4% 11.10%
151 KS-507 Kansas Balance of State CoC 859 524 524 3,478 335 63.9% 0 0.0% -2,954 -84.9% -2,619 -75.3% 45.40%
152 KY-500 Kentucky Balance of State CoC 3,174 4,027 4,316 4,087 -853 -21.2% -289 -6.7% 229 5.6% -913 -22.3% 52.91%
153 KY-501 Louisville/Jefferson County CoC 1,515 2,682 2,587 2,067 -1,167 -43.5% 95 3.7% 520 25.2% -552 -26.7% 25.25%
154 KY-502 Lexington/Fayette County CoC 1,310 1,428 1,158 891 -118 -8.3% 270 23.3% 267 30.0% 419 47.0% 21.84%
155 LA-500 Lafayette/Acadiana CoC 731 631 631 680 100 15.8% 0 0.0% -49 -7.2% 51 7.5% 5.85%
156 LA-501 Lake Charles/Southwestern Louisiana CoC 72 94 247 194 -22 -23.4% -153 -61.9% 53 27.3% -122 -62.9% 0.58%
157 LA-502 Shreveport/Bossier/Northwest CoC 830 1,042 857 748 -212 -20.3% 185 21.6% 109 14.6% 82 11.0% 6.64%
158 LA-503 New Orleans/Jefferson Parish CoC 8,725 1,619 1,619 2,051 7,106 438.9% 0 0.0% -432 -21.1% 6,674 325.4% 69.78%
159 LA-504 Baton Rouge CoC 1,118 1,006 1,042 744 112 11.1% -36 -3.5% 298 40.1% 374 50.3% 8.94%
160 LA-505 Monroe/Northeast Louisiana CoC 228 276 313 394 -48 -17.4% -37 -11.8% -81 -20.6% -166 -42.1% 1.82%
161 LA-506 Slidell/Southeast Louisiana CoC 379 522 434 400 -143 -27.4% 88 20.3% 34 8.5% -21 -5.3% 3.03%
162 LA-507 Alexandria/Central Louisiana CoC 151 128 188 1,526 23 18.0% -60 -31.9% -1,338 -87.7% -1,375 -90.1% 1.21%
163 LA-508 Houma-Terrebonne/Thibodaux CoC 270 163 163 200 107 65.6% 0 0.0% -37 -18.5% 70 35.0% 2.16%
164 MA-500 Boston CoC 5,101 5,198 5,104 5,217 -97 -1.9% 94 1.8% -113 -2.2% -116 -2.2% 32.95%
165 MA-501 Holyoke/Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire Counties CoC 1,394 1,090 964 557 304 27.9% 126 13.1% 407 73.1% 837 150.3% 9.00%
166 MA-502 Lynn CoC 610 389 236 192 221 56.8% 153 64.8% 44 22.9% 418 217.7% 3.94%
167 MA-503 Cape Cod Islands CoC 611 741 697 1,008 -130 -17.5% 44 6.3% -311 -30.9% -397 -39.4% 3.95%
168 MA-504 Springfield CoC 774 696 1,053 447 78 11.2% -357 -33.9% 606 135.6% 327 73.2% 5.00%
169 MA-505 New Bedford CoC 510 380 390 434 130 34.2% -10 -2.6% -44 -10.1% 76 17.5% 3.29%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change
08-09
% Change
08-09
Total
Change
07-08
%
Change
07-08
Total
Change
06-07
%
Change
06-07
Total
Change
06-09
%
Change
06-09
Continuum of Care Total Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
% of 2009
Statewide
Total Count
Change 2006 to 2009Total PIT Counts
226 MN-501 Saint Paul/Ramsey County CoC 1,377 1,294 1,294 809 83 6.4% 0 0.0% 485 60.0% 568 70.2% 17.84%
227 MN-502 Rochester/Southeast Minnesota CoC 417 446 446 468 -29 -6.5% 0 0.0% -22 -4.7% -51 -10.9% 5.40%
228 MN-503 Dakota County CoC 631 548 363 446 83 15.1% 185 51.0% -83 -18.6% 185 41.5% 8.18%
229 MN-504 Northeast Minnesota CoC 210 230 232 137 -20 -8.7% -2 -0.9% 95 69.3% 73 53.3% 2.72%
230 MN-505 St. Cloud/Central Minnesota CoC 451 389 389 394 62 15.9% 0 0.0% -5 -1.3% 57 14.5% 5.84%
231 MN-506 Northwest Minnesota CoC 261 230 266 110 31 13.5% -36 -13.5% 156 141.8% 151 137.3% 3.38%
232 MN-508 Moorehead/West Central Minnesota CoC 272 242 242 236 30 12.4% 0 0.0% 6 2.5% 36 15.3% 3.52%
233 MN-509 Duluth/Saint Louis County CoC 504 501 501 351 3 0.6% 0 0.0% 150 42.7% 153 43.6% 6.53%
234 MN-510 Scott, Carver Counties CoC 209 252 152 119 -43 -17.1% 100 65.8% 33 27.7% 90 75.6% 2.71%
235 MN-511 Southwest Minnesota CoC 105 143 169 47 -38 -26.6% -26 -15.4% 122 259.6% 58 123.4% 1.36%
236 MO-500 St. Louis County CoC 643 458 336 406 185 40.4% 122 36.3% -70 -17.2% 237 58.4% 9.24%
237 MO-501 St. Louis City CoC 1,306 1,386 1,386 1,038 -80 -5.8% 0 0.0% 348 33.5% 268 25.8% 18.77%
238 MO-503 St. Charles, Lincoln, Warren Counties CoC 830 593 498 484 237 40.0% 95 19.1% 14 2.9% 346 71.5% 11.93%
239 MO-600 Springfield/Greene, Christian, Webster Counties CoC 418 713 518 554 -295 -41.4% 195 37.6% -36 -6.5% -136 -24.5% 6.01%
240 MO-602 Joplin/Jasper, Newton Counties CoC 322 380 306 379 -58 -15.3% 74 24.2% -73 -19.3% -57 -15.0% 4.63%
241 MO-603 St. Joseph/Andrew, Buchanan, DeKalb Counties CoC 159 159 100 88 0 0.0% 59 59.0% 12 13.6% 71 80.7% 2.28%
242 MO-604 Kansas City/Independence/ Lee's Summit/Jackson County CoC 1,587 2,094 1,599 3,793 -507 -24.2% 495 31.0% -2,194 -57.8% -2,206 -58.2% 22.81%
243 MO-606 Missouri Balance of State CoC 1,694 1,904 1,396 1,062 -210 -11.0% 508 36.4% 334 31.5% 632 59.5% 24.34%
244 MS-500 Jackson/Rankin, Madison Counties CoC 922 1,302 718 585 -380 -29.2% 584 81.3% 133 22.7% 337 57.6% 32.96%
245 MS-501 Mississippi Balance of State CoC 1,242 385 385 2,003 857 222.6% 0 0.0% -1,618 -80.8% -761 -38.0% 44.40%
246 MS-503 Gulf Port/Gulf Coast Regional CoC 633 274 274 593 359 131.0% 0 0.0% -319 -53.8% 40 6.7% 22.63%
247 MT-500 Montana Statewide CoC 1,196 1,417 1,150 1,331 -221 -15.6% 267 23.2% -181 -13.6% -135 -10.1% 100.00%
248 NC-500 Winston Salem/Forsyth County CoC 489 452 503 1,040 37 8.2% -51 -10.1% -537 -51.6% -551 -53.0% 3.79%
249 NC-501 Asheville/Buncombe County CoC 518 509 635 498 9 1.8% -126 -19.8% 137 27.5% 20 4.0% 4.01%
250 NC-502 Durham City & County CoC 536 590 539 502 -54 -9.2% 51 9.5% 37 7.4% 34 6.8% 4.15%
251 NC-503 North Carolina Balance of State CoC 2,821 2,509 2,421 1,218 312 12.4% 88 3.6% 1,203 98.8% 1,603 131.6% 21.84%
252 NC-504 Greensboro/High Point CoC 1,078 987 1,182 1,108 91 9.2% -195 -16.5% 74 6.7% -30 -2.7% 8.34%
