Dec 7, 2025
seen from Türkiye
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Switzerland
seen from Australia
seen from Italy
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from Finland
Over 100 million children are homeless and/or on the streets.
[PT: Over 100 million children are homeless and/or on the streets /End PT]
That's the numbers estimated back in 2015, and regardless of whether they've grown or shrunk since then, the issue still remains that there are MILLIONS of minors on the streets.
Homelessness and street survival is an intersecting issue for people of all marginalized groups, and that includes the youth.
Homeless youth are very likely to be sex trafficked and targeted by dangerous people to be groomed into criminal activities or otherwise unsafe practices.
Many homeless youth are runaways, usually trying to escape abusive households.
Note for clarity: "Children" and "kids" throughout this post will be referring to teenagers as well, since minors of all ages are grouped together in these statistics.
---
What is homelessness and street children?
[PT: What is homelessness and street children? /end PT]
Homelessness is defined by a lack of stable housing. This includes living without shelter, in a tent, in a car, in a homeless shelter, couch surfing, or using public locations/transport for shelter.
"Street children" are children who spend a majority of their time on the street due to housing complications. Some of them are not considered "truly homeless", because they technically have a house, but this house is usually inaccessible or unsafe for them, and thus they do not reside in it much, if at all. Usually, they only spend the night there, but the rest of their time is spent outdoors.
When discussing the statistics of both these concepts, I cannot neatly discern between them, because so many of the studies use the statistics interchangeably. Street children have very few distinctions anyways, and thus trying to separate the two is usually not beneficial anyways.
---
What are the statistics of homeless youth and street children around the globe?
[PT: What are the statistics of homeless youth and street children around the globe? /end PT]
Around 30 million children in Africa are homeless/on the street.
There is no overall consensus on how many children in Asia (including The Middle East) as an entirety are homeless/on the street, however it is estimated to be quite high, with individual locations being given statistics (Bangledash having 445,000 homeless/street children, India having 11 million, Pakistan having 1.5 million, Indonesia having over 170,000, Iran having anywhere between 60,000-200,000, the Phillipines having 1.5 million, Turkey having 88,000, etc.)
There is also no overall consensus on how many children in the Oceania are homeless/on the street, however Australia estimates around 76,000, and New Zealand estimates around 33,000.
Around 400,000 children in the EU (European Union) are homeless/on the street. There is no overall consensus on how many children in Europe as a whole (not just the EU) are homeless/on the street, however individual countries also have statistics.
Over 1.2 million children in the USA are homeless/on the street. Over 40,000 children in Canada are homeless/on the street.
Around 40 million children in Latin America are homeless/on the street.
---
What ways do homeless youth and street children suffer?
[PT: What ways do homeless youth and street children suffer? /end PT]
A higher risk of sex trafficking, rape, assault, and kidnapping. A higher risk of child labor/slavery. A higher risk of being poisoned or suffering from oral, throat, or gastrointestinal system damage (as malicious people often put poison, razors/glass/sharp objects, and other dangerous things into the food provided to the homeless.) A higher risk of sexual, reproductive, urogenital, and gastrointestinal disorders/infections. A higher risk of respiratory disorders. A higher risk of nutritional disorders, growth disorders, and starvation. Higher rates of substance use and addictive disorders. A higher risk of mental health disorders. Low or no accessibility to hygiene products or showers/bathing (which significantly increases risks of infections and diseases.)
And, of course, a higher likelihood of death and grave injury, due to weather conditions, untreated disease/injuries, hate crimes, overdose, and/or suicide.
---
What about intersectionality? How does that affect homelessness and street survival?
[PT: What about intersectionality? How does that affect homelessness and street survival? /End PT]
Note: Whenever the discussion of employment comes up, we think it is important to remember that:
1- Unemployed adults can have children, and thus, the children in the equation will be effected.
2- Teenagers can also get employed in a majority of locations, and in many countries even minors younger than that, meaning their incomes could be contributing to housing as well.
The most obvious - being low income often risks loss of housing. Hell, being "average income" doesn't even afford housing anymore for most people, in the current financial crisis. Classism and homelessness go hand in hand, and the refusal to provide for the lower class their basic needs is the direct cause of homelessness.
