Table of Contents
Key Insights
- After more than a decade of steady increases, homelessness in the County of Los Angeles has leveled off. The 2025 count fell 5% to under 67,800 and held flat in 2026.
- A growing number of unhoused Angelenos live in vehicles. Vehicles outnumbered people counted on the street or in tents/makeshift shelters from 2022 up until the most recent year of data.
- Compared to those sleeping outside or in tents, adults living in vehicles are more likely to be women, older, employed, and living with a pet, and less likely to be chronically homeless or report mental illness or substance use, suggesting fewer clinical vulnerabilities and more recent entry into homelessness.
- Health conditions are common among unsheltered adults, but affect a minority of them: About two in five reported a physical illness (39%) or substance use problem (39%), fewer than a third reported serious mental illness (30%), and just 10% reported all three.
- The vast majority of unhoused Angelenos lived in Los Angeles County before losing housing, and just 1% were last housed outside the U.S., underscoring the direct links between the region’s housing affordability and homelessness crises and the minimal impact of immigration.
- Women and girls account for 1 in 3 unhoused Angelenos and are more likely to be sheltered than unsheltered.
- Black residents remain overrepresented among Los Angeles County’s unhoused population.
Note: This chapter is based largely on LAHSA’s Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count and demographic surveys (see Data & Methods). Data for this chapter is available up to 2025, and in some places, 2026 – unlike the majority of data in the rest of the report, where 2024 is the most recent year of data.
The County of Los Angeles has the nation’s largest unsheltered population; nearly one in five unsheltered people in the United States lives in the region (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2026). After decades of political and civic neglect of housing and homelessness, the issue has risen to the top of the local political agenda over the past decade, becoming a central concern in mayoral campaigns and broader debates about urban governance.
Beginning in 2016, voters approved major public investments in homelessness services, including rehousing, outreach, and, more recently, health care. At the same time, heightened public attention to visible street homelessness, combined with preparations for global events such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Olympic Games, has intensified pressure on local governments to address encampments. In response, the city and county have expanded encampment resolution initiatives, including the City of Los Angeles’s Inside Safe program and the county’s Pathway Home program, which seeks to move people from encampments into interim and permanent housing while preventing encampments from re-forming. Yet, these efforts remain politically contentious, occurring alongside ordinances that restrict sleeping and camping in public spaces and ongoing debates about the effectiveness, costs, and long-term outcomes of encampment-focused interventions.
Although more people experiencing homelessness in LA County are accessing shelters than in years past, roughly two-thirds still live unsheltered in 2025, nearly double the national rate of 36% (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2026). This could mean living outdoors on the streets (i.e., “rough sleeping”); living on the streets in a tent or makeshift shelter; in a vehicle, such as a car, van, or RV; or in another place not meant for human habitation. The majority of LA’s unhoused population is thus particularly vulnerable, with no safe, stable place to escape inclement weather, natural disasters (including the January 2025 wildfires; Shannon et al., 2026), disease, violence and victimization, or displacement through government “sweeps.” On average, roughly seven unhoused Angelenos die on the streets each day (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2025).
Public debate about homelessness is often shaped by misconceptions about unhoused people and their experiences. This chapter, written in partnership with the Homelessness Policy Research Institute, uses data from the Los Angeles Homeless Count to present a more accurate picture. It updates trends over the past decade, explores the demographic and health characteristics of people experiencing homelessness, and highlights the geographic areas where unsheltered homelessness is most concentrated.
This chapter uses data from the annual Los Angeles Homeless Count, which is federally mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
- While earlier chapters look at patterns across all of LA County, this chapter focuses specifically on the LA County Continuum of Care (LA CoC)1 – the local system that coordinates housing and homelessness services for the entire county, excluding the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach, which operate their own separate Continuums of Care (CoC).
- This report uses HUD’s definition of homelessness, which primarily includes individuals lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence who are living in places not meant for human habitation (i.e., unsheltered) or living in shelters. HUD’s definition excludes large numbers of people who are couch-surfing or “doubled up,” including many students and families that would be considered homeless by the U.S. Department of Education.