253 NC-505 Charlotte/Mecklenburg County CoC 2,594 1,988 1,976 2,591 606 30.5% 12 0.6% -615 -23.7% 3 0.1% 20.08%
254 NC-506 Wilmington/Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender Counties CoC 630 496 628 673 134 27.0% -132 -21.0% -45 -6.7% -43 -6.4% 4.88%
255 NC-507 Raleigh/Wake County CoC 1,152 1,144 1,043 981 8 0.7% 101 9.7% 62 6.3% 171 17.4% 8.92%
256 NC-509 Gastonia/Cleveland, Gaston, Lincoln Counties CoC 580 920 652 792 -340 -37.0% 268 41.1% -140 -17.7% -212 -26.8% 4.49%
257 NC-511 Fayetteville/Cumberland County CoC 965 1,074 757 841 -109 -10.1% 317 41.9% -84 -10.0% 124 14.7% 7.47%
258 NC-513 Chapel Hill/Orange County CoC 156 195 208 237 -39 -20.0% -13 -6.3% -29 -12.2% -81 -34.2% 1.21%
259 NC-516 Northwest North Carolina CoC 1,399 1,314 1,069 976 85 6.5% 245 22.9% 93 9.5% 423 43.3% 10.83%
260 ND-500 North Dakota Statewide CoC 773 615 636 614 158 25.7% -21 -3.3% 22 3.6% 159 25.9% 100.00%
261 NE-500 North Central Nebraska CoC 991 1,175 257 399 -184 -15.7% 918 357.2% -142 -35.6% 592 148.4% 26.65%
262 NE-501 Omaha/Council Bluffs CoC 1,262 1,197 1,870 1,632 65 5.4% -673 -36.0% 238 14.6% -370 -22.7% 33.94%
263 NE-502 Lincoln CoC 973 1,151 966 1,447 -178 -15.5% 185 19.2% -481 -33.2% -474 -32.8% 26.17%
264 NE-503 Southwest Nebraska CoC 96 85 85 99 11 12.9% 0 0.0% -14 -14.1% -3 -3.0% 2.58%
265 NE-504 Southeast Nebraska CoC 162 184 108 153 -22 -12.0% 76 70.4% -45 -29.4% 9 5.9% 4.36%
266 NE-505 Panhandle of Nebraska CoC 116 121 169 279 -5 -4.1% -48 -28.4% -110 -39.4% -163 -58.4% 3.12%
267 NE-506 Northeast Nebraska CoC 118 72 76 99 46 63.9% -4 -5.3% -23 -23.2% 19 19.2% 3.17%
268 NH-500 New Hampshire Balance of State CoC 769 986 1,300 1,244 -217 -22.0% -314 -24.2% 56 4.5% -475 -38.2% 46.75%
269 NH-501 Manchester CoC 508 576 504 1,255 -68 -11.8% 72 14.3% -751 -59.8% -747 -59.5% 30.88%
270 NH-502 Nashua/Hillsborough County CoC 368 457 444 582 -89 -19.5% 13 2.9% -138 -23.7% -214 -36.8% 22.37%
271 NJ-500 Atlantic City & County CoC 461 476 514 648 -15 -3.2% -38 -7.4% -134 -20.7% -187 -28.9% 3.50%
272 NJ-501 Bergen County CoC 1,433 1,627 1,392 1,495 -194 -11.9% 235 16.9% -103 -6.9% -62 -4.1% 10.88%
273 NJ-502 Burlington County CoC 979 896 896 980 83 9.3% 0 0.0% -84 -8.6% -1 -0.1% 7.43%
274 NJ-503 Camden City & County CoC 579 718 853 996 -139 -19.4% -135 -15.8% -143 -14.4% -417 -41.9% 4.40%
275 NJ-504 Newark/Essex County CoC 1,730 1,036 2,326 1,682 694 67.0% -1,290 -55.5% 644 38.3% 48 2.9% 13.14%
276 NJ-505 Gloucester County CoC 206 190 167 228 16 8.4% 23 13.8% -61 -26.8% -22 -9.6% 1.56%
277 NJ-506 Jersey City/Bayonne/Hudson County CoC 1,779 2,227 2,842 2,973 -448 -20.1% -615 -21.6% -131 -4.4% -1,194 -40.2% 13.51%
278 NJ-507 New Brunswick/Middlesex County CoC 796 792 996 650 4 0.5% -204 -20.5% 346 53.2% 146 22.5% 6.04%
279 NJ-508 Monmouth County CoC 676 763 830 1,176 -87 -11.4% -67 -8.1% -346 -29.4% -500 -42.5% 5.13%
280 NJ-509 Morris County CoC 302 224 292 367 78 34.8% -68 -23.3% -75 -20.4% -65 -17.7% 2.29%
281 NJ-510 Lakewood Township/Ocean County CoC 453 337 424 556 116 34.4% -87 -20.5% -132 -23.7% -103 -18.5% 3.44%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change
08-09
% Change
08-09
Total
Change
07-08
%
Change
07-08
Total
Change
06-07
%
Change
06-07
Total
Change
06-09
%
Change
06-09
Continuum of Care Total Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
% of 2009
Statewide
Total Count
Change 2006 to 2009Total PIT Counts
282 NJ-511 Paterson/Passaic County CoC 306 518 1,062 996 -212 -40.9% -544 -51.2% 66 6.6% -690 -69.3% 2.32%
283 NJ-512 Salem County CoC 148 310 465 186 -162 -52.3% -155 -33.3% 279 150.0% -38 -20.4% 1.12%
284 NJ-513 Somerset County CoC 298 302 366 485 -4 -1.3% -64 -17.5% -119 -24.5% -187 -38.6% 2.26%
285 NJ-514 Trenton/Mercer County CoC 1,062 989 1,598 834 73 7.4% -609 -38.1% 764 91.6% 228 27.3% 8.06%
286 NJ-515 Elizabeth/Union County CoC 1,116 1,188 1,188 1,564 -72 -6.1% 0 0.0% -376 -24.0% -448 -28.6% 8.47%
287 NJ-516 Warren County CoC 402 417 222 231 -15 -3.6% 195 87.8% -9 -3.9% 171 74.0% 3.05%
288 NJ-518 Ocean City/Cape May County CoC 224 300 250 266 -76 -25.3% 50 20.0% -16 -6.0% -42 -15.8% 1.70%
289 NJ-519 Sussex County CoC 112 276 359 371 -164 -59.4% -83 -23.1% -12 -3.2% -259 -69.8% 0.85%
290 NJ-520 Cumberland County CoC 107 246 163 150 -139 -56.5% 83 50.9% 13 8.7% -43 -28.7% 0.81%
291 NM-500 Albuquerque CoC 2,002 1,276 1,276 3,649 726 56.9% 0 0.0% -2,373 -65.0% -1,647 -45.1% 57.61%
292 NM-501 New Mexico Balance of State CoC 1,473 1,739 1,739 1,607 -266 -15.3% 0 0.0% 132 8.2% -134 -8.3% 42.39%
293 NV-500 Las Vegas/Clark County CoC 13,338 11,417 11,417 12,198 1,921 16.8% 0 0.0% -781 -6.4% 1,140 9.3% 92.13%
294 NV-501 Reno/Sparks/Washoe County CoC 700 863 863 460 -163 -18.9% 0 0.0% 403 87.6% 240 52.2% 4.83%
295 NV-502 Nevada Balance of State CoC 440 330 246 332 110 33.3% 84 34.1% -86 -25.9% 108 32.5% 3.04%
296 NY-500 Rochester/Irondequoit/Greece/Monroe County CoC 663 595 612 682 68 11.4% -17 -2.8% -70 -10.3% -19 -2.8% 1.09%
297 NY-501 Elmira/Steuben, Allegany, Chemung, Schuyler Counties COC 184 177 175 186 7 4.0% 2 1.1% -11 -5.9% -2 -1.1% 0.30%
298 NY-502 Auburn/Cayuga County CoC 39 45 55 117 -6 -13.3% -10 -18.2% -62 -53.0% -78 -66.7% 0.06%
