Department of  Health and Human Sefices 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
EMERGENCY  SHELTERS  FOR 
HOMELESS  FAMILIES 
OCTOBER  1992  OFFICE OF INSPE(XOR  GENERAL 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General  (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 
amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department  of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs.  This 
statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 
inspections conducted by three OIG operating componen~.  the Office of Audit Services, the 
Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections.  The OIG also informs 
the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 
correct them. 
OFFICE OF AUDIT  SERVICES 
The OIGS Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 
conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 
Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 
carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 
assessments of HHS programs and operations  in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 
mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 
The OIGS Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 
unjust enrichment by providers.  The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, 
administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties.  The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 
control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 
OFFICE OF EVALUATION  AND  INSPECTIONS 
The OIGS Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 
program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, 
the Congress, and the public.  The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 
reports generate  rapid, accurate, and up-to-date  information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 
and effectiveness of departmental  programs. 
This report was prepared  in the Kansas City Regional Office under the direction of Don 
McLaughlin, Regional Inspector General, and Jim Wolf, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 
Project staffi 
Kansas City  Headquarters 
Dennis Tharp, Project Leader  Susan HardWick,Program Specialist 
Tim Dold, Team Leader 
To obtain a copy of this report, call the Kansas City Regional Office at (816) 426-3697.  I 
Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
EMERGENCY  SHELTERS  FOR 
HOMELESS  FAMILIES  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
To  assess  the  quality  of living conditions  and  services  in emergency  shelters  for 
homeless  families. 
BACKGROUND 
The  Assistant  Secretary  for Planning  and  Evaluation,  representing  the  Secretary  of the 
Department  of Health  and  Human  Semites  as a member  of The  Interagency  Council 
on the  Homeless,  requested  us to perform  this inspection  in order  to better 
understand  conditions  in shelters  which  serve  homeless  famiIies. 
We visited  24 homeless  family shelters  in eight  cities  of varying  sizes and  locations. 
We  intetiewed  shelter  directors  and  caseworkers,  homeless  program  coordinators, 
and  172 homeless  families. 
FINDINGS 
Shelter  Environment 
Most  shelters  were  clean,  but  sanitation  was a problem  in some. 
Shelter  security  and  safety  in the  neighborhood  was not  a substantial  problem  with 
most  residents.  However,  20 percent  of families  said that  they were  concerned  for 
their  safety. 
Shelter  SeMces 
Shelters  provided  or made  arrangements  for a variety  of services  for their  residents, 
Seventy  percent  of families  were  participating  in workshops/classes  to help  them 
towards  self-sufficiency.  Case  management  was provided  in 60 percent  of the  shelters 
reviewed.  Childrens  education  was not  greatly  disrupted.  Most  children  were 
enrolled  in local  public  schools  within  48 hours  after  arrival  at the  shelter.  Emergency 
health  care  was available  to all shelter  residents  and  Health  Care  for the  Homeless 
programs  were  operational  in 7 of the  8 cities we visited.  Some  shelters  had  referral 
systems  with child protective  services  bureaus. 
Only 25 percent  of the  shelters  had  access  to a day care  for its residents. 
i  Income  and  Benefits 
Most  homeless  families  were  already  connected  with public  assistance  service  before 
they  arrived  at the  shelters.  Sixty-nine  percent  of families  were  on Aid  to Families 
with Dependent  Children  and  77 percent  were  receiving  Food  Stamps. 
Factors  A&ding  Hopelessness 
Of the  factors  contributing  to a familys hopelessness,  problems  with family or 
problems  with  relatives  with whom  they  resided  was cited  as the  most  frequent 
predisposing  factor.  Other  contributing  causes,  often  in combination  with  problems 
with family, include  eviction,  domestic  violence,  and job  loss. 
Shelter  directors  in 25 percent  of the  shelters  said that  most  of their  residents  were 
drug  abusers. 
Availability  of and  Access  to Shelters 
Seven  of 8 city representatives  of homeless  coalitions  in the  8 cities felt  there  were  not 
enough  homeless  family shelters  in their  cities.  Two-thirds  of the  shelter  directors 
concurred  with this finding. 
Most  shelters  had  rules  which  the  families  must  agree  to before  being  allowed 
admittance  to the  shelters.  Typically,  these  involved  prohibitions  against  drugs  and 
violence,  curfews,  and  requirements  to help  with chores. 
Two-thirds  of the  shelters  deny  admittance  for older  males.  This  causes  family 
separations  in some  cases. 
Federal  dollars  accounted  for  18 percent  of funding  sources  for the  sampled  shelters. 
Most  shelters  were  funded  through  donations  and  other  sources. 
Overall,  the  shelters  we visited  are  effectively  providing  important  services  to homeless 
families.  However,  some  deficiencies  need  attention.  Our  results  suggest  that  State 
and  local  officials,  shelter  operators,  homeless  program  coordinators,  and  others 
wishing to improve  shelters  for homeless  families  should  focus  on: 
o  ensuring  cleanliness  and  security  where  they  are  lacking 
o
 arranging  for day care  to be provided  to families  wth children  who  are 
attempting  to find work  while living in a shelte~ 
ii  o	 developing  policies  and  effective  practices  to prevent  family  separations  due  to 
restricting  admissions  of older  males. 
At the  federal  level,  the  Interagency  Council  on Homeless  could  be  instrumental  in 
providing  information  and  technical  assistance  to those  planning  and  running  sheIters 
for homeless  families  in the  areas  we have  identified.  The  Council  could  also promote 
research  on the  topic  of family separation  in shelters. 
... 
111  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

1

INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  S   
FINDINGS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .  .  .  3

                    
Shelter  Environment

Shelter  Services

Income  and  Benefits

Factors  Affecting  Hopelessness

Availability  ofand  Access  to Shelters

mmm~AmONS  . . . . . . . . . . ...-.......--===  .=-.  ==.. =..  =..  -9 
APPENDICES 
A  Tabular  Present.ations  ofShelterMe  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A-l 
Observations  of Living Conditions 
Homeless  Families  Perspectives 
Shelter  Directors  Perspectives 
Demographicsof  Homeless  Families 
Sources  of Funding 
B.
 Descriptions  of Shelters  Visited  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.   .B-l  INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
To  assess  the  quality  of living conditions  and  services  in emergency  shelters  for 
homeless  families. 
BACKGROW 
According  toa  U.S.  Conference  of Mayors  repofiissued  in December  1991, requests 
byhomeless  families  foremergency  shelter  are  increasing.  Such requests  increased  by 
an average  of 17 percent  in  1991 in 28 surveyed  cities.  Of the  homeless  population, 
the  report  estimates  that  homeless  families  with children  comprise  35 percent  of the 
total  homeless  population,  with  an average  of 60 percent  of the  family  members  being 
children. 
Our  study was requested  by the  Assistant  Secretary  for Planning  and  Evaluation, 
representing  the  Secretary  of the  Department  of Health  and  Human  Services  as a 
member  of The  Interagency  Council  on the  Homeless.  It was undertaken  to 
determine  first hand  the  quality  of living conditions  and  availability  of services  in 
emergency  shelters  which  serve  homeless  families. 
METHODOLOGY 
We performed  field work  in eight  cities.  These  were  purposively  selected  to ensure 
representation  in our  sample  of cities both  large  and  small  and  in various  geographic 
areas.  The  selection  of cities was based  on information  from  the  Conference  of 
Mayors  report,  discussions  with preinspection  contacts,  and  other  groups. 
We went  to two large  metropolitan  cities  (Los Angeles  and  Chicago),  four  medium-
sized cities  (Atlanta,  Boston,  Cleveland,  and  Minneapolis),  and  two smaller  cities 
(Little  Rock  and  Louisville.)  We  conducted  telephone  interviews  with  city officials 
responsible  for programs  for the  homeless  to obtain  a profile  of the  citys homeless 
shelters,  networking  of homeless  services,  and whether  or not  the  city had  Health 
Care  for the  Homeless. 
We  selected  three  family shelters  in each  city fkom a list provided  by the  local 
homeless  official  or the  local  coalition  for the  homeless.  We visited  these  shelters  and 
conducted  interviews  with each  of their  directors  or responsible  staff.  We  used  an 
observation  checklist  which we developed  expressly  for the  purpose  of assessing  the 
living conditions  of each  shelter.  We  also obtained  a copy of shelter  policies/rules. 
We  completed  up  to  10 interviews  at each  family shelter  with families  currently 
receiving  semices  within  the  shelter.  These  families  were  selected  randomly,  based 
1
 upon  lists of families  we received  from  the  shelter  director  or case  manager.  We 
interviewed  172 heads  of homeless  families  across  the  eight  sampled  cities. 
Finally, we interviewed  shelter  directors,  case workers,  and  coordinators  of homeless 
programs  in each  of the  eight  cities in order  to gain  their  perspectives  about  the 
availability  of shelters  for homeless  families. 
We  conducted  our  review  in accordance  with the Interim Standards for Inspections 
issued  by the  Presidents  Council  on Integrity  and  Efficiency. 
2
 FINDINGS

Our  goal  in presenting  our  findings  is to provide,  as we were  requested,  an accurate,

first hand  account  of life in the  shelters  for homeless  families.  We  have  tried  to do so

as insightfully,  completely,  accurately,  and vividly as possible.  To  achieve  this, we

present  our  data  in three  separate  forms.

First,  in this section  we give a synthesis  of what  we foun@ discussing  topics  that  were

identified  as being  of interest  to the  Secretary  of Health  and  Human  Setices  and  his

staff.  We  then  make  recommendations  on areas  that  we believe  deserve  attention  by

those  working  to prevent,  alleviate,  and  overcome  hopelessness  among  families.

We  recognize  that  several  interpretations  of our  data  are  possl%le and  that  program

and  policy analysts  may have  varied  interests  in what  we found.  Therefore,  we have

attached  tables  and  charts  reflecting  more  precisely  what  kind  of information  we

gathered  and  from  what  sources.

Finally,  we provide  descriptions  of the  shelters  we visited.  We  have  dell%erately  left

these  in a somewhat  rough form,  very close to the  notes  we took  while  on site.  Our

goal here  is to ensure  that  we convey  the  flavor  as well as the  facts  of what  we saw

and  heard.

SHELTER  ENVIRONMENT

Cleanliness

Based  on our  own observations,  we found  most  shelters  to be  clean.  However,

sanitation  was a problem  in some.  In these  few exceptions,  rooms  were  dirty  and

bathrooms  were  in disrepair.

S=@

Based  on our  observations,  shelter  security  and  safety  in the  neighborhood  was

generally  not  a substantial  problem.  However,  there  were  exceptions.  Thirteen

percent  of the  shelter  directors  and  twenty  percent  of families  said  they were

concerned  with family  safety.  Eighteen  percent  of families  had  items  stolen  from  them

at a shelter.

SHELTER  SERVICES

General  Sewce  Orientation

Generally,  shelters  provided  more  than  just  room  and  board.  Other  services  which

families  are  receiving  in the  shelters  include:

3  Counseling 
Goal-setting 
Budgeting 
Parenting 
Co-dependency  training  and  recognition 
Alcoholics  Anonymous 
Drug  rehabilitation  program 
Graduate  Equivalency  Degrees 
Day  care 
Local  Head  Start  program 
Reading  is Fundamental  program 
Self-esteem  classes 
Housing  assistance 
Recreational  programs  for children 
Food  pantry 
Clothes  closet 
Personal  hygiene  items 
.
Follow-up 
Only one  or two shelters  had  all of these  types  of services.  A few shelters  generally 
offered  just  bedding  and  a couple  of meals  a day.  Some  of those  shelters  did not  offer 
any additional  services.  If the  resident  wanted  to look  for an affordable  apartment  or 
find a job,  the  resident  was on her  own.  The  residents  motivation  and  initiative 
determined  the  success  of her  endeavors. 
Even  when  these  services  were  offered  in shelters,  it was up  to the  resident  to take 
advantage  of them. 
Among  the  semices  which were  of special  interest  were  the  following: 
Workshom/Classes 
Seventy  percent  of families  were  participating  in workshops  or classes.  These  included 
such  areas  as budgeting,  parenting,  drug  rehabilitation,  and  counseling. 
Case  Mana~ement 
Sixty percent  of homeless  families  received  case  management.  A homeless  family 
would  meet  with  a counselor  or social worker  once  weekly  to go over  problems,  goals, 
and  housing. 
Health  Care 
Emergency  health  care  was available  to all health  care  residents.  Almost  one-third  of 
the  shelters  have  written  medical  emergency  policies.  The  others  have  emergency 
protocol  which  they  follow, basically  consisting  of contacting  emergency  medical 
4  services  or, for example,  getting  a van  to transport  a pregnant  woman  to a public 
hospital.  These  remaining  shelters  did not  have  anything  in writing  in the  rules  hand-
out  or in the  office  regarding  medical  emergencies. 
We were  informed  that  shelter  staffers  had  current  cardiopulmonary  resuscitation 
(CPR)  certification  in some  of the  shelters,  and  that  staffers  are  trained  in emergency 
response  techniques.  If a crisis arose  which warranted  trained  personnel,  the  staffers 
would  simply  call emergency  medical  services. 
Non-emergency  health  care  was also available  in 7 of 8 cities.  There  was a Health 
Care  for the  Homeless  program  in 7 of the  8 cities. 
Education 
A school-age  childs education  was not  disrupted  because  he or she was in a homeless 
family shelter.  Most  shelters  were  able  to connect  children  with  a local  public  school 
within  48 hours  of coming  into  the  shelter. 
Child  Welfare 
We  did not  find  evidence  of children  being  taken  away from  families  while  in the 
shelter.  A few shelters  did have  a referral  system  established  with the  local  child 
protective  services  bureau. 
Dav Care 
Only 6 of 24 shelters  had  access  to a day care.  Mothers  were  experiencing  difficulties 
when  they were  forced  to take  children  along  on job  interviews  and  housing  searches. 
INCOME  AND  BENEl?IlS 
Most  homeless  families  are  already  connected  with  public  assistance  services  before 
they  arrive  at the  shelters.  However,  every  shelter  encouraged  AFDC  participation 
and  Food  Stamps,  and  would  help  the  families  get hooked  up with  public  assistance 
services  if they were  not  already  receiving  benefits.  They  counseled  or required  the 
families  to save the  benefits  in order  to make  a security  deposit  or rent  payment  in the 
future. 
Only one  shelter  would  not  let the  families  receive  AFDC  checks  or Food  Stamps 
while  staying  in the  shelter.  Their  justification  for this was that  the  families  were 
receiving  three  cooked  meals  daily and  were  not  being  charged  for  lodging,  so they  did 
not  need  those  public  assistance  sefices  while  residing  in the  shelter.  They  did 
encourage  working  with the  local AFDC  caseworker  and  arranging  for assistance 
benefits  immediately  upon  dismissal  from  the  shelter. 
5
 Sixty-nine  percent  of the  families  were  on AFDC  and  77 percent  were  receiving  Food 
Stamps.  Some  ofthose  notreceiting  ~Chadapplied  for benefits  and were 
awaiting  their  first benefit  check.  Many  others  were  not  eligible  for AFDC  because  of 
employment  of one  or both  parents  or because  of income  from  other  sources  like 
Supplemental  Security  Income  or Social Security. 
Additional  aspects  of the  accessibility  of shelter  families  to AFDC  are  discussed  in a 
companion  OIG  report,  Homeless  Families  and  Access  to AFDC  (OEI-05-91-00061). 
FACIORS  AFFECTING  HOMEIESSNESS 
Reasons  for Hopelessness 
We  asked  the  homeless  families  what  event  precipitated  their  current  experience  with 
hopelessness.  Following  are  the  reasons  which  they gave: 
47 percent  - problems  with families

36 percent  - eviction

18 percent  - domestic  violence

17 percent  -job  loss

(Some  families  had  more  than  one  reason  for being  homeless)

Drug  Abuse 
Shelter  directors  in 25 percent  of the  shelters  said that  most  of their  residents  were 
drug  abusers.  Our  review  team  members  were  also told  by some  shelter  residents  of 
drug  use in or in the  vicinity of some  of the  shelters. 
AVAILABILITY  OF AND  ACCESS  TO  SHELTERS 
Availability  of Shelters 
Seven  of eight  city representatives  of city homeless  coalitions  or mayors  offices 
indicated  that  there  are  not  enough  shelters  in the  city to satisfy the  demands  of 
homeless  families.  Two-thirds  of the  shelter  directors  said that  there  are  not  enough 
homeless  shelters  nor  enough  emergency  family shelters.  A couple  of these  directors 
stated  that  there  are  sufficient  shelters,  but  not  enough  for families.  One  director  said 
there  are  plenty  of shelters,  but  vexy little  affordable  housing  in the  area. 
Families  are  typically  alerted  to shelters  by a homeless  hot  line, an AFDC  caseworker, 
a city commission/coalition,  a former  resident,  or word-of-mouth.  Other  modes 
through  which  families  become  aware  of the  availability  of shelters  include  billboards, 
United  Way, police  departments,  Red  Cross,  and  churches  and  community  groups. 
6
 Usually  there  is a central  referral  agency  or hot  line which  tells families  which  shelters 
have  vacancies,  and  also which  shelters  they  might  qualify for admittance. 
Referrals  by county  welfare  workers  are  extremely  common  and  were  the  main  source 
of referral  in a couple  of cities.  In Boston,  families  are  almost  always referred  through 
their  AFDC  caseworker.  Families  experiencing  hardships  or tragedies  might  be 
referred  by the  Red  Cross  or the  police  department. 
Every  city except  Little  Rock  AR  had  a city coalition  or a mayors  office which 
coordinated  homeless  assistance  and  outreach.  In Little  Roc&  our  contact  was the 
Salvation  Army.  They  were  able  to inform  us of all the  shelters  in that  city.  The  LOS 
Angeles  mayors  office  has  contracted  with an  outside  entity  to perform  homeless 
networking  for the  metro  area. 
Entrance  and  E1i~ibilitv Policies 
Every  shelter  had  published  rules  which  they  either  (1) read  aloud  to the  head  of the 
family,  (2) handed  out  to the  head  of the  family, (3) required  the  head  of the  family to 
agree  and  sign the  rules,  or a combination  of these  three  methods.  All families  were 
aware  of the  rules. 
Very few families  are  refused  admittance  if there  is a vacancy  and  the  family  qualifies. 
However,  in one  city, certain  at-risk families  were  not  accepted  because  the  mother, 
for example,  had  a history  of violence  at other  shelters  or if a member  of the  family 
was highly intoxicated  or was carrying  dangerous  weapons. 
Less than  five percent  of the  families  themselves  refused  admittance  to shelters.  The 
most  common  reason  for a family to refuse  admittance  to a shelter  is that  they  do not 
want  to split up family members  if the  shelter  has  a policy of not  accepting  teenage 
and  adult  males.  In rare  circumstances,  the  family may refuse  admittance  if it does 
not  like the  appearance  of the  shelter  or feels  that  it is not  suitable  to house  their 
family.  Very  rarely,  the  family refuses  because  they  do not  want  to perform  chores  or 
follow rules. 
Violations  which warrant  a familys immediate  dismissal  include  violence  toward  other 
residents  or staffers,  intoxication,  drug  abuse,  drug  or weapon  possession,  and 
unattended  children.  These  rules  were  basically  universal  throughout  all the  cities, 
wth infractions  in any of the  areas  warranting  immediate  dismissal.  In some  shelters, 
three  or four violations  of other  rules  might  accumulate  to enough  warnings that  they 
would  be  kicked  out  if they  received  more  than  three  or four  warnings  in a month. 
Probably  the  most  abused  rule  or the  subject  of many  warnings in the  shelters  was 
missing  the  established  curfew.  Mothers  or heads  of families  would  typically  be  given 
a warning for coming  in late,  regardless  of their  reason  for being  late. 
When  asked  if families  were  allowed  to re-enter  the  shelter  if they  have  been  released 
because  of a prior  violation,  two-thirds  of the  directors  said  the  family could  re-enter  if 
7
 circumstances  were  necessary  to do this.  Most  of the  shelter  directors  stated  that  re-
entry  is handled  on a case-by-case  basis  and  that  if the  resident  or family had  a history 
of violent  behavior  or noncompliance,  they would  not  be  allowed  to re-enter.  Only 
two directors  stated  that  the  families  would  not  be  allowed  to re-enter.  Three  family 
shelters  in one  city claimed  successful  placement  into  permanent  housing  and  that  they 
had  experienced  no recidivism. 
Familv  Se~aration 
Two-thirds  of the  shelters  separate  from  the  rest  of the  family  or deny  admittance  for 
male  children  over  12 years  old, husbands,  and  other  adult  male  family members. 
These  policies  caused  family separation  for  10 percent  of shelter  families.  (The 
percentage  is relatively  low because  few homeless  families  in shelters  included  older 
adult  males.) 
Eu!@iu 
Funding  sources  include  government,  private,  and  charitable  organizations.  Less  than 
one-fifth  of funding  sources  used  to sponsor  shelters  and  shelter  activities  was federal 
dollars.  Eighty-two  percent  of funding  sources  were  non-federal.  Two-thirds  of the 
shelters  were  funded  largely  by donations. 
8
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall,  the  shelters  we visited  were  effectively  providing  important  services  to 
homeless  families.  However,  some  deficiencies  need  attention.  Our  results  suggest 
that  State  and  local  officials,  shelter  operators,  homeless  program  coordinators,  and 
others  wishing  to improve  shelters  for homeless  families  should  focus  on: 
Ensuring  cleanliness  and  security  where  they  are  lacking. 
Family  shelters  should  not  be  dirty, unsanitary,  or unsafe.  Those  few shelters 
that  were  not  clean,  or where  safety was a problem,  probably  could  have  been 
clean  or safe with greater  attention  by management  and  greater  community 
support.  Shelter  managers  and  homeless  program  coordinators  might  want  to 
visit other  shelters  themselves  to get  a sense  of what  can be  done  to overcome 
common  problems  of facility conditions. 
Arranging  for  day care  to be  provided  to families  with children  who  are 
attempting  to find work while  living in a shelter. 
Difficulty  in obtaining  suitable  day care  was the  single  most  common  service 
lacking  in shelters.  This  provides  a major  impediment  to families  obtaining 
good  employment  and  ensuring  the  safety  and  welfare  of children  while  the 
parents  are  at work.  Shelter  directors  and  homeless  family program 
coordinators  need  to pay particular  attention  to this area. 
Developing  policies  and  effective  practices  to prevent  f@  separations  due  to 
restricting  admissions  of older  males. 
This  is a complex  problem  for which we currently  have  no clear  answer.  There 
are  obviously  difficult  and  important  tradeoffs  here:  the  security  risks inherent 
in allowing  older  males  free  access  in shelters  for homeless  families  and  the 
need  to prevent  the  separation  of families.  Additional  research  and  insight  are 
needed  here. 
At the  federal  level,  the  Interagency  Council  on Homeless  could  be  instrumental  in 
providing  information  and  technical  assistance  to those  planning  and  running  shelters 
for homeless  families  in the  areas  we have  identified.  The  Council  could  also promote 
research  on the  topic  of family separation  in shelters. 
9
 APPENDIX  A

TABULAR  PRESENTATIONS  OF  SHELTER  LIFE 
Obsemations  of Living Conditions
 A-2 
Homeless  Families  Perspectives
 A-3 
Shelter  Directors  Perspectives
 A-4 
Demographics  of Homeless  Families
 A-5 
Sources  of Funding
 A-6 
A -1  LIVING  CONDITIONS  IN EMERGENCY  FAMILY  SHELTERS 
(REVIEW  TEAMS  OBSERVATION  OF  SHELTER  CONDITIONS) 
security 
manliness  Fire  Safety  Bunk  Beds/ 
Crii 
I  I  I  I 
SheL 1 Y  Y  N  None 
Ic 
Shel.  2 IY  IY  IY 
SheL 3 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
I  I  I  I 
SheL 4 YIN  Y  Y  B, Cl 
I  I  I  I  c 
SheL 5 Y  Y]  Y 
I  I  I  I 
Shel. 6 Y  Y1  Y  B, C 
I  I  I  I 
She]. 7 Y  N  Y  B, C 
Shel.  8 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
c 
Shel. 9 Y  N  Y 
She].  10 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
SheL 11 Y/N  Y  Y  B, C 
She].  12 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
C1 
Shel.  13 N  N  Y 
Shel.  14 Y/N  Y  Y  B, C 
I  I  I 
SheL 15 I  N  N  Y  B 
I  I  I  I 
SheL 16 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
She]. 17 Y  Y1  Y  B, C 
c 
SheL 18 Y  Y  Y 
c 
She].  19 Y  Y1  Y 
SheL 20 Y  Y  Y  B, C* 
SheL 21 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
SheL 22 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
SheL 23 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
SheL 24 Y  Y  Y  B, C 
Y1 =  Exceptional  security  system  B =  Bunk  Beds  C =  Cribs 
C1= 
only one  crib available 
A -2  QUN1lY  OF  SERVICES  AS PERCEIVED  BY HOMELESS  FAMILIES 
(INTERVIEWS  OF  172 HEADS  OF  HOMELESS  FAMILIES) 
QUALITY  OF  FOOD?
 I 78%  liked:  22%  disliked 
KITCHEN  DUTY  CHORES?
 I 61%  helDed out:  39%  did not 
CLEANLINESS  OF  FACILITY?
 I 96%  clean:  4%  unclean 
CONCERNED  W/FAMILY  SAFETY?
 ] 20%  concerned:  80%  safety  OK 
BATHINGflOILET  CLEANLINESS?
 ! 92%  clean:  8% unclean 
REST  ROOM  ACCESSIBILITY?
 27%  own rest  room;  73%  share 
BABY  BEDS/CRIBS?
 \ 50%  received  baby  beds/cribs 
BUNK  BED  ACCOMMODATIONS?
 I 40%  are  sleeping  on bunk  beds 
LIKED  PRIVACY  OF  FACILITY?
 I 68%  liked;  32%  disliked 
LIKED  THE  RULES?
 \ 73%  liked;  27%  disliked  rules 
HAD  ITEMS  STOLEN  FROM  THEM?
 I 18% yes;  82%  no 
CLASS  PARTICIPATION?
 I 70%  attended;  30%  did not 
CASE  MANAGEMENT?
 I 60%  received;  40%  did not 
SUFFICIENT  SERVICES  OFFERED?
 I 63% yes; 37% want  additional  SVCS* 
A few of the  additional  services  suggested  include: 
(in order  of most  requested) 
On-site  Day care 
More  housing  assistance  sefices 
On-site  G.E.D.  classes 
Baby  sitting 
Parenting  classes 
Bus tokens 
Personal  counseling 
More  leisure  activities  for children