Being a foster kid. Discussion:
Being a foster kid greatly increases the likelihood of homelessness, due to the foster system being notoriously abusive, and not providing minors with the proper funds, stability, and education necessary to survive in life. In the USA alone, 23,000 people age out of foster care a year. 25%-50% of those who age out end up homeless. Now imagine the statistics of that worldwide, of how many people are ending up homeless the moment they turn 18 (or younger, in countries where legal adulthood begins sooner)? Additionally, minors will often run away from foster homes, because it is unsafe for them there. They wish to escape the abuse. A depressing fact is that a majority of sex trafficked youth are from foster care, usually runaways who were living on the street to avoid abuse. (You can read our post about the statistics of foster kids here [link.])
Being disabled. (Note: Some of these statistics leave out emotional, behavioral, personality, or other mental disabilities, and also often leave out "small" physical disabilities, so the statistics may actually be higher if all disabilities were included.) Discussion:
We could not find any overall statistics on the intersection of homelessness and disability in Africa and Asia, unfortunately. However, disabled people in Africa often suffer forced evictions and are more likely to be impoverished, and we did find statistics on specific locations of Asia (ie; 42% of homeless people [including adults] in Nagoya Japan are neuropsychologically disabled, 15% of homeless people [including adults] in Hong Kong are physically disabled, in South Asia 85% of disabled people [including adults] are unemployed which greatly risks homelessness, etc.) We could not find any overall statistics on the intersection of homelessness and disability in the Oceania as a whole, however we did find statistics in Hawai'i, Australia, and New Zealand. in Hawai'i an estimated 62% of homeless people [including adults] are disabled. In Australia, an estimated 9.5% homeless people [including adults] are disabled, and 8.9% have an unknown disability status. In New Zealand, 4.1% of homeless people (including adults) are disabled. We could not find any overall statistics on the intersection of homelessness and disability in overall Europe, however in the UK alone, 35-39% of homeless people [including adults] are disabled (and for comparison, only 20-22% of the overall UK population are disabled.) In Canada, there is no minor-specific statistics for disability, however 50-60% of the overall homeless population (including adults) are disabled. In the USA, 19% of homeless K-12 [pre-college] students are disabled (and for comparison, only 14% of the overall USA student population is disabled.) We could not find any overall statistics on the intersection of homelessness and disability in South America as a whole, however in Latin America, disabled kids are 15% more likely to not attend school (and those who do attend are more likely to drop out), which inherently leads to employment issues down the line (and thus, housing issues) Additionally, 1 of every 5 households in extreme poverty houses a disabled person. And in some locations, people with disabilities are more likely to be unemployed (ie; in Argentina 91% of disabled people are unemployed), earn less money in work (ie; in Mexico and Costa Rica, disabled people earn 20% less than their abled peers), and/or have no insurance (in Ecuador, 84% of disabled people have no insurance), which can cause or exacerbate housing issues.
Being queer. Discussion:
In Africa, we could not find any statistics of the overall intersection of being LGBTQIA+ and homelessness, however homelessness is highly reported by LGBTQIA+ people (especially youth.) We could not find any statistics of the overall intersection of being LGBTQIA+ and homeless in Asia, however we did find a few for individual Asian locations (ie; in Singapore 20% of LGBTQIA+ people [including adults] experience homelessness, in the Philippines 12% of people who are 15-25 are homeless, In Japan 4 in 10 LGBTQIA+ people struggle with housing, in India there is a hidden housing crisis within LGBTQIA+ people, etc.) We could not find any statistics of the overall intersection of being LGBTQIA+ and homeless in the Oceania, however we did find some statistics for Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, queer-oriented people [including adults] are twice as likely to be homeless than nonqueer-oriented people, and 1 in 5 trans & gender diverse people aged 18-25 suffered homelessness (unfortunately we cannot find a statistics for people younger.) In New Zealand, 2.6% LGBQTIA+ people who are 15 and above are homeless, and unfortunately there is not a clearcut estimate on minors under the age of 15. In Europe, 17.39% of LGBTQIA+ people [including adults] have been homeless, with 1/3rd of intersex people and 1/4th of trans people being homeless. In the USA, LGBTQ+ minors are 120% more likely to end up homeless. They make up roughly 30-40% of homeless youth (and for comparison, only 9.5% of the overall population are LGBTQ+) LGBTQ+ minors of color have an 83% higher risk of homelessness than their white peers. 44% of Indigenous LGBTQ+ youth, 16% of LGBTQ+ Asian & Pacific Islander youth, 27% of Latinx LGBTQ+ youth, 26% of Black LGBTQ+ youth, and 36% of multiracial LGBTQ+ youth have experienced homelessness. 38% of trans girl youth, 39% of of trans boy youth, and 35% of non-binary youth have experienced homelessness (compared to 23% of non-trans & non-gender diverse homeless queer-oriented youth.) 39% of intersex youth have experienced homelessness. In Canada, 25% of homeless youth are LGBTQIA2S+ (and for comparison, only 5-10% of the overall Canadian population are LGBTQIA2S+.) We could not find any statistics on the overarching intersection of LGBTQIA+ and homeless in South America, however we did find a few in specific locations (ie; 30-40% of homeless youth in Brazil, 30-35% of homeless youth in Argentina, 30-35% of homeless youth in Colombia, 25-30% of homeless youth in Mexico, 15-25% of homeless youth in Chile, etc)
Being a person of color. Discussion:
We could not find any statistics on the overarching intersection of race and homelessness in the Oceania, however we did find some individual statistics for Hawai'i, Australia, and New Zealand. In Hawai'i, 28-50% of homeless people [including adults] are Native Hawaiian. In Australia, 1 in every 3 Indigenous Australian is homeless. In New Zealand, 31% of homeless people [including adults] are Māori, and 6.6% of Pacific Peoples [including adults] (and for comparison, 17% of the overall New Zealand population are Māori, and 8% are Pacific peoples.) We could not find any statistics of the overall intersection of homelessness and being a BIPOC, however we did find statistics in the England, Ireland, and the EU specifically. In England, Black people [including adults] are 4x more likely to be homeless than white people. In Ireland, 15% of homeless people [including adults] are Romanian, and 6% are Black. In the USA, Hispanic high schoolers are 2x more likely to experience homelessness than white highschoolers. Black highschoolers are 2.25x more likely to experience homelessness than white highschoolers. Black and Hispanic people [including adults] make up 64% of the homeless population. Pacific Islanders [including adults] have the highest rate of homelessness in the USA. Native Americans [including adults] have the second highest rate of homelessness in the USA. In Canada, 10-30% of homeless youth are Indigenous and 15.4% are Black (and for comparison, 5% of the overall Canadian population are Indigenous, and 4.3% are Black.) We could not find any statistics of the intersection of race and homelessness in Africa or South America, unfortunately.
Other. Discussion:
In the USA, 17% of English learners (which are usually immigrants) in K-12 [pre-college] school are homeless (and for comparison, 10% of the overall student population are English learners.)
Being in areas of the world subject to war, genocide, political violence, and environmental disaster. Discussion:
16% of the population in Sudan had to flee their homes due to conflict. 90% of Gaza [including adults] are homeless right now. 46% of homeless people [including adults] in Ukraine became homeless due to the invasion costing them their homes. Venezuelan immigration has led to a disproportionate amount of homeless Venezuelans in South America.
---
Sources
[PT: Sources /End PT]
You are not better than homeless people.
You are better off.
You are not better than homeless people.
so ticked off when I hear "the youth is too leftist" or "young people are radicalized". bitch if we were, we'd be seizing the means of production. i personally think we aren't left and radical enough
More proof they don't actually give a fuck about children, women, and working families as they claim:
¿Do you think Sirius and James felt entitled to bully Snape because he was an easy target, being half-blood and poor, while they belonged to pure-blood families?
Yes, and I’ve talked about this many times before too. Sirius and James weren’t just from a higher social class, they were at the very top of the privilege pyramid within Hogwarts: both wealthy, from prominent families, both pure-bloods. There’s an entire social web at play that meant not only did they feel entitled to bully a boy below them both economically and socially, but they also knew — whether consciously or not — that their actions would have no consequences.
And I’m not just referring to the fact that, if they were at risk of being expelled, their families could step in and exert pressure. I’m talking about the economic security they had. If they had been expelled, it wouldn’t have mattered: they had money, they came from affluent backgrounds, they weren’t going to end up on the streets, they weren’t going to lose everything. If Severus had been expelled, he would’ve had to go back to a slum in a deprived area, with an abusive father, in an environment where he couldn’t even afford proper clothes. Going home wasn’t an option for him, going home meant losing any chance, no matter how small, of doing something with his life.