299 NY-503 Albany City & County CoC 639 538 619 407 101 18.8% -81 -13.1% 212 52.1% 232 57.0% 1.05%
300 NY-504 Cattaraugus County CoC 74 69 142 649 5 7.2% -73 -51.4% -507 -78.1% -575 -88.6% 0.12%
301 NY-505 Syracuse/Onondaga County CoC 791 686 740 749 105 15.3% -54 -7.3% -9 -1.2% 42 5.6% 1.30%
302 NY-506 Fulton, Montgomery, Schoharie Counties CoC 24 - - - - - ------0.04%
303 NY-507 Schenectady City & County CoC 258 195 288 322 63 32.3% -93 -32.3% -34 -10.6% -64 -19.9% 0.42%
304 NY-508 Buffalo/Erie County CoC 862 1,067 1,169 1,174 -205 -19.2% -102 -8.7% -5 -0.4% -312 -26.6% 1.41%
305 NY-509 Oswego County CoC 44 - - - - - ------0.07%
306 NY-510 Tompkins County CoC 75 78 78 106 -3 -3.8% 0 0.0% -28 -26.4% -31 -29.2% 0.12%
307 NY-511 Binghamton/Union Town/Broome County CoC 213 - - - - - ------0.35%
308 NY-512 Troy/Rensselaer County CoC 298 193 212 459 105 54.4% -19 -9.0% -247 -53.8% -161 -35.1% 0.49%
309 NY-513 Wayne, Ontario, Seneca, Yates Counties CoC 81 88 98 42 -7 -8.0% -10 -10.2% 56 133.3% 39 92.9% 0.13%
310 NY-514 Jamestown/Dunkirk/Chautauqua County CoC 128 65 75 0 63 96.9% -10 -13.3% 75 - 128 - 0.21%
311 NY-515 Cortland County CoC - - - - - - ----- .
312 NY-516 Clinton County CoC 136 53 53 0 83 156.6% 0 0.0% 53 - 136 - 0.22%
313 NY-517 Orleans County CoC 30 39 39 48 -9 -23.1% 0 0.0% -9 -18.8% -18 -37.5% 0.05%
314 NY-518 Utica/Rome/Oneida County CoC 343 316 316 350 27 8.5% 0 0.0% -34 -9.7% -7 -2.0% 0.56%
315 NY-519 Columbia/Greene County CoC 267 172 325 325 95 55.2% -153 -47.1% 0 0.0% -58 -17.8% 0.44%
316 NY-520 Franklin County CoC 14 10 28 28 4 40.0% -18 -64.3% 0 0.0% -14 -50.0% 0.02%
317 NY-522 Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence Counties CoC 276 297 0 178 -21 -7.1% 0 0.0% -178 -100.0% 98 55.1% 0.45%
318 NY-523 Glen Falls/Saratoga Springs/Saratoga County CoC 195 166 255 369 29 17.5% -89 -34.9% -114 -30.9% -174 -47.2% 0.32%
319 NY-524 Niagara CoC 177 144 169 159 33 22.9% -25 -14.8% 10 6.3% 18 11.3% 0.29%
320 NY-600 New York City CoC 49,343 50,261 50,372 55,507 -918 -1.8% -111 -0.2% -5,135 -9.3% -6,164 -11.1% 80.80%
321 NY-601 Poughkeepsie/Dutchess County CoC 474 547 547 546 -73 -13.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% -72 -13.2% 0.78%
322 NY-602 Newburgh/Middletown/Orange County CoC 450 311 414 385 139 44.7% -103 -24.9% 29 7.5% 65 16.9% 0.74%
323 NY-603 Islip/Babylon/Huntington/Suffolk County CoC 1,942 1,728 1,728 2,728 214 12.4% 0 0.0% -1,000 -36.7% -786 -28.8% 3.18%
324 NY-604 Yonkers/Mount Vernon/New Rochelle/Westchester County CoC 1,531 1,829 1,829 1,967 -298 -16.3% 0 0.0% -138 -7.0% -436 -22.2% 2.51%
325 NY-605 Nassau County CoC 697 781 781 1,215 -84 -10.8% 0 0.0% -434 -35.7% -518 -42.6% 1.14%
326 NY-606 Rockland County CoC 139 141 488 214 -2 -1.4% -347 -71.1% 274 128.0% -75 -35.0% 0.23%
327 NY-607 Sullivan County CoC 369 139 343 257 230 165.5% -204 -59.5% 86 33.5% 112 43.6% 0.60%
328 NY-608 Kingston/Ulster County CoC 311 395 359 402 -84 -21.3% 36 10.0% -43 -10.7% -91 -22.6% 0.51%
329 OH-500 Cincinnati/Hamilton County CoC 1,140 1,116 1,046 1,344 24 2.2% 70 6.7% -298 -22.2% -204 -15.2% 8.98%
330 OH-501 Toledo/Lucas County CoC 945 959 745 739 -14 -1.5% 214 28.7% 6 0.8% 206 27.9% 7.44%
331 OH-502 Cleveland/Cuyahoga County CoC 2,236 2,242 2,185 2,269 -6 -0.3% 57 2.6% -84 -3.7% -33 -1.5% 17.61%
332 OH-503 Columbus/Franklin County CoC 1,359 1,341 1,373 1,357 18 1.3% -32 -2.3% 16 1.2% 2 0.1% 10.70%
333 OH-504 Youngstown/Mahoning County CoC 183 236 249 246 -53 -22.5% -13 -5.2% 3 1.2% -63 -25.6% 1.44%
334 OH-505 Dayton/Kettering/Montgomery CoC 837 844 785 523 -7 -0.8% 59 7.5% 262 50.1% 314 60.0% 6.59%
335 OH-506 Akron/Baberton/Summit County CoC 820 740 824 1,028 80 10.8% -84 -10.2% -204 -19.8% -208 -20.2% 6.46%
336 OH-507 Ohio Balance of State CoC 4,770 4,525 3,521 7,172 245 5.4% 1,004 28.5% -3,651 -50.9% -2,402 -33.5% 37.56%
337 OH-508 Canton/Massillon/Alliance/Stark County CoC 410 909 536 757 -499 -54.9% 373 69.6% -221 -29.2% -347 -45.8% 3.23%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change
08-09
% Change
08-09
Total
Change
07-08
%
Change
07-08
Total
Change
06-07
%
Change
06-07
Total
Change
06-09
%
Change
06-09
Continuum of Care Total Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
% of 2009
Statewide
Total Count
Change 2006 to 2009Total PIT Counts
338 OK-500 North Central Oklahoma CoC 316 241 212 206 75 31.1% 29 13.7% 6 2.9% 110 53.4% 6.53%
339 OK-501 Tulsa City & County/Broken Arrow CoC 826 729 666 573 97 13.3% 63 9.5% 93 16.2% 253 44.2% 17.07%
340 OK-502 Oklahoma City CoC 1,475 1,335 1,734 1,426 140 10.5% -399 -23.0% 308 21.6% 49 3.4% 30.49%
341 OK-503 Oklahoma Balance of State CoC 340 157 231 234 183 116.6% -74 -32.0% -3 -1.3% 106 45.3% 7.03%
342 OK-504 Norman / Cleveland County 585 578 594 419 7 1.2% -16 -2.7% 175 41.8% 166 39.6% 12.09%
343 OK-505 Northeast Oklahoma CoC 635 370 305 317 265 71.6% 65 21.3% -12 -3.8% 318 100.3% 13.13%
344 OK-506 Southewst Oklahoma CoC 272 168 250 96 104 61.9% -82 -32.8% 154 160.4% 176 183.3% 5.62%
345 OK-507 Southeastern Oklahoma Regional CoC 389 268 229 178 121 45.1% 39 17.0% 51 28.7% 211 118.5% 8.04%
346 OR-500 Eugene/Springfield/Lane County CoC 2,232 2,137 2,332 1,293 95 4.4% -195 -8.4% 1,039 80.4% 939 72.6% 12.90%
347 OR-501 Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County CoC 4,085 3,918 3,918 5,104 167 4.3% 0 0.0% -1,186 -23.2% -1,019 -20.0% 23.60%
348 OR-502 Medford/Ashland/Jackson County CoC 899 654 624 770 245 37.5% 30 4.8% -146 -19.0% 129 16.8% 5.19%
349 OR-503 Central Oregon CoC 742 1,736 2,029 824 -994 -57.3% -293 -14.4% 1,205 146.2% -82 -10.0% 4.29%
350 OR-504 Salem/Marion/Polk Counties CoC 2,366 1,997 1,997 1,491 369 18.5% 0 0.0% 506 33.9% 875 58.7% 13.67%
351 OR-505 Oregon Balance of State CoC 4,411 7,863 4,434 3,260 -3,452 -43.9% 3,429 77.3% 1,174 36.0% 1,151 35.3% 25.48%
352 OR-506 Hillsboro/Beaverton/Washington County CoC 748 772 680 661 -24 -3.1% 92 13.5% 19 2.9% 87 13.2% 4.32%
353 OR-507 Clackamas County CoC 1,826 1,576 1,576 1,768 250 15.9% 0 0.0% -192 -10.9% 58 3.3% 10.55%
354 PA-500 Philadelphia CoC 6,304 6,871 7,640 6,653 -567 -8.3% -769 -10.1% 987 14.8% -349 -5.2% 41.76%
355 PA-501 Harrisburg/Dauphin County CoC 421 421 412 479 0 0.0% 9 2.2% -67 -14.0% -58 -12.1% 2.79%
356 PA-502 Upper Darby/Chester/Haverford/Delaware County CoC 778 653 696 731 125 19.1% -43 -6.2% -35 -4.8% 47 6.4% 5.15%
357 PA-503 Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton/Luzerne County CoC 202 171 188 161 31 18.1% -17 -9.0% 27 16.8% 41 25.5% 1.34%
358 PA-504 Lower Marion/Norristown/Abington/Montgomery County CoC 469 479 526 629 -10 -2.1% -47 -8.9% -103 -16.4% -160 -25.4% 3.11%
359 PA-505 Chester County CoC 351 314 387 288 37 11.8% -73 -18.9% 99 34.4% 63 21.9% 2.33%
360 PA-506 Reading/Berks County CoC 385 496 739 423 -111 -22.4% -243 -32.9% 316 74.7% -38 -9.0% 2.55%
361 PA-507 Altoona/Central Pennsylvania CoC 1,170 1,039 1,017 964 131 12.6% 22 2.2% 53 5.5% 206 21.4% 7.75%
362 PA-508 Scranton/Lackawanna County CoC 280 260 222 297 20 7.7% 38 17.1% -75 -25.3% -17 -5.7% 1.85%
363 PA-509 Allentown/Northeast Pennsylvania CoC 738 720 645 589 18 2.5% 75 11.6% 56 9.5% 149 25.3% 4.89%
364 PA-510 Lancaster City & County CoC 666 707 589 561 -41 -5.8% 118 20.0% 28 5.0% 105 18.7% 4.41%
365 PA-511 Bristol/Bensalem/Bucks County CoC 474 485 262 397 -11 -2.3% 223 85.1% -135 -34.0% 77 19.4% 3.14%
366 PA-600 Pittsburgh/McKeesport/Penn Hills/Allegheny County CoC 1,418 1,308 1,380 1,297 110 8.4% -72 -5.2% 83 6.4% 121 9.3% 9.39%
367 PA-601 Southwest Pennsylvania CoC 562 581 628 568 -19 -3.3% -47 -7.5% 60 10.6% -6 -1.1% 3.72%
368 PA-602 Northwest Pennsylvania CoC 269 281 283 273 -12 -4.3% -2 -0.7% 10 3.7% -4 -1.5% 1.78%
369 PA-603 Beaver County CoC 220 213 213 111 7 3.3% 0 0.0% 102 91.9% 109 98.2% 1.46%
370 PA-605 Erie City & County CoC 389 379 393 396 10 2.6% -14 -3.6% -3 -0.8% -7 -1.8% 2.58%
371 PR-502 Puerto Rico Balance of Commonwealth CoC 1,775 707 2,004 1,834 1,068 151.1% -1,297 -64.7% 170 9.3% -59 -3.2% 43.61%
372 PR-503 South/Southeast Puerto Rico CoC 2,295 2,305 2,305 2,530 -10 -0.4% 0 0.0% -225 -8.9% -235 -9.3% 56.39%
373 RI-500 Rhode Island Statewide CoC 1,607 1,196 1,372 1,440 411 34.4% -176 -12.8% -68 -4.7% 167 11.6% 100.00%
374 SC-500 Charleston/Low Country CoC 416 539 539 2,714 -123 -22.8% 0 0.0% -2,175 -80.1% -2,298 -84.7% 9.30%
375 SC-501 Greenville/Anderson/Spartanburg Upstate CoC 1,164 1,606 1,606 1,813 -442 -27.5% 0 0.0% -207 -11.4% -649 -35.8% 26.02%
376 SC-502 Columbia/Midlands CoC 1,368 1,569 1,569 2,653 -201 -12.8% 0 0.0% -1,084 -40.9% -1,285 -48.4% 30.58%
377 SC-503 Myrtle Beach/Sumter City & County CoC 1,316 1,770 1,770 1,937 -454 -25.6% 0 0.0% -167 -8.6% -621 -32.1% 29.42%
378 SC-504 Florence City & County/Pee Dee CoC 209 176 176 497 33 18.8% 0 0.0% -321 -64.6% -288 -57.9% 4.67%
379 SD-500 South Dakota Statewide CoC 731 579 579 1,029 152 26.3% 0 0.0% -450 -43.7% -298 -29.0% 100.00%
380 TN-500 Chattanooga/Southeast Tennessee CoC 513 87 1,064 685 426 489.7% -977 -91.8% 379 55.3% -172 -25.1% 4.87%
381 TN-501 Memphis/Shelby County CoC 1,613 1,566 1,814 1,776 47 3.0% -248 -13.7% 38 2.1% -163 -9.2% 15.32%
382 TN-502 Knoxville/Knox County CoC 959 930 956 864 29 3.1% -26 -2.7% 92 10.6% 95 11.0% 9.11%
383 TN-503 South Central Tennessee CoC 226 328 360 388 -102 -31.1% -32 -8.9% -28 -7.2% -162 -41.8% 2.15%
384 TN-504 Nashville/Davidson County CoC 2,236 2,217 2,156 1,982 19 0.9% 61 2.8% 174 8.8% 254 12.8% 21.23%
385 TN-506 Oak Ridge/Upper Cumberland CoC 1,229 704 704 1,126 525 74.6% 0 0.0% -422 -37.5% 103 9.1% 11.67%
386 TN-507 Jackson/West Tennessee CoC 2,214 2,187 2,255 1,873 27 1.2% -68 -3.0% 382 20.4% 341 18.2% 21.02%
387 TN-509 Appalachian Regional CoC 840 559 559 522 281 50.3% 0 0.0% 37 7.1% 318 60.9% 7.98%
388 TN-510 Murfreesboro/Rutherford City CoC 204 223 438 344 -19 -8.5% -215 -49.1% 94 27.3% -140 -40.7% 1.94%
389 TN-512 Morristown/Blount, Sevier, Campbell, Cocke Counties CoC 498 904 904 0 -406 -44.9% 0 0.0% 904 - 498 - 4.73%
390 TX-500 San Antonio/Bexar County CoC 2,690 4,063 2,247 1,631 -1,373 -33.8% 1,816 80.8% 616 37.8% 1,059 64.9% 7.32%
391 TX-501 Corpus Christi/Nueces County CoC 658 277 277 3,100 381 137.5% 0 0.0% -2,823 -91.1% -2,442 -78.8% 1.79%
392 TX-503 Austin/Travis County CoC 2,641 3,451 5,281 3,025 -810 -23.5% -1,830 -34.7% 2,256 74.6% -384 -12.7% 7.18%
393 TX-504 Dewitt, Lavaca, Victoria Counties CoC 156 487 487 317 -331 -68.0% 0 0.0% 170 53.6% -161 -50.8% 0.42%

2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
Change
08-09
% Change
08-09
Total
Change
07-08
%
Change
07-08
Total
Change
06-07
%
Change
06-07
Total
Change
06-09
%
Change
06-09
Continuum of Care Total Point-In-Time Homeless Counts, 2006-2009
#
CoC
Number CoC Name
1
% of 2009
Statewide
Total Count
Change 2006 to 2009Total PIT Counts
450 WV-508 West Virginia Balance of State CoC 1,003 1,297 1,635 478 -294 -22.7% -338 -20.7% 1,157 242.1% 525 109.8% 60.17%
451 WY-500 Wyoming Statewide CoC 515 751 537 529 -236 -31.4% 214 8 1.5% -14 -2.6% 100.00%
TOTAL 643,067 664,414 671,888 759,101 -21,347 -3.2% -6,185 -0.9% -87,213 -11.5% -116,034 -15.3%
1 Only active 2009 CoCs are reported in this table. All inactive or closed CoCs have been included in the national totals for 2006, 2007 and 2008, but are not individually reported.

Appendix D:
Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons
Using HMIS Data

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-1
Appendix D
Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS
Data
Appendix D-1: Estimate of Sheltered Homeless Individuals and Families
during a One-Year Period, October 2008–September 2009
Household Type

Number of Sheltered Persons
All Sheltered Persons… 1,558,917
…in emergency shelters only 1,207,229

…in transitional housing only 284,616

…in both emergency shelters and transitional
housing
67,072

Individuals… 1,034,659
…in emergency shelters only 840,394
…in transitional housing only 149,760
…in both emergency shelters and transitional
housing
44,504

Persons in Families… 535,447
…in emergency shelters only 375,334
…in transitional housing only 134,069
…in both emergency shelters and transitional
housing
26,044

Households with Children 170,129
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

D-2 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data

Appendix D-2: Sheltered Homeless Persons by Household Type, October
2008–September 2009
Household Type

Number

Number of Homeless Persons 1,558,917

Individuals 1,034,659
Single adult male households 722,030
Single adult female households 261,805
Unaccompanied youth and several-children
households
22,722
Several-adult households 25,216
Unknown 2,885

Persons in Families 535,447
Adults in households with children 210,510
Children in households with adults 323,325
Unknown 1,613
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D-3: Seasonal Point-in-Time Count of Sheltered Homeless Persons
by Household Type, October 2008–September 2009
Number of Sheltered Homeless
Persons

All Sheltered
Persons Individuals
Persons in
Families

On a single night in
October 2008

322,380 168,461 153,919
January 2009 348,274 191,223 157,051
April 2009 332,603 177,200 155,403
July 2009 333,387 177,217 156,170

On an average night

331,568 176,784 154,784
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-3
Appendix D-4: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons by
Household Type, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics
All Sheltered
Persons Individuals
Persons in
Families

Number of Homeless Persons 1,558,917 1,034,659 535,447
Gender of Adults 1,212,539 1,011,819 210,511
Female 439,320 275,616 167,454
Male 770,491 733,685 42,824
Unknown 2,728 2,518 233

Gender of Children 344,660 22,714 323,322
Female 170,795 12,330 159,167
Male 173,26 10,354 163,571
Unknown 605 30 584

Ethnicity
Non–Hispanic/non–Latino 1,224,858 844,909 388,952
Hispanic/Latino 295,902 162,504 135,233
Unknown 38,157 27,246 11,263

Race
White, non–Hispanic/non–Latino 553,942 442,652 115,173
White, Hispanic/Latino 168,396 101,072 68,162
Black or African American 562,964 333,211 233,882
Asian 10,434 6,414 4,134
American Indian or Alaska Native 47,267 27,490 19,713
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 9,519 3,096 6,357
Several races 102,393 61,980 41,408
Unknown 104,001 58,744 46,618

Age
Under 1 39,555 1,842 37,918
1 to 5 133,416 1,768 132,204
6 to 12 107,247 2,503 105,093
13 to 17 64,277 16,518 48,020
18 to 30 346,044 232,516 116,101
31 to 50 594,323 511,461 87,455
51 to 61 223,594 219,639 6,099
62 and older 43,338 43,033 765
Unknown 7,122 5,379 1,793

Persons by Household Size
1 person 996,705 1,005,500 0
2 people 154,978 25,455 130,251
3 people 158,594 2,480 156,711
4 people 122,953 610 122,855
5 or more people 122,969 182 123,306
Unknown 2,718 433 2,323

D-4 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data

Appendix D-4: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons by
Household Type, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics
All Sheltered
Persons Individuals
Persons in
Families
Veteran (adults only) 1,212,539 1,011,818 210,511
Yes 127,634 124,744 4,072
No 1,019,490 836,760 190,740
Unknown 65,415 50,314 15,699

Disabled (adults only) 1,212,538 1,011,820 210,510
Yes 409,962 385,47 27,078
No 674,473 513,466 166,630
Unknown 128,103 112,884 16,802
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-5

Appendix D-5: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons in
Emergency Shelters, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics
Persons in
Emergency
Shelters Individuals
Persons in
Families

Number of Homeless Persons 1,274,301 884,899 401,378
Gender of Adults 1,016,212 866,306 159,293
Female 346,192 224,533 125,162
Male 667,877 639,805 33,922
Unknown 2,143 1,968 209

Gender of Children 256,789 18,543 240,818
Female 125,884 9,609 117,539
Male 130,44 8,909 122,840
Unknown 456 25 439

Ethnicity
Non–Hispanic/non–Latino 998,899 717,476 290,691
Hispanic/Latino 246,661 146,605 102,459
Unknown 28,741 20,818 8,229

Race
White, non–Hispanic/non–Latino 448,557 375,464 76,969
White, Hispanic/Latino 137,295 91,528 46,791
Black or African American 454,454 277,186 181,802
Asian 7,983 5,043 3,005
American Indian or Alaska Native 42,237 25,132 17,393
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 5,656 2,314 3,379
Several races 82,025 53,778 29,068
Unknown 96,094 54,454 42,972

Age
Under 1 29,310 830 28,802
1 to 5 98,183 1,266 97,915
6 to 12 79,356 2,242 77,910
13 to 17 49,847 14,124 36,171
18 to 30 279,728 194,575 87,998
31 to 50 498,558 437,137 65,935
51 to 61 193,266 190,263 4,649
62 and older 40,310 40,018 632
Unknown 5,742 4,444 1,367

Persons by Household Size
1 person 852,278 859,881 0
2 people 117,861 21,960 97,165
3 people 117,894 2283 116,792
4 people 90,384 569 90,738

D-6 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data
Appendix D-5: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons in
Emergency Shelters, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics
Persons in
Emergency
Shelters Individuals
Persons in
Families
5 or more people 94,390 152 95,222
Unknown 1,493 54 1,462
Veteran (adults only) 1,016,212 866,306 159,293
Yes 105,108 102,941 3,077
No 857,195 722,071 143,036
Unknown 53,909 41,294 13,180

Disabled (adults only) 1,016,212 866,306 159,293
Yes 312,850 298,109 17,608
No 591,160 468,210 128,581
Unknown 112,202 99,987 13,104
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-7

Appendix D-6: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons in
Transitional Housing, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics
Persons in
Transitional
Housing Individuals
Persons in
Families

Number of Homeless Persons 351,688 194,264 160,113

Gender of Adults 248,788 189,240 61,487
Female 112,191 62,711 50,364
Male 135,901 125,853 11,087
Unknown 696 676 36

Gender of Children 102,403 4,942 98,209
Female 52,082 3,124 49,337
Male 50,137 1,811 48,692
Unknown 184 7 180

Ethnicity
Non–Hispanic/non–Latino 276,741 161,726 117,187
Hispanic/Latino 63,466 24,496 39,421
Unknown 11,481 8,043 3,504