Job  training

Career  counseling

Increased  privacy  (e.g. private  rooms)

A -3
 SHELTER  DIRE~ORS  DISCUSS  ASPECI13 OF  THEIR  FAMILY  SHELTERS 
(INTERVIEWS  OF  24 HOMELESS  SHELTER  DIRE~ORS) 
AVERAGE  CUT-OFF  DAY? 
AVERAGE  LENGTH  OF  STAY? 
FAMILIES  NEEDS  BEING  MET? 
CASE  MANAGEMENT?  79% ves: 21%  no  II 
II

ADVISORY  GROUP?  969Z0yes; 4910no 
FAMILY  SAFETY?  13% concerned;  87%  OK 
OCCUPANCY  CAPACITY?  average  is 49 beds 
PERSONAL  VIOLATIONS?  58% yes;  42%  none 
FAMILIES  GET  OWN  ROOM?  54% yes;  46%  no 
DENY  HUSBANDS/MALES?  67% yes; 33940no 
DAY  CARE  AVAILABIIJIY?  25% yes; 75%  no 
% OF  FAMILY  RECIDMSM?  average  is 8% 
MAY  RE-ENTER  IF KICKED  OUT?  67910yes; 33%  no 
FORMAL  MEDICAL  EMERGENCY  29% yes; 71%  no 
POLICY? 
FREE  TRANSP.  FOR  MED  EMERG?  79% yes; 21%  no 
AFFILIATED  W/HOT  LINE?  96% yes; 470 no 
JOB  PLACEMENT  REFERRALS?  83% ves:  17% no 
II 
REFER  TO  TRANSIT.  SHELTER?  75% yes; 25%  no 
REFER  TO  TRANSIT.  HOUSING?  75% yes; 25%  no  II 
II

HOOK  UP  FAMILIES  W/WELFARE?  96% yes; 470 no 
SET  GOALS  W/FAMILY?  96% yes; 4%  no  II 
Violations  of personal  security  include  percentage  of families 
involved  in: 
Physical  Violence/Attacks 
Serious  Threats  to their  Well-being 
Thefts  of Money,  Food  Stamps,  or Personal  Belongings 
A -4
 DEMOGRAPHICS  OF  HOMELESS  FAMILY  SHELTER  POPULATION

(STATISTICS  PROVIDED  BY  172 HOMELESS  FAMILIES)

AVERAGE  FAMILY?  Mother  with  two children 
HOMELESS  FOR  HOW  LONG?  6 1/2 months 
FAMILIES  STAYED  BEFORE?  9% 
STAYED  (Q OTHER  SHELTERS?  35% 
HUSBAND/MALES  PROHIBITED?  10% of families  split  up in shelter 
MED  EMERGENCY  @ SHELTER?  24%  experienced  med.emerg.s 
HOW  MANY  FAMILIES  EVICTED?  36%* 
VICTIM/DOMESTIC  VIOLENCE?  18%0 
EMPLOYED  BEFORE  HOMELESS?  33% 
LOST  JOB,  NOW  HOMELESS?  17%* 
QUJT  JOB;MOVED?  16%* 
PROBLEMS  W/RELATIVES?  47% 
HAVE  SOME  FORM  OF  INCOME?  87%;  e.g. employrnent,AFDC,SSI 
FAMILIES  RECEIVING  AFDC?  69% 
FAMILIES  RECVG  FOOD  STAMPS?  77% 

Respondents  could  have  more  than  one 
reason  for being  homeless. 
A -5
 x 
  T 
 
x  x 
   
x  x 
   
x  x  x 
r       
x  x x  x  x 
 
   
x  x 
 
   
x  x  x 
 * 
    T 
x  x 
 
     
x x  x 
 
         
x  xx  x
 
+       
to  x  lx  x 
x  x 
           
x x
  
       
x  x 
x 
       
x  x  x  x  x 
.  : 
   
