I used to believe this based purely on having heard it all my life. But a friend of mine recently made an interesting point: he asked me what race homeless people are. My answer (at least here in LA) was that they're almost unanimously black or white. Never Asian. Never indian. Rarely Mexican.
I countered that it could be due to Asian and Mexican cultures being more culturally inclined to take care of their own, but I haven't fully convinced myself that that's the case.
My friend who made this point happens to be black, and his explanation was that having grown up in a black neighborhood, he noticed that black and white people have a sense of entitlement that other races don't often have, both for reasons that don't need explaining, and that that type of attitude begets unfortunate circumstances. I don't know whether I entirely agree with this point either, but it certainly makes you think.
It's very possible I'm off base here. I'm going purely on observation and anecdotal things. Do you happen to have any hard stats off hand?
Edit:
I looked it up. You're right in that Latinos hold the second highest percentage of homelessness at 33%, but when you consider population size, it sort of becomes irrelevant. Latinos make up 47% of the total population in LA. Blacks make up only 9% however they're a full 50% of the homeless population. This means that per capita, Latinos are 5 times less likely to be homeless than blacks.
The SF Chron (check the earlier links) distinguishes between "chronic homeless" and "hardcore homeless". Chronic homelessness appears to be more of an economic condition related to poverty. "Hardcore homelessness" is more severe condition, a permanent and very harsh life on the street, often related to addiction and mental illness. You might not even notice the chronic homeless in your day to day life.
Apparently, San Francisco does stand out in the high incidence of hardcore homelessness. Supposedly SF and NY have the same number of "hardcore homeless", even though SF has about 1/10 the population (though any time you get into these ratios, you have to remember that SF is a small geographic region and population within much larger bay area - if you drew a 48 square mile border around an urban core in NY or LA, the numbers probably wouldn't look so dramatically different - my guess is that SF would still look bad, but not by anywhere near this order of magnitude).
I would venture to guess it has something to do with blacks having historically been isolated from the opportunities that other races have had, and that even though things have improved, we're still seeing the lasting effects of centuries of prohibitive behavior.
Come to think of it, I've never met a homeless Asian on Indian before. I see plenty of Asians working their asses off in shitty conditions in chinatowns to feed their kids so they can go off to college some day. You're right, it does make you think.
"Yet there are homeless Asians. Isabelle Hsu reports in the Pacific News Service that in San Francisco alone there are approximately 6,000 plus people living in the streets. She quickly adds that this is a very rough estimate. Ed Jew (the only Chinese American on Mayor Gavin Newsom’s committee to end chronic homelessness) explains that the official estimate of Asian homelessness is probably low because of cultural sensitivities. It is also a matter of saving face: homeless Asians refuse to go to shelters and admit to their homelessness."
I countered that it could be due to Asian and Mexican cultures being more culturally inclined to take care of their own, but I haven't fully convinced myself that that's the case.
My friend who made this point happens to be black, and his explanation was that having grown up in a black neighborhood, he noticed that black and white people have a sense of entitlement that other races don't often have, both for reasons that don't need explaining, and that that type of attitude begets unfortunate circumstances. I don't know whether I entirely agree with this point either, but it certainly makes you think.