Race
White, non–Hispanic/non–Latino 129,070 85,330 44,633
White, Hispanic/Latino 40,563 15,347 25,405
Black or African American 132,267 71,081 62,324
Asian 2,980 1,675 1,327
American Indian or Alaska Native 6,420 3,100 3,365
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 4,524 973 3,580
Several races 24,466 10,135 14,607
Unknown 11,398 6,624 4,871

Age
Under 1 11,883 1,084 10,881
1 to 5 41,001 597 40,709
6 to 12 32,530 399 32,365
13 to 17 16,916 2,862 14,179
18 to 30 80,689 47,860 33,425
31 to 50 121,650 96,505 26,098
51 to 61 40,247 38,797 1,781
62 and older 5,129 5,002 165
Unknown 1,644 1,160 509

Persons by Household Size
1 person 187,677 189,175 0
2 people 43,308 4254 39,397
3 people 47,572 322 47,594
4 people 37,890 65 38,070

D-8 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data
Appendix D-6: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons in
Transitional Housing, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics
Persons in
Transitional
Housing Individuals
Persons in
Families
5 or more people 33,887 39 34,093
Unknown 1,354 409 958
Veteran (adults only) 248,789 189,240 61,486
Yes 28,388 27,399 1224
No 206,145 150,605 57,123
Unknown 14,256 11,236 3,139

Disabled (adults only) 248,789 189,240 61,487
Yes 115,684 105,374 11,195
No 111,201 66,496 45,537
Unknown 21,904 17,370 4,755
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-9

Appendix D-7: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons by
Location, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics Principal Cities
Suburban and Rural
Areas

Number of Homeless Persons 1,063,613 495,304
Gender of Adults 854,442 358,097
Female 294,131 145,189
Male 558,47 212,020
Unknown 1,840 888

Gender of Children 207,860 136,800
Female 102,974 67,821
Male 104,487 68,773
Unknown 399 206

Ethnicity
Non–Hispanic/non–Latino 811,759 413,099
Hispanic/Latino 228,953 66,949
Unknown 22,901 15,256

Race
White, non–Hispanic/non–Latino 326,917 227,026
White, Hispanic/Latino 128,221 40,175
Black or African American 405,904 157,059
Asian 6,564 3,870
American Indian or Alaska Native 35,339 11,928
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 5,286 4233
Several races 67,075 35,318
Unknown 88,307 15,694

Age
Under 1 24,825 14,730
1 to 5 82,389 51,028
6 to 12 64,440 42,808
13 to 17 36,057 28,219
18 to 30 235,464 110,580
31 to 50 416,010 178,313
51 to 61 164,800 58,794
62 and older 34,164 9,174
Unknown 5,464 1,658

Persons by Household Size
1 person 716,662 280,043
2 people 102,287 52,691
3 people 95,023 63,570
4 people 72,812 50,142

D-10 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data
Appendix D-7: Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons by
Location, October 2008–September 2009
Characteristics Principal Cities
Suburban and Rural
Areas
5 or more people 74,891 48,079
Unknown 1,939 779
Veteran (adults only)

Yes 854,443 358,096
No 91,369 36,265
Unknown 716,732 302,758
46,342 19,073
Disabled (adults only)

Yes 854,443 358,097
No 261,426 148,53
Unknown 86,807 41,297
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-11

Appendix D-8: Earlier Living Situation of Persons Using Homeless Residential
Services by Household Type, October 2008–September 2009
Earlier Living Situation
All Sheltered
Adults
Individual
Adults
Adults in
Families

Number of Homeless Adults

1,235,236

1,034,659

210,510

Living Arrangement the Night before Program
Entry

Place not meant for human habitation 162,753 156,447 7,581
Emergency shelter 232,193 196,286 37,425
Transitional housing 28,245 23,706 4,807
Permanent supportive housing 2,542 1,987 558
Psychiatric facility 13,765 13,509 333
Substance abuse treatment center or detox 51,488 48,645 3,250
Hospital (nonpsychiatric) 14,279 13,932 490
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention 53,140 52,682 843
Rented housing unit 102,357 70,955 32,144
Owned housing unit 21,844 16,966 5,072
Staying with family 190,766 135,759 56,309
Staying with friends 134,456 109,529 25,971
Hotel or motel (no voucher) 35,687 26,730 9,231
Foster care home 4,293 4,134 214
Other living arrangement 52,970 45,614 7,528
Unknown 134,458 117,775 18,756

Stability of Previous Night’s Living Arrangement
Stayed 1 week or less 214,216 187,407 28,210
Stayed more than 1 week, but less than a month 149,343 124,170 26,098
Stayed 1 to 3 months 196,577 156,581 40,933
Stayed more than 3 months, but less than a year 167,212 129,107 38,853
Stayed 1 year or longer 208,514 168,051 41,802
Unknown 299,375 269,343 34,614

ZIP Code of Last Permanent Address
Same jurisdiction as program location 633,029 504,152 135,024
Different jurisdiction than program location 366,863 323,320 47,449
Unknown 235,344 207,187 28,038
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding. Number of adults is equal to the number of adults in families and
individuals, including unaccompanied youth.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

D-12 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data

Appendix D-9: Earlier Living Situation of Persons Using Homeless Residential
Services in Emergency Shelters, October 2008–September 2009
Earlier Living Situation
Adults in
Emergency
Shelters
Individual
Adults
Adults in
Families

Number of Homeless Adults 1,034,622 884,898 159,293

Living Arrangement the Night before Program Entry
Place not meant for human habitation 148,629 144,256 5,595
Emergency shelter 171,575 156,298 16,737
Transitional housing 14,424 13,450 1,114
Permanent supportive housing 2,297 1,825 494
Psychiatric facility 10,012 9,790 307
Substance abuse treatment center or detox 24,726 24,095 870
Hospital (nonpsychiatric) 12,436 12,065 468
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention 41,208 41,040 571
Rented housing unit 95,665 68,544 28,104
Owned housing unit 19,965 15,760 4,431
Staying with family 169,945 122,773 48,750
Staying with friends 123,450 101,948 22,614
Hotel or motel (no voucher) 32,739 25,260 7,711
Foster care home 2,061 2,000 86
Other living arrangement 45,046 39,487 5,944
Unknown 120,444 106,307 15,497

Stability of Previous Night’s Living Arrangement
Stayed 1 week or less 196,068 174,038 23,717
Stayed more than 1 week, but less than a month 117,852 98,937 19,869
Stayed 1 to 3 months 145,487 120,749 25,967
Stayed more than 3 months, but less than a year 122,266 95,757 27,589
Stayed 1 year or longer 184,655 150,097 36,189
Unknown 268,293 245,321 25,962