x  x  X1X  x  I 
 
x  lx 
           
x x  x 
 
       
x  x 
  .         
x
 
     
x  x 
x 
4    APPENDIX  B 
DESCRIPTIONS  OF  SHELTERS  VISITED 
B-1  DESCRIPTIONS  OF  SHELTERS  VISITED 
(Notes  from  Field  Visits) 
Shelter  1 (which  oDerated  two facilities) 
The  first facility was a 4-plex with each  family getting  its own apartment.  Shared 
facilities  inthebasement  hcluded  awasher  and  dryer.  The4-plex  wasabout40  years 
old, but  the  conditions  were  clean  and  pesticides  were  used  twice monthly. 
The  second  facility was an older  home  in a residential  area.  There  was a couple  that 
lived there  on the  first floor  that  oversaw  operations,  visitors,  repairs,  etc.  Families 
were  given their  own rooms,  and  sometimes  families  would  get two adjacent  rooms. 
Occupancy  was about  14-15 people  upstairs  sharing  a 2-shower  facility.  Also,  a couple 
of families  could  be  housed  downstairs.  There  was a large  recreational  room 
downstairs  and  house  phone.  We  noted  lots of donated  furniture,  toys, and  bedding. 
(The  average  Length  of Stay (LOS):  1-2 months.) 
Shelter  2 
This  shelter  was adjacent  to a school.  A small building,  it housed  residents  on the  top 
two (2 of 3) floors.  All shelter  residents  were  single mothers.  No husbands  or 
teenage  males  were  allowed.  They  had  recently  initiated  a counseling  program  for the 
young  children.  This was a much-need  undertaking,  the  director  thought,  and  was 
appearing  to be  successful.  Just  having  someone  listen  to the  kids was a priority  of 
this shelter.  The  building  was old, and  the  furnishings  were  very old, but  clean. 
(Average  LOS:  14 days.) 
Shelter  3 
This was the  only shelter  which would  not  allow receipt  of AFDC  or Food  Stamps. 
Families  were  informed  that,  since they  receive  3 cooked  meals  a day, that  they  do not 
require  Food  Stamps,  and  since  they  dont have  to pay to stay there,  they  dont  need 
AFDC  while  staying  in the  shelter. 
This  shelter  used  to be  a hotel.  Residents  were  treated  as guests, except  they  had  to 
leave  their  key at the  front  desk  and  pick it up when  they  recentered.  They  had  a high 
degree  of privacy  and  were  given a large  amount  of freedom.  Each  family got its own 
room.  Cribs  could  be wheeled  in for the young  children. 
We  heard  from  some  residents  that  some  families  were  selling or were  on drugs. 
There  appeared  to be very little  monitoring  of their  needs,  and  few personal  services 
were  offered.  (Average  LOS:  45 days.) 
B-2
 Shelter  4 
This wasadirty,  very old building.  Thedirector  thought  ithadbeen  alaw  office  in 
the  20s.  The  shelter  was in the  older  part  of downtown.  During  both  days which we 
were  there,  at least  25-30 single men  were  loitering  on the  sidewalk  outside  the 
shelter. 
Three  to four  families  shared  a large  room.  There  was only one  bathroom  with  a 
shower  and  a bathtub.  The  shower  from  the  third  floor  (which  housed  single women 
as well as mothers)  was broken,  and  all the  residents  (nearly  40-50 persons  were  using 
the  same  bathroom).  There  was a bathroom  off the  lobby  downstairs  which we 
noticed,  by obsemation,  that  many  residents  were  using as they were  coming  and  going 
from  the  shelter. 
There  had  been  a tuberculosis  outbreak  a few weeks  prior  to our visit.  Families  here 
did not  appear  to be  motivated.  Some  had  been  there  over  six months  or had  been 
bouncing  from  shelter  to shelter  in the  city.  (Average  LOS:  45-90 days.) 
Shelter  5 
This  shelter  was renovated  in December  1990.  Formerly,  it was a 3-story  grammar 
school.  Affluent  families  in the  area  had  each  sponsored  a classroom.  Each 
classroom  was converted  into  a family living unit.  Each  family got their  own private 
bedroom.  Teenage  males  were  allowed  inside  the  shelter,  but  had  to lodge  with their 
parents  or in adjoining  rooms  with their  families. 
This was a very clean,  very posh facility.  The  staffers  appeared  highly organized,  and 
there  were  many  part-time  social workers  (student  interns  in training)  from  the  local 
college.  This was a poor  neighborhood,  and was unsafe  in the  surrounding  streets. 
However,  the  shelter  itself was very secure,  with camera-monitored  entryway,  and  tight 
security.  You  had  to be beeped  in.  (Average  LOS:  60-75 days.) 
Shelter  6 
This was a brand-new  facility built  only fifteen  months  earlier.  It was like  a small 
roadside  inn with  11 rooms  for 8 families.  (Large  families  were  given  2 adjoining 
rooms). 
It was a very nice,  quiet  facility and  very private  for the  families.  However,  we heard 
complaints  about  the  food  kitchen  across  the  street,  which  families  must  share  with the 
other  shelters  in the  complex.  (Average  LOS:  4-12 months) 
Shelter  7 
This  family shelter  was once  a nursing  home.  As such, the  shelter  had  a sprinkler 
system  and  fireproof  doors  on the  bedrooms.  Locks were  not  on the  doors  because 
B-3  the  director  believed  residents  would  start  using, storing,  and  selling  drugs.  Therefore, 
lack  of privacy was an issue with some  clients. 
Two families  were  in one  room,  based  on the  number  of kids in the  family and  shelter 
occupancy.  Large  families  had  their  own room.  School-age  kids were  enrolled  within 
one  day.  Education  was very important  to this shelter  director.  Eight  of the  10 
intemiewed  clients  were  working  on their  GED.  (Average  LOS:  7-14 days.) 
Shelter  8 
This  shelter  was a converted  100-year-old  house  between  a school  and  a church  and 
was very clean  and  nicely renovated.  The  director  was motivated  to obtain  all the 
possible  funding  for the  shelter.  Funding  sources  included  McKinney,  FEW  State, 
county,  and  donations.  The  shelter  employed  three  licensed  social workers. 
The  shelter  had  a fire  alarm  system,  smoke  alarms,  and  fire  extinguishers.  Every  room 
had  bunk  beds  which,  unlike  bunk  beds  in other  shelters,  were  very nice  and  had  very 
sturdy  side  rails  on both  sides of the  upper  bunks.  Multiple  families  were  in each 
room,  so privacy  was an issue at this shelter. 
Over  half  the  mothers  who resided  in the  shelter  were  currently  on drugs.  Because  of 
the  extensive  drug  problem,  the  director  started  a drug  rehabilitation  program.  The 
curfew  is 6 p.m.  The  director  stated  that  they  do not  want  the  clients  on the  street 
with the  selling  and  use  of drugs.  (Average  LOS:  20 days.) 
Shelter  9 
This  shelter  was in a 30-year-old,  2-story brick  apartment  building.  The  shelter  was 
very clean  and  consisted  of 4 units with 4 beds  per  unit.  The  bedroom  doors  did not 
have  locks, but  had  smoke  and  fire alarms. 
Funding  for the  shelter  was  100 percent  donations.  The  curfew was 6 p.m.  and 
residents  were  required  to attend  nightly bible  classes.  (Average  LOS:  30 days.) 
Shelter  10 
This was a 2-story brick  building  built  in the  1970s.  Families  received  their  own 
bedrooms,  but  they  did have  to share  a communal  shower/bathing  facility down  the 
hall.  The  shelter  was near  several  temporary  blue-collar  jobs,  e.g., factories,  milk, 
construction  companies  which  could  employ  the  men  while  they were  staying  in the 
shelter  and  looking  for a full-time  job  and  affordable  housing.  One  family staying 
there  was situationally  homeless  because  their  car broke  down  on their  way through 
the  city.  They  couldnt  afford  to f~  the  car. 
There  were  many  summer  activities  for the  children.  A self-esteem  class for children 
had  recently  been  initiated.  Local  churches  sponsored  various  programs  for the 
B-4  family residents.  (Average  LOS:  3 months.) 
Shelter  11 
This  shelters  operations  were  unique.  Residents  had  to have  two verifiable  job

intetiews  daily if they were  not  employed  or were  not  enrolled  in schooling.  The

IBM  corporation  had  donated  20 computers  and  a training  facility for homeless

individuals  who qualified.  This  14-week training  including  computer  software

applications,  various  job  employment  and  administrative  skills, resume  writing,  and

mock job  intemiewing.

The  IBM  corporation  had  also donated  2 software  packages  which  could  eventually

bring  a person  with  a 3rd-grade  reading  level up to a high school  equivalent.  These

software  programs  cost  approximately  $20,000 each  (extremely  sophisticated  touch

screen,  talk-back  menus,  and  color-coded  alphabets  and  stories).  Also, the  shelter

sponsored  a small  engine  and  appliance  repair  class if homeless  individuals  were

interested.

The  shelters  lodging,  however,  was of poor  quality.  Twenty  men  and  35 women  and

children  were  in one  large  gymnasium/theater,  separated  only by a dry-wall partition.

Single men  shared  community  living space  and  a kitchen  with the  families.

(Average  LOS:  45-60 days).

Shelter  12

This  shelter  was basically  for single men  and  single women.  It only had  three  family

rooms.  The  family rooms  were  nice,  however,  and  had  their  own rest  room  facility.

Bunk  beds  and  cribs were  available.  This  shelter  had  the  community  food  kitchen  and

the  reputation  for the  best  food  in town.  People  start  lining up  at  4 p.m.  for supper.

The  meals  are  free  to anyone,  and  neighborhood  residents  sometimes  eat  there,  also.

The  shelter  had  many  community  resources  and  volunteers.  Most  of the  food  and

most  of the  budget  were  contributed  by large  companies.  (Average  LOS:  2 months.)

Shelter  13

This  facility was a firehouse  in 1902.  It was unclean;  cockroaches  were  rampant.  The

front  and  back  doors  were  not  latched;  kids were  walking  out  the  back  door

unattended.  Everyones  kids were  sick and  sharing  flu viruses.  Women  and  children

stayed  in one  large  room  on the  second  floor.  This  consisted  of about  25 twin beds

and  one  baby  crib shared  by all.  Young  children  had  fallen  off of twin beds.  There

was no privacy  whatsoever.  When  one  child cried  in the  middle  of the  night,  40 other

persons  were  awakened.  We  also heard  claims by residents  that  some  of the  mothers

were  trading  Food  Stamps  and  AFDC  dollars  for drugs.  We were  informed  by a

couple  of residents  that  drugs were  easily available  across  the  street.

(Average  LOS:  1 1/2 months.)

B-5
 Shelter  14 
This was a 1912 mansion.  It was huge  (approx.  6,500 sq. ft.)  Some  of the  rooms  were 
unclean,  and  nearly  all of the  rooms  were  untidy.  About  10-15 families  could  stay in 
this large  house.  Each  family got its own room  based  on availability,  and  then  there 
was a large  dorm room  where  a few mothers  with children  could  be  lodged. 
They  did have  two social workers  full-time  who helped  families  set goals  and  look  for 
affordable  housing.  The  family assessment  and  goal-setting  program  we were  shown 
appeared  comprehensive.  They  also had  a day care  for children,  but  did not  have 
adequate  staff to supemise.  They  were  still accepting  some  children  of formerly 
homeless  residents,  if the  parents  could  not  afford  other  day care.  There  was a $10 a 
night  charge  for each  family to stay in this shelter.  (Average  LOS:  1 month.) 
Shelter  15 
This was a  1930s school  building  connected  to a church.  This  facility reeked  of foul 
odors.  There  were  two components  to the  shelter:  one  for single  and  pregnant 
women,  the  other  for women  with children.  No men  were  allowed  into  the  shelter. 
The  women  with  children  shelter  was one  large  room,  with rows and  rows of bunk 
beds.  (Probably  about  15 women  and  35 children  were  staying here).  On  the 
perimeter  of the  large  room  were  four  or five classrooms  which  housed  families 
privately  on a first-come-first-served  basis.  They  were  dirty, also,  as was the  rest  of 
the  shelter.  Residents  were  responsible  for finding  employment  and  housing  on their 
own.  Little  assistance  was provided  to the  residents.  (Average  LOS:  4 months.) 
Note:  Shelten  16-18 have a full-time  housing coordinator.  Shelten  16-18 also have 
~amily life advocates width  set goalr, pe~onn  case management,  and follow  up on the 
families  after placement  into housing. 
Shelter  16 
This  shelter  was built  in 1941.  It had  been  renovated  in April  of 1992.  All-new 
windows were  ordered  and  fitted  (due  to health  concerns  with former  lead  windows), 
the  walls were  painted,  and  brand  new furniture  was donated.  It was a clean  facility, 
although  it was untidy.  We  heard  from  staff that  many  residents  had  recently  been 
cited  for not  completing  weekend  cleaning  chores.  Four  or five of the  residents 
refused  to speak  with us.  Perhaps  because,  the  staff felt,  the  residents  were  angry  and 
did not  want  to cooperate.  (Average  LOS:  5 months.) 
Shelter  17 
This was an  attractive  and  clean  facility for families.  There  were  four  bedrooms  for 
families  - very private,  with locks on the  doors.  Families  were  encouraged  to be  self-
B-6
 sufficient  and  cook  their  own meals.  A part-time  baby  sitter  would  come  in nightly

from  4pm  to  7pm  to watch  the  children  while the  mothers  cooked  and  cleaned.

Shelter  residents  werevery  positive  in their  responses.  There  were  numerous  social

and  community  activities  available  for the  children.  A Head  Start  worker  even  came

on-site  to sign up  children  for Head  Start  program.  This was a very  secure  facility.

One  had  to be buzzed  in, and  only families  were  allowed  on the  second  floor.

(Average  LOS:  5-6 months.)

Shelter  18

This was formerly  a  1940s brick  house.  It was a very well organized  facility.  The

director  was past  chair  of a state  homeless  coalition  and  had  been  very instrumental  in

various  homeless  programs  and  advocacy.  Health  Care  for the  Homeless  would  come

on-site  whenever  the  director  called  to perform  physicals  and  health  screenings  for

residents.

The  director  was also  on the  board  of a neighborhood  economic  redevelopment  group.

This group  had just  constructed  a row of 15-20 town  houses  in an impoverished  area.

Many  of the  families  in this shelter  were  placed  in these  new town houses.  Families

themselves  were  involved  in their  own advocacy,  with  mothers  lobbying  at the  State

capitol,  setting  goals with AFDC  caseworkers,  and  actively  seeking  permanent

employment.  This  shelter  was trying to restore  the  dignity of the  families  who  had  lost

their  jobs  or had  been  kicked  out  of relatives  homes.  The  director  felt  that  many

homeless  families  were  not  dysfunctional,  but  rather  had  experienced  various

hardships.  (Average  LOS:  5-12 months.)

Shelter  19

Seventy  five years  ago the  shelter  building  was a hospital.  We  found  the  shelter  was

clean  considering  the  age  of the  building.  We  found  the  neighborhood  to be very

dangerous  as all the  families  told  us of hearing  gun shots  almost  every  night  from  the

many  street  gangs  in the  area.  Several  windows  and  walls in the  shelter  have  been

repaired  because  of stray  bullets.  This  neighborhood  was known  for its drug  abuse.

Each  family had  their  own room  with  a lockable  door.  The  families  all reported  that

they  had  privacy.  This was a very secure  facility.  Every  room  had  a smoke  alarm  and

we saw several  fire  extinguishers  in the  shelter.  The  shelter  had  two full-time  case

managers  and  one  full-time  case  manager  for follow-up  semices  only.  The  shelter  also

had  MSW  interns.  Shelter  staff were  used  as interpreters  to complete  several

interviews  with  non-English-speaking  families.  (Average  LOS:  2 months.)

Shelter  20

This  shelter  was a medical  clinic in 1926.  Families  had  to share  living quarters

including  showers.  The  rooms  did not  have  locks and  all the  interviewed  families

B-7  stated  they  did not  have  privacy  at this shelter.  Families  reported  that  the  shelter  and

the  rest  rooms  were  clean  because  all participate  in cleaning  chores  in the  shelter.  All

the  families  slept  on bunk  beds.  The  shelter  director  stated  that  infants  and  young

children  were  not  allowed  on the  top  bunk  and  slept  with their  mother  on the  lower

bunk.  We  found  fire  alarms  and  fire extinguishers  in the  shelter.

(Average  LOS:  3 months.)

Shelter  21

This  facility was a 50-year-old  house.  A mother  and  her  children  could  stay at this

shelter  for up to 60 days.  The  shelter  had  two full-time  case  managers.  During  their

stay, the  families  received  room  and  board,  clothing,  if needed,  and  support  services.

The  shelter  had  support  classes which  include:  financial  assistance,  budgeting,

parenting,  and  vocational  counseling.  The  bedroom  doors  did not  have  locks.  The

majority  of clients  stated  they  did not  have  privacy  because  they  slept  in rooms  with

two or more  families.  The  facility used  both  bunk  beds  and  cribs for  the  mothers  and

their  children.  We  found  smoke  alarms  and  fire extinguishers  in the  shelter.

We  found  this shelter  to be  clean.  The  house  rules  required  the  residents  to perform

daily chores  as assigned  including  kitchen  duty and  cleaning  the  shelter  and  the  rest

rooms.  (Average  LOS:  2 months.)

Shelter  22

This  shelter,  formerly  a school, was used  to house  women  with children  and  pregnant

teens.  This was a dormitory  setting  with  all mothers  and  children  on bunk  beds  in one

large  living area.  The  cut-off  date  was four  months.

Many  services,  including  parenting,  budgeting,  GED  classes,  preschool,  alcohol/drug

rehabilitation,  clothing,  literacy  programs,  and  computer  classes, were  offered.  All the

mothers  were  on public  assistance.  Employment  was encouraged,  however,  and  a few

of the  mothers  were  working.  The  director  took  a tough-love  approach  to helping

families  because  she was concerned  about  families  becoming  too  dependent  on shelter

services.

A unique  feature  of this shelter  was that  all staffers  lived on-site.  Also,  the  shelter  was

a totally  private,  non-profit  shelter  funded  by corporate  donations,  foundations,

churches,  and  honoraria  and  lectures  presented  by the  director.

(Average  LOS:  52 days.)

Shelter  23

This was an old factory  building  converted  into  a community  center  and  homeless

shelter.  The  facility was very large  and  still undergoing  renovation  to make  it a more

livable  shelter.  Many  persons  were  coming  and  going all day because  of the

B-8
 community  center  services  (e.g. free  meals,  food  baskets,  clothing).  The  shelter  was

mainly  funded  by the  city ($250,000  annually).

Each  mother  had  a sponsor which  set goals with them,  counseled  them,  and  helped

them  towards  self-sufficiency.  This shelter  provided  free  transportation,  and  the

director  believed  this was the  shelters  greatest  asset.  Other  services  offered  include:

day care,  moving  assistance,  furniture,  Health,  Hygiene,  and  AIDS  workshops;  legal

assistance,  Illinois  child support  caseworkers,  recreational  programs  for children,  Big

Brothers,  house  meetings,  and  a Personal  Enrichment  program.

The  shelter  was a dormitory  setting,  with all the  mothers  and  children  on the  second

floor  on bunk  beds.  Fifty-five  persons  were  currently  staying  in this one,  large  room.

There  was no air  conditioning  only four  or five large  fans.  No teenage  males  or adult

males  were  permitted  in the  2nd floor  family living area.  A few families  had  rejected

the  shelter  in the  past  year  because  they  did not want  their  family split up.  Another

handful  of families  rejected  admittance  because  they  did not  like the  appearance  of

the  shelter.  (Average  LOS:  3 months.)

Shelter  24

This was basically  a gospel  rescue  mission  which was originally  established  in  1877.

The  current  homeless  shelter  facility had  been  in existence  the  past  60 years.  The

mission  did not  have  a cut-off  date,  and would  house  families  for many  months  if they

deemed  it necessary.  The  shelter  had  13 beds  for mothers  and  a few cribs,  The

director  said  that  usually  7 or 8 families  were  housed  at any one  time.

Services  provided  include:  Bible  study (twice  daily),  GED  classes,  reading  classes,  flu

shots,  drug  abuse  counseling,  Accelerated  Christian  Education  literacy  program,

financial  assistance,  licensed  psychiatrist  once  monthly,  private  physician  40 hours  a

week,  childhood  immunizations,  dentists  twice weekly,  parenting,  aerobics  class,

Weight  Watchers,  and  Alcoholics  Anonymous  and  its 12-step  offshoots.  All personal

items  were  provided,  including  bus tokens  and  infant  formula  to anyone  coming  off the

street  as well.

The  director  said that  most  of the  mothers  were  alcoholics  and  some  were  fourth-

generation  welfare  recipients  who had  been  living on the  streets.  Therefore,  the

director  felt  that  the  most  beneficial  semice  they provide  was getting  homeless  families

spiritually  introduced  to the  Lord.  All interviewees  stated  that  they  did not  mind  the

twice-daily  religious  classes  and  the  mandatory  evening  worship  services.

(Average  LOS:  15-30 days.)

B-9