Sirius and James didn’t have to worry about that. They had options. So of course, it was much easier to go after the boy who not only already came from a disadvantaged situation — and was therefore a more vulnerable target — but also couldn’t defend himself with full force because doing so could get him expelled, and that was a risk he simply couldn’t afford. That played a major role in the whole dynamic. Sirius and James were a pair of privileged, aristocratic brats, and their true colours showed when they found the perfect victim, someone they felt entitled to bully for his ideas or his friendships. But regardless of Severus’s views, the truth is that this was a situation involving two boys with power targeting a boy with no support. That’s not just abusive, it’s profoundly classist.
If James and Sirius had any real courage or genuine political ideals, they would’ve gone after Mulciber, Avery, or Rosier, but those three weren’t easy targets, and messing with them wouldn’t have come cheap. So, well… better to go for the poor kid, right?
Defending that kind of behaviour is defending abuse of power, classism, and bullying based on social prejudice. And it absolutely disgusts me that there are still people out there trying to justify or sugarcoat the actions of James and Sirius — because they were vile.
My for you page has been flooded with posts that always go "people would feel more empathy for a dog than for a criminal" and I want to know what do you think about it, as a criminal lawyer.
Oh, law ethics. My fave, i used to have a lot of great debates in the uno regarding this kind of topics.
Well, speaking from the perspective of someone in criminal law, but also from a political perspective, I think there is a huge difference between recognizing that someone caused harm and deciding that they therefore stop being a person worthy of understanding. Because if we start believing that empathy should only be extended to people who have never done anything wrong, then empathy stops being empathy and becomes a moral reward handed out only to those we consider deserving.
And there is something else that always bothers me about these conversations: the word “criminal” gets treated as if it were some natural category, almost like a type of person that simply exists in the world. But nobody is born a criminal. Criminal law does not punish an essence; it punishes specific acts and behaviors. The moment we turn “criminal” into an identity rather than a legal category, we stop talking about actions and start talking about entire human beings as if they were fundamentally different from everyone else.
And that process matters because the construction of the “criminal” has historically involved a process of othering and depersonalization. The criminal becomes not just someone who did something harmful, but “one of them”: irrational, dangerous, morally defective, outside the social body. Once someone is pushed into that category, it becomes much easier to strip them of complexity, history, and humanity. And once people stop being seen as fully human, violence against them becomes easier to justify.
Because violence is rarely justified by saying “we want to hurt people.” It is usually justified by saying “these people are different,” “these people are dangerous,” “these people deserve it.” Dehumanization has always functioned this way. You create distance first, and punishment becomes easier afterward.
And from a political perspective, I do not think this happens by accident. We know that common crimes are disproportionately linked to conditions such as poverty, social exclusion, lack of opportunities, unstable environments, abandonment, unequal access to healthcare, education, housing, and broader forms of structural violence. That does not mean poverty mechanically creates crime or that people have no agency. Responsibility exists. Harm exists. Victims exist. But if we consistently see who is most exposed to policing, incarceration, and criminalization, patterns emerge. Entire social groups become associated with danger and deviance. The image of “the criminal” is often inseparable from class. So when society creates a monstrous image of criminality, it frequently ends up creating a monstrous image of the poor, the excluded, and the socially disposable.
The point is not to say, “poor people are not responsible for their actions.” The point is that understanding why someone arrives somewhere is not the same thing as excusing it. Refusing to look at social conditions and structural realities does not make us more rational; it just allows us to pretend that people emerge in a vacuum.
And honestly, I think the “people care more about dogs than criminals” thing is only a symptom of something much deeper. The issue is not that people love animals. Caring about animals is not the problem. The problem is that many people increasingly seem incapable of extending empathy to human beings once they are perceived as morally contaminated.
A dog is considered innocent by default. It asks for nothing from us politically or morally. But empathy that only exists for innocence, purity, and harmlessness is an extremely fragile form of empathy. Because human beings are not pure. Human beings are contradictory, damaged, complicated, shaped by circumstances, and capable of harm.
What worries me is not that people feel immediate compassion toward animals. What worries me is a society that increasingly sees humanity itself as conditional. Because once empathy becomes dependent on perceived moral worth, the category of who counts as deserving becomes narrower and narrower.
Today it is “the criminal.” Tomorrow it can be anyone society decides exists outside the boundaries of acceptable humanity.
And I think a society should also be judged by how it treats the people who are easiest to hate, not only the people who are easiest to love.
Vivid fail.