Historical Trend of Rising Homelessness
The chart below shows annual estimates of the sheltered and unsheltered populations in the LA CoC between 2015 and 2026. Homelessness rose sharply over the past decade, from about 41,200 people on a single night in 2015 to a peak of over 71,300 in 2023. By 2025, the estimate had fallen 5% from the previous year to under 67,800, marking the first significant drop in years. The 2026 count held steady at a similar level. Crucially, the total remains higher than it was in 2022, and the total homeless population is large enough to fill every seat in Dodger Stadium with nearly 12,000 more people left outside. Absent fundamental changes to affordable housing policies, significant and sustained reductions in homelessness in the region are unlikely.
Note: Estimates for 2021 are excluded as the unsheltered point-in-time count was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sheltered counts and unsheltered estimates reflect the total among adults and youth.
As shown in the chart above, the long-term growth in the homeless population through 2023 was fueled mainly by an increase in the unsheltered population, rather than those staying in shelters. In 2023, the unsheltered population reached a peak of over 52,300, an 81% increase from 2015. Since the peak in the unsheltered population in 2023, its size has declined by roughly 6,300 people, to an estimated 45,970 unsheltered adults and youth living on the streets on any given night in 2026. Trends in the size of the overall unsheltered population only tell part of the story. The following section examines changes in the composition of unsheltered homelessness, including shifts in the proportion of rough sleepers, those residing in tents and makeshift shelters, and those living in vehicles.
Although the unsheltered population has recently decreased, the number of people accessing shelters has reached a record high in recent years. In 2026, over 22,600 people were sleeping in shelters on any given night, nearly double the number in 2015. Although roughly two-thirds of all people experiencing homelessness remained unsheltered in 2026, this represents a substantial decrease from the approximately three-quarters who were unsheltered between 2016 and 2019. These trends suggest that reducing unsheltered homelessness will remain a central focus of local policy, as elected officials face increasing pressure to address visible street homelessness and encampments in the lead-up to the 2028 Olympic Games.
Los Angeles will host the 2028 Summer Olympic Games before a global audience. By any reasonable projection, tens of thousands of people will continue to experience homelessness across the region when the Games begin. As a result, homelessness has become not only a social policy issue but also a major governance challenge for local officials responsible for preparing for one of the world’s largest mega events.
The geography of the Games makes this challenge particularly acute. Major venue clusters – including Exposition Park and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in South Los Angeles, SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, Crypto.com Arena in Downtown Los Angeles near Skid Row, and the Long Beach waterfront – are located in or near areas with some of the region’s highest concentrations of unsheltered homelessness. The planned Festival Trail, a 22-mile corridor connecting several major venues through South Los Angeles and Downtown Los Angeles, will traverse neighborhoods where thousands of unsheltered residents currently live.
Historically, host cities have sought to reduce visible homelessness ahead of major international events through enforcement, displacement, or other forms of social control. Los Angeles officials have emphasized a different approach, instead expanding investments in housing, shelter, and encampment resolution programs such as the City’s Inside Safe initiative and the County’s Pathway Home program. These efforts aim to move people from encampments into interim and permanent housing while reducing the need for punitive enforcement.
Whether these strategies will substantially reduce unsheltered homelessness before 2028 remains uncertain. Supporters argue that encampment resolution programs provide a more service-oriented alternative to traditional sweeps, while critics contend that they may reproduce many of the same harms associated with displacement. At present, evidence regarding the resolution programs’ long-term effectiveness remains limited. With the Opening Ceremony scheduled for July 14, 2028, the coming years will provide an important test of Los Angeles’s ability to address unsheltered homelessness while preparing for a global mega-event. HPRI will continue to monitor these developments and report updated findings.
Composition of Unsheltered Homelessness
As part of the annual unsheltered homeless count, thousands of volunteers canvass the 2,310 census tracts that make up the LA CoC over three nights. They are asked to count different types of unsheltered modalities:
- the number of people seen living on the streets (i.e., “rough sleepers”)
- the number of tents and makeshift shelters observed on the streets
- the number of vehicles appearing to be used for shelter
The graph below tracks trends in annual volunteer-generated counts across these three modalities from 2018 through 2026. From 2018 through 2023, the number of vehicles and, to a lesser extent, tents and makeshift shelters increased, while the number of rough sleepers remained relatively stable. From 2022 until 2025, vehicles outnumbered both tents and makeshift shelters as well as unsheltered individuals; however, rough sleepers are again the dominant modality countywide in 2026.
Note: Counts reflect raw, volunteer-generated counts and do not include Glendale (SPA 2), Pasadena (SPA 3), and Long Beach (SPA 8), which operate their own Continuums of Care. Rough sleeper counts are calculated as the sum of individual adults age 25 and older and family members. Counts for 2021 are excluded as the unsheltered point-in-time count was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Geographic Variation in Unsheltered Homelessness Modality3
It is important to note that unsheltered homelessness is not evenly distributed across LA County, as seen in the map below. Absolute unsheltered counts vary substantially across the County’s eight Service Planning Areas (SPAs),2 both in total size and across the three primary forms of unsheltered homelessness (i.e., rough sleepers, tents/makeshift shelters, and vehicles). According to volunteer-generated counts for the 2025 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, unsheltered homelessness is disproportionately concentrated in SPA 4 (Metro LA), which accounted for nearly one-quarter (24%) of the total unsheltered count across the LA CoC. Further, rough sleepers were the dominant unsheltered modality in SPAs 3 (San Gabriel Valley), 4 (Metro LA), 5 (West LA), and 7 (East LA), while vehicles were the dominant modality in SPAs 1 (Antelope Valley), 2 (San Fernando Valley), 6 (South LA), and 8 (South Bay/Harbor).
Note: Counts reflect raw, volunteer-generated counts and do not include Glendale (SPA 2), Pasadena (SPA 3), and Long Beach (SPA 8) who operate their own Continuums of Care. Rough sleeper counts are calculated as the sum of individual adults aged 25 and older and family members. Counts for 2021 are excluded as the unsheltered point-in-time count was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Clear geographic differences also emerge in both the direction and magnitude of change over time. From 2018 through 2025, counts of rough sleepers declined by 12-15% in SPAs 1 (Antelope Valley), 4 (Metro LA), and 8 (South Bay/Harbor), with minimal changes observed in the remaining SPAs. Tents and makeshift shelter counts, on the other hand, increased in most SPAs, most notably in SPAs 2 (San Fernando Valley; +104%), 1 (Antelope Valley; +39%), 5 (West LA; +36%), 6 (South LA; +31%), and 3 (San Gabriel Valley; +27%). SPA 4 stands out as a notable exception, where tent/makeshift shelter counts declined by 15% across this time period, a pattern likely reflecting the concentration of encampment sweeps in Metro LA (e.g., Hollywood, Skid Row).
In contrast, vehicle homelessness has grown substantially from 2018 to 2025 across much of the County, most dramatically in SPA 1 (Antelope Valley) where counts more than tripled over this time, representing an increase of 216%. Increases in vehicle counts were also observed in SPAs 6 (South LA; +47%), 4 (Metro LA; +24%), and 8 (South Bay/Harbor; +20%), while counts remained relatively stable in SPAs 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Geographic variation can be seen at an even finer scale. Within most SPAs, unsheltered homelessness is unevenly distributed across census tracts, and the degree of concentration varies meaningfully by modality. Rough sleepers are the most broadly dispersed across the CoC, though they still cluster in central LA and downtown, as well as in Santa Monica and Venice. Vehicles and tents or makeshift shelters are far more concentrated, anchored by a handful of high-density tracts, particularly in the Antelope Valley in northeastern LA County. These tract-level concentrations are invisible in SPA totals, yet they are precisely where outreach routing, resource allocation, and intervention design can have the largest impact.
Demographic Characteristics of the Unsheltered Adult Population by Modality
Each year, a survey of unsheltered adults provides a closer look at who is experiencing unsheltered homelessness and how characteristics differ by where people sleep: on the streets, in vehicles, in tents or makeshift shelters, or in other places not meant for human habitation. In 2025, based on where respondents reported sleeping the previous night (weighted to represent all unsheltered adults in LA County), an estimated 50% had slept rough, 25% in a vehicle, 23% in a tent or makeshift shelter, and 2% in another place not meant for human habitation. The table below presents the sociodemographic and health characteristics of each group.
Characteristic | Total (n=4,157) | Rough Sleeper (n=1,961) | Tent/Makeshift Shelter (n=934) | Vehicle (n=1,161) | Other (n=101) | p-value |
Age (years) | < 0.01 | |||||
25-54 | 73% | 73% | 78% | 68% | 78% | |
55-61 | 13% | 14% | 13% | 13% | 7% | |
62 and older | 13% | 13% | 8% | 19% | 15% | |
Gender | < 0.001 | |||||
Man Alone | 72% | 77% | 71% | 64% | 82% | |
Woman Alone | 26% | 20% | 28% | 35% | 17% | |
Other | 2% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | |
Race/Ethnicity | < 0.01 | |||||
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous Alone | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 0% | |
Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander Alone | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | |
Black Alone | 22% | 23% | 19% | 20% | 33% | |
White Alone | 22% | 24% | 23% | 17% | 9% | |
Hispanic/Latino | 48% | 43% | 48% | 55% | 55% | |
Other or Multiracial/ethnic Alone | 5% | 6% | 6% | 4% | 3% | |
Employed Full- or Part-Time (yes) | 5% | 3% | 5% | 9% | 8% | < 0.001 |
Chronically Homeless (yes) | 49% | 50% | 56% | 39% | 53% | < 0.001 |
Physical Illness/Disability (yes) | 39% | 39% | 42% | 37% | 37% | 0.51 |
Serious Mental Illness (yes) | 30% | 32% | 33% | 22% | 35% | < 0.01 |
Substance Use Problem (yes) | 39% | 42% | 46% | 26% | 43% | < 0.001 |
Co-occurring Physical Health, Mental Health, and Substance Use Problem (yes) | 10% | 10% | 12% | 5% | 13% | 0.03 |
Any Pets (yes) | 20% | 13% | 23% | 32% | 9% | < 0.001 |
Source: 2025 Los Angeles CoC Demographic Survey
Notes: Sample sizes (n) in the column headers reflect unweighted, deduplicated survey counts among eligible unsheltered adults who reported where they were sleeping last night and do not correspond to population-level estimates; proportions are weighted to represent the total unsheltered adult population age 25 years and older and may not sum to 100 due to rounding. P-values were calculated using a Rao-Scott design-adjusted chi-square test (reported as an F statistic). Unsheltered modality is based on where respondents reported sleeping last night; “Other” refers to those who reported sleeping in other places not meant for human habitation, including in an abandoned building, unconverted garage, attic, or basement, their workplace, or an airport. American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous, Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander, Black, white, and other or multiracial/ethnic categories each reflect people who identified with that group alone and who did not also identify as Hispanic/Latino; the Hispanic/Latino category includes everyone who identified as Hispanic/Latino, regardless of race. Chronic homelessness is defined as an adult with a disabling condition (e.g., a serious mental illness, substance use problem, or physical illness/disability) of long or indefinite duration who has either been: a) continuously homeless for at least one year; or b) homeless on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years where the combined length of time homeless is at least one year. The physical illness/disability, serious mental illness, substance use problem, and co-occurring conditions rows reflect only respondents who reported that the condition was of long-continuing or indefinite duration.
Notably, adults living in vehicles systematically differed from rough sleepers or those living in tents or makeshift shelters. Compared to rough sleepers and adults living in tents or makeshift shelters, respectively, adults living in vehicles were significantly more likely to be women (35% vs. 20% and 28%), age 62 or older (19% vs. 13% and 8%), employed full- or part-time (9% vs. 3% and 5%), and residing with a pet (32% vs. 13% and 23%). They were also significantly less likely to be chronically homeless (39% vs. 50% and 56%), report a serious mental illness (22% vs. 32% and 33%), or report a substance use problem (26% vs. 42% and 46%). Vehicle homelessness in the LA CoC, therefore, may capture a population with fewer compounding clinical vulnerabilities and characteristics consistent with a more recent entry into homelessness. Vehicle dwellers were also more likely than rough sleepers or those living in tents and makeshift shelters to identify as Hispanic/Latino (55% vs. 43% and 48%), a pattern consistent with Delgado Garcia and colleagues’ (2024) finding that the post–COVID-19 rise in Hispanic/Latino homelessness was concentrated among working unhoused and vehicle-dwelling populations.
Adults sleeping in “other” unsheltered locations represent a smaller but distinct subgroup. They have the highest reported proportions of serious mental illness (35%) and co-occurring physical health, mental health, and substance use conditions (13%), as well as the second highest proportion of chronic homelessness (53%). It follows that less visible or unconventional sheltering arrangements may coincide with acute and overlapping needs.
Across the unsheltered adult population, behavioral and physical health conditions were prevalent, but not exhibited among the majority. About one-third reported a physical illness (39%) or serious mental illness (30%), 39% reported a substance use problem, and only 10% of the population reported all three. These figures are broadly consistent with rates documented by Kuhn and colleagues (2026) and are meaningfully lower than those invoked by the current presidential administration to justify clinical or carceral interventions of homelessness over evidence-based approaches, such as Housing First. These data reinforce that behavioral health conditions, while not uncommon and frequently co-occurring, are not the primary driver of unsheltered homelessness in LA County.
Across All Modalities, Most Unsheltered Angelenos Were Most Recently Housed in LA County
Contrary to the common claim that most unhoused people come from other places in order to enjoy California’s warm weather or welfare benefits, most unsheltered adults in LA County end up very close to where they were last housed. As shown in the chart below, in 2025, 70% of survey respondents reported living in LA County the last time they were housed, underscoring that homelessness in Los Angeles is rooted in the region’s deep affordability challenges.
Notes: Proportions are weighted to represent the total unsheltered adult population aged 25 years and older based on n=4,283 completed, deduplicated, and eligible surveys. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Just 1% of survey respondents were last housed outside of the US, a share that has not increased over time. Recent research has linked the national rise in homelessness to immigration, attributing roughly 60% of the 2022–2024 increase in sheltered homelessness to asylum seekers; however, this effect was concentrated in a few localities (New York City, Chicago, Denver, and Massachusetts) and did not extend to unsheltered homelessness (Meyer et al., 2026). Similarly, our data provide no evidence that immigration drives unsheltered homelessness in LA County.
Unsheltered Angelenos Experience Multiple, Overlapping Drivers of Housing Loss
Unsheltered adult survey respondents were asked to describe their reasons for falling into homelessness. Because respondents could select multiple reasons for homelessness, these figures represent overlapping pathways into homelessness rather than mutually exclusive causes. Consistent with prior years, economic factors, such as eviction, unemployment, and program timing-out, were the most commonly cited drivers of homelessness (50%), with social factors such as family conflict, domestic violence, and institutional discharge close behind at 45%. Health-related reasons (24%) and other contributors (29%; for example, natural disasters, uninhabitable living conditions) were less prevalent but still affected more than one in four unsheltered residents.
Nearly half (49%) of unsheltered respondents reported more than one specific reason for housing loss, while 43% reported drivers spanning two or more of the four categories shown in the chart below. These data suggest that reasons for homelessness rarely reduce to a single cause and that effective prevention must address multiple, simultaneous vulnerabilities, with economic stabilization (e.g., eviction prevention, rental assistance, employment supports) and social network resources (e.g., family mediation, transitional supports for those exiting foster care or incarceration) central to any effective response strategy.
Notes: Reasons for homelessness categories are not mutually exclusive. Proportions are weighted to represent the total unsheltered adult population aged 25 years and older based on n=4,283 completed, deduplicated and eligible surveys. Economic reasons included: eviction, timing out of previous program, unemployment, and/or losing one’s job due to COVID-19. Social reasons included: marital/relationship split, child support, household conflict, death or illness of family member(s), domestic violence, being kicked out due to sexual orientation, aging out of foster care, lack of friend/family support, recent immigrant arrival, being released from jail, safety concerns, human trafficking, and/or housing discrimination. Health-related reasons included: physical health, mental health, being released from healthcare facilities, and/or substance use. Other reasons included: uninhabitable living conditions, losing one’s home to natural disaster(s), and/or other specified reason(s).
A Deeper Look at Demographic Disparities among Houseless Angelenos
Women and Girls Account for One in Every Three Unhoused Angelenos and Are More Likely to Be Sheltered Than Unsheltered
As shown in the chart below, women and girls accounted for one in three (33%) of the LA CoC’s unhoused population in 2025, while men and boys accounted for two-thirds (66%), a distribution that has remained consistent over the past several years. This disparity differs by sheltered status. Women and girls are more likely to be living in shelters, making up 44% of the sheltered population compared to 27% of unsheltered people. Conversely, men and boys disproportionately accounted for nearly three-quarters (72%) of the unsheltered population, compared with 55% among those who are sheltered. Those identifying as another gender made up 1% of the unhoused population, with no differences by shelter status.
Notes: Beginning in 2024, there were changes to how gender identity was defined following updated reporting guidelines from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Proportions may not add to 100 due to rounding. Sheltered and unsheltered populations include adults and youth (sheltered N = 23,362; unsheltered N = 44,415; total N = 67,777).
Children Are Largely Sheltered, While Working-Age Adults Are Not
As shown in the chart below, the unhoused population skews heavily toward working-age adults. People age 25-54 made up 63% of all unhoused people in the LA CoC in 2025, well above their 43% share of the county population, while children under 18 were underrepresented among the unhoused (9%) compared to the county overall (21%). Adults 55 and older also made up a somewhat smaller share of the unhoused population (23%) than of the county (28%).
Differences in age distribution also emerge across shelter status. Children under 18 accounted for 19% of the sheltered population but just 4% of unsheltered people, reflecting the substantial number of families with children utilizing emergency and transitional shelters. Conversely, unsheltered homelessness was the most concentrated among adults age 25-54 (68% compared with 53% of the sheltered population).
Disaggregating by gender, as seen in the chart below, shows that differences emerge at the ends of the age distribution, not in the dominant working-age band. Adults age 25-54 accounted for a comparable majority of both genders within each shelter status: roughly half of the sheltered (54% of men, 52% of women) and roughly two-thirds of the unsheltered population (67% of men, 69% of women). Clearer gender differences emerged at the younger and older ends of the age spectrum. Children under 18 made up more than one in four sheltered women and girls (26%) but only 14% of sheltered men and boys; among the unsheltered, 8% of women and girls were children, compared with 3% of men and boys. Finally, older adults age 55 and over were substantially more prevalent among unsheltered men (28%) than unsheltered women (19%), pointing to a concentration of older-adult homelessness among men.
Unsheltered youth (age under 25) accounted for approximately 2% of the LA CoC’s overall unhoused population and 3% of all unsheltered individuals in 2025. Unlike the adult count, which uses a visual street tally during the annual PIT count, youth cannot be reliably enumerated this way. Estimates have instead come from a separate survey, with providers and volunteers deployed to sampled census tracts and hotspots to locate and survey youth directly. This approach has grown difficult to implement and is widely understood to undercount youth who are hidden, mobile, or disengaged from services. For the 2026 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, the LA CoC introduced Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS), a peer-referral methodology designed to reach hidden, hard-to-count populations, to enumerate and describe the unsheltered youth population. Because RDS is expected to yield a more accurate picture of unsheltered youth homelessness, we anticipate future reports to dedicate specific attention to this group, including their sociodemographic characteristics, health and chronic homelessness status, and trends over time.
Black Angelenos Continue to Be Disproportionately Affected by Both Sheltered and Unsheltered Homelessness
As highlighted in last year’s report, Black Angelenos remain overrepresented in the LA CoC’s unhoused population, making up 28% of people experiencing homelessness despite comprising just 8% of the county’s population; their overrepresentation holds across both sheltered and unsheltered settings. American Indian, Alaska Native, and Indigenous peoples are similarly overrepresented. By contrast, white people (19%) and Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islanders (2%) are underrepresented among the unhoused compared to their share of the county population (25% and 15%, respectively). Hispanic/Latino Angelenos make up the largest share of the unhoused population (46%), a proportion roughly on par with their share of the county population as a whole (49%). However, we remind readers that the rate of Hispanic/Latino homelessness has risen since the COVID-19 pandemic. See the chart below for a full breakdown of sheltered and unsheltered homelessness by race and ethnicity.
Notes: Beginning in 2024, there were changes to how race and ethnicity were defined following updated reporting guidelines from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous, Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander, Black, and White reflect people who identified with that racial group alone and who did not also identify as Hispanic/Latino; the other or multiracial/ethnic category reflects non-Hispanic individuals who did not identify with a single racial group; and the Hispanic/Latino category includes everyone who identified as Hispanic/Latino, regardless of race. “All People in LA County” includes all of Los Angeles County rather than only the LA CoC (which excludes Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach). Proportions may not add to 100 due to rounding. Sheltered and unsheltered populations include adults and youth (sheltered N = 23,362; unsheltered N = 44,415; total N = 67,777).
In response to these racial and ethnic disparities and trends, LA County has formally adopted a Targeted Universalism framework for its homelessness strategy (powell et al., 2019). This approach establishes a universal goal (safe, stable, and permanent housing for all) but uses tailored, population-specific strategies to reach groups facing the most severe systemic barriers, such as Black and Brown Angelenos (Los Angeles County Anti-Racism, Diversity & Inclusion Initiative, 2026).
Contributors
- Authors
- Benjamin Henwood, USC Homelessness Policy Research Institute
- Amanda Landrian Gonzalez, USC Homelessness Policy Research Institute
- Randall Kuhn, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health
- Jared N. Schachner, USC Price School of Public Policy
- Research Team
- Jessie Chien, UCLA California Center for Population Research
- Scot Hickey, USC Homelessness Policy Research Institute
- Stephanie Kwack, USC Homelessness Policy Research Institute
- Amy Stein, USC Homelessness Policy Research Institute
- Cameron Yap, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
- Christine Steinmann, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
Citations
Delgado Garcia, M. A., Chinchilla, M., Henwood, B., Chien, J., Kwack, S., & Kuhn, R. (2024, July).
Latino‑Hispanic unsheltered homelessness before and after COVID‑19. American Journal of Public Health, 114(Suppl. 6), S510–S514. Link
Los Angeles County Anti-Racism, Diversity & Inclusion Initiative. (2026). Task Force on Latinx People Experiencing Homelessness report. Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office. Link
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2025). Mortality rates and causes of death among people experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County: 2017–2023 (Homeless Mortality Report 2025). Link
Meyer, B.D., Wyse, A., & Williams, D. (2026). Asylum seekers and the rise in homelessness. Journal of Public Economics. Link
powell, j. a., Menendian, S., & Ake, W. (2019). Targeted universalism: Policy & practice. Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, University of California, Berkeley. Link
Shannon, E. M., Chien, J., Paulazzo, D., Arreglo, G., Henwood, B. F., & Kuhn, R. (2026). Impact of the January 2025 Los Angeles Firestorm on People Experiencing Homelessness. American Journal of Public Health, 116(6), 790-797. Link
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2026). The 2025 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1—Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness in the U.S. HUD User. Link
Footnotes
- As of the writing of this report, HUD has moved to suspend certain federal funding from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the lead agency for the LA CoC, citing financial mismanagement. LAHSA filed suit against HUD on June 29, 2026 to halt the funding cutoff. On July 2, 2026, a federal judge indicated he intends to preserve current funding while the case proceeds, ordering both parties to propose an interim agreement maintaining status-quo funding and setting an August 2026 hearing on whether to formally block the suspension. Readers should be aware that ongoing federal oversight and funding decisions may affect future homelessness planning, service delivery, and data collection efforts in the region.
- Service Planning Areas (SPAs) are eight geographic subdivisions of LA County used for service planning, resource allocation, and reporting: SPA 1 (Antelope Valley: Lancaster, Palmdale); SPA 2 (San Fernando Valley: Burbank, San Fernando); SPA 3 (San Gabriel Valley: Pomona, Alhambra, Arcadia); SPA 4 (Metro LA: Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-City); SPA 5 (West LA: Santa Monica, Malibu, Beverly Hills); SPA 6 (South LA: Watts, Compton, southern City of LA); SPA 7 (East LA: Whittier, Downey, Norwalk, West Covina); and SPA 8 (South Bay/Harbor: El Segundo, Torrance, Carson, San Pedro).
- Topline estimates and observed PIT counts for the 2026 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count are presented at the beginning of this report. All subsequent analyses draw on 2025 Homeless Count data, the most recent year for which detailed results are available at the time of writing.