ZIP Code of Last Permanent Address
Same jurisdiction as program location 512,411 416,464 101,296
Different jurisdiction than program location 324,524 288,978 38,188
Unknown 197,686 179,456 19,809
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding. Number of adults is equal to the number of adults in families and
individuals, including unaccompanied youth
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-13

Appendix D-10: Earlier Living Situation of Persons Using Homeless Residential
Services in Transitional Housing, October 2008–September 2009
Earlier Living Situation
All Adults in
Transitional
Housing
Individual
Adults
Adults in
Families

Number of Homeless Adults 253,772 194,264 61,487

Living Arrangement the Night before Program
Entry

Place not meant for human habitation 22,372 20,035 2,532
Emergency shelter 70,390 48,061 22,861
Transitional housing 15,242 11,370 4,004
Permanent supportive housing 342 257 91
Psychiatric facility 4,335 4,337 39
Substance abuse treatment center or detox 29,285 26,930 2,579
Hospital (nonpsychiatric) 2,447 2,403 64
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention 14,275 14,041 307
Rented housing unit 11,126 5,899 5,297
Owned housing unit 2,734 1,907 852
Staying with family 28,343 18,602 9,952
Staying with friends 16,642 12,256 4,532
Hotel or motel (no voucher) 4,227 2,287 1,971
Foster care home 2,397 2,273 134
Other living arrangement 9,845 8,005 1,935
Unknown 19,770 15,602 4,338

Stability of Previous Night’s Living Arrangement
Stayed 1 week or less 26,377 20,656 5,920
Stayed more than 1 week, but less than a month 38,658 31,407 7,603
Stayed 1 to 3 months 60,202 43,439 17,240
Stayed more than 3 months, but less than a year 52,997 40,343 13,074
Stayed 1 year or longer 33,331 26,293 7,283
Unknown 42,209 32,126 10,367

ZIP Code of Last Permanent Address
Same jurisdiction as program location 149,795 110,492 40,418
Different jurisdiction than program location 56,453 45,665 11,353
Unknown 47,525 38,107 9,716
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding. Number of adults is equal to the number of adults in families
and individuals, including unaccompanied youth.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

D-14 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data

Appendix D-11: Earlier Living Situation of Persons Using Homeless Residential Services
by Location, October 2008–September 2009
Earlier Living Situation Principal Cities
Suburban and Rural
Areas

Number of Homeless Adults 865,692 369,546

Living Arrangement the Night before Program
Entry

Place not meant for human habitation 118,879 43,875
Emergency shelter 171,916 60,277
Transitional housing 19,872 8,373
Permanent supportive housing 1,967 575
Psychiatric facility 7,942 5,823
Substance abuse treatment center or detox 34,119 17,369
Hospital (nonpsychiatric) 9,203 5,076
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention 35,026 18,114
Rented housing unit 72,803 29,554
Owned housing unit 15,698 6,146
Staying with family 126,689 64,078
Staying with friends 81,590 52,866
Hotel or motel (no voucher) 19,405 16,282
Foster care home 2,928 1,365
Other living arrangement 39,624 13,346
Unknown 108,031 26,427

Stability of Previous Night’s Living Arrangement
Stayed 1 week or less 129,708 84,508
Stayed more than 1 week, but less than a month 92,516 56,827
Stayed 1 to 3 months 131,511 65,066
Stayed more than 3 months, but less than a year 109,521 57,691
Stayed 1 year or longer 144,629 63,885
Unknown 257,806 41,569

ZIP Code of Last Permanent Address
Same jurisdiction as program location 457,846 175,183
Different jurisdiction than program location 216,949 149,914
Unknown 190,89 44,448
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding. Number of adults is equal to the number of adults in families and
individuals, including unaccompanied youth.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data D-15

Appendix D-12: Length of Stay in Emergency Shelters by Household Type, October
2008–September 2009
Individuals
Length of Stay
Persons in
Emergency
Shelters All Male Female
Persons in
Families

Number of Homeless
Persons
1,273,001 884,849 648,714 234,142 400,111

Length of Stay 1,273,002 884,850 648,714 234,143 400,112
1 week or less 426,400 335,017 252,499 81,169 95,419
1 week to 1 month 338,374 247,304 179,294 67,727 93,993
1 to 2 months 186,183 125,246 88,238 36,889 62,596
2 to 3 months 101,572 58,910 42,931 15,932 43,604
3 to 4 months 66,750 36,885 26,779 10,084 30,514
4 to 5 months 40,267 23,546 17,235 6,287 17,151
5 to 6 months 29,342 15,179 11,076 4,088 14,475
6 to 7 months 21,659 10,847 8,118 2,695 11,051
7 to 8 months 14,322 7,236 5,366 1,867 7,252
8 to 9 months 10,001 5,135 3,917 1,207 4,991
9 to 10 months 8,399 3,988 2,777 1207 4,513
10 to 11 months 7,442 3,712 2,647 1062 3,819
11 months to 1 year 6,330 4,020 2,825 1,191 2,386
1 year 14,825 6,898 4,441 2,441 8,129
Unknown 1,136 927 571 297 219
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding. Total homeless persons may not add up to the sum of the length-
of-stay counts because length of stay was not collected for persons who could not be designated as adult or children.
Source: Homeless Management Information System data, October 2008–September 2009.

D-16 Appendix D: Counts of Homeless Sheltered Persons Using HMIS Data

Appendix D-13: Length of Stay in Transitional Housing by Household Type, October
2008–September 2009
Individuals
Length of Stay
Persons in
Transitional
Housing All Male Female
Persons in
Families

Number of Homeless
Persons
351,191 194,182 127,664 65,835 159,696

Length of Stay 351,195 194,178 127,666 65,833 159,695
1 week or less 17,646 12,643 8,076 4,547 5,151
1 week to 1 month 39,193 25,774 17,218 8,512 13,719
1 to 2 months 42,144 27,289 17,893 9,371 15,150
2 to 3 months 32,428 20,479 13,921 6,539 12,200
3 to 4 months 32,668 18,726 11,532 7,172 14,192
4 to 5 months 25,940 14,320 9,660 4,595 11,805
5 to 6 months 20,676 11,234 7,138 4,081 9,593
6 to 7 months 20,763 10,021 6,431 3,578 10,891
7 to 8 months 17,080 8,097 5,507 2,586 9,102
8 to 9 months 13,367 6,375 4,090 2,275 7,088
9 to 10 months 12,743 5,635 3,830 1,797 7,212
10 to 11 months 11,200 5,088 3,206 1,881 6,198
11 months to 1 year 11,858 5,789 3,750 2,035 6,149
1 year 52,420 22,067 15,272 6,779 30,799
Unknown 1,069 641 142 85 446
Note: Counts may not add up to total because of rounding. Total homeless persons may not add up to the sum of the length-
of-stay counts because length of stay was not collected for persons who could not be designated as adult or children.