STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES

ON THE MCKINNEY ACT

Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OEI-OS-90-01090  DECEMBER 1990  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
This inspection was conducted in response to a request by the Interagency Co
lcii on the 
Homeless to obtain State and local perspectives on the impact of the Stewar B; McKiney 
Act in their efforts to combat homelessness. 
BACKGROUND 
State and local governments, in combination with volunta agencies, are the priar actors 
in assisting homeless persons. The Stewar B. McKiney Act (hereafter referred to as 
McKinney  ), created on July 22, 1987, constitutes the major Federa response to 
homelessness. Major par of McKinney expire at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 1990, and the 
Administration has requested a 1 year extension of the expirng sections of McKinney in its 
current form through September 30, 1991. The Interagency Council on the Homeless 
requested this study to assist them in formulating recommendations for the FY 1992 
reauthorization. 
McKinney created new programs for the homeless and augmented existing ones. 
The 17 
programs are funded by 6 Federal agencies and provide emergency foo and shelter, housing, 
health care and mental health servces, education, job trning, alcohol and drg abuse 
programs, and income assistance. The vast majority of grantees ar public or private 
non-profit organizations. Funding for FY 1990 is $667 milion; the Admnistration has 
requested $819 million for FY 1991. 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 
We conducted an extensive literature review and held discussions with 236 people for this 
study. Our respondents included the State contacts for the Interagency Council on the 
Homeless, appointed by the Governor, in all 50 States plus the Distrct of Columbia and 
Pueno Rico. We also spoke with 184 people in ten States (MA, NY, PA, GA, IL, TX, MO, 
, CA, WA), including public and private non-profit providers receiving McKiney funds, 
persons from city human service or community development agencies, community action 
agencies, task forces, Federal Emergency Management Agency boards, and advocates. These 
ten States collectively received almost half of all McKinney funding from 1987-1989. 
We discussed with respondents three main topics: (1) What role McKinney has played in their 
overall  approach  to the homeless problem; (2) how McKinney has affected  coordination 
the varous homeless  McKinney has had in reducing 
programs; and (3) what  impact 
homelessness.  FINDINGS 
Approach 
FINDING 1: McKinney has helped States and communities in their overall.pproach to 
Whether their approach has been to provide emergency services or to focus on 
homelessness. 
more permanent solutions, McKinney has helped make their approach more viable by 
expanding available services. 
Coordination 
McKinney has been a vehicle 
FINDING  2:  for dialogue about the homelessness issue. 

has clearly enhanced information-sharng in many places; however, few understand the

varous McKinney programs or how they fit together.

McKinney sfragmented structure makes long-term planning and the 
FINDING  3: 
development of comprehensive, integrated programs  The frgmentation of 
difcult. 
McKinney is a barer to accessing funds, conducting long-term planning, and developing 
comprehensive programs or integrated services. 
Impact 
McKinney has helped meet emergency needs, but respondents do not view it 
FINDING  4: 
as the long-term solution to homelessness.  Few respondents ar formaly evaluating the 
implementation and the impact of McKinney programs. Their perception is that McKinney 
funding should be continued, but they advocate additional Federal and State effons though 
traditional programs to solve the problem, foremost among them, affordable housing. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
There are several elements that might be par of any revision of McKinney: simplifcation 
flexibility, long-term planning, coordiation, evaluation, and oversight. We propose three 
recommendations that should be considered in addressing these elements. In addition 
because McKinney was not viewed by respondents as the long-term solution to homelessness, 
we propose a founh recommendation which addresses the response of the traditional Federal 
programs to the problem of homelessness. 
In the body of the repon we discuss these recommendations more fully by presenting an aray 
of options for each recommendation. We recognize that the Interagency Council on the 
Homeless and the varous Federal agencies may not choose to implement all of these options; 
they are meant to ilustrate and suggest varous strategies for accomplishing the 
recommendations.  RECOMMENDATION #1: Structure the McKinney programs to facilitate more 
comprehensive and integrated services. 
funding. 
Improve coordination at the State and local levels to reduce
RECOMMENDATION  #2: 
fragmentation, enhance planning, and simplify 
Strengthen accountabilty and oversight at Federal, State and 
RECOMMENDATION  #3: 
local levels 

Identify and implement ways to assist the homeless through 
RECOMMENDATION  #4: 
traditional Federal programs. 
In implementing these recommendations, parcular concern should be given to children in 
il, 
homeless families and homeless individuals who are chronically mentally  substance 
abusers, or both.

COMMENTS 
Comments were received from two of the agency representatives (the Deparent of Health 
and Human Services and the Deparent of Housing and Urban Development) that sit on the 
Interagency Council on the Homeless. Both were in basic agreement with the findings. We 
have made strctural and editorial changes to this repon in order to addrss their concerns 
about the recommendations.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  ..  ...  ...   ...   ...   ....    ....    ....   ...
.. . . . .,  ...   ...   ....    ....    ....    ....    .....     .....     ........    . ..........    . .........    . ..........     ..........    . .........    . .......... .      ......      ......      ......      .......       ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        ........        .......       .......       ......      .....     .....     ....    ....    ....    ....    ...   ...   ...   ...
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
Purpose 
Background. . . 
Scope and Methodology 
FINDINGS 
McKinney has helped States and communities in their 
overall approach to homelessness . . 
McKinney has been a vehicle for dialogue about the 
homelessness issue . 

McKinney s fragmented structure makes long-term

planning and the development of comprehensive,

integrated programs difficult. . . 

McKinney has helped meet emergency needs, but

respondents do not view it as the long-term solution

to homelessness . . 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
APPENDIX  A ................................................ 

APPENDIX  B ................................................. 

APPENDIX C  . . . . . . . . . . . C INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
This inspection was conducted in response to a request by the Interagency Cou
tcil on the 
Homeless to obtain State and local perspectives on the impact of the Stewar B. McKinney
Act in their efforts to combat homelessness. 
BACKGROUND 
For the past several years, homelessness has garered increasing attention by the national 
media and by people in States and localities faced with growing numbers of homeless people. 
The problem has been examined in some depth by many public and private agencies and 
interest groups. Yet to date, the exact dimensions of the problem remain unclear. 
State and local governments, often along with volunta agencies, have traditionally been, and 
continue to be, the primar actors in assisting homeless persons. The Stewar B. McKinney 
Act (hereafter referred to as "McKinney ), signed into law on July 22, 1987 and reauthorized 
on Novel!ber 7, 1988, constitutes the major Federa response to homelessness. Portons of 
McKinney expire at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 1990, and the Admnistration has requested a 
I year extension of these sections in their current form though September 30, 1991. The 
Interagency Council on the Homeless requested this study to assist them in formulating 
recommendations for the FY 1992 reauthorization. 
McKinney created new programs and augmented existig ones to assist the homeless. 
progrs ar 
McKinney  funded by six Federal agencies. Collectively they address the 
s 17 
homeless population s need for emergency foo and shelter, trsitional and permanent 
priar  drg 
housing,  and mental health care services, education, job trning, alcohol and 
abuse programs, and income assistance. Funding for FY 1990 is $667 millon. For FY 1991 
the Administration has requested a budget of $819 millon. 
McKinney was intended to specifically target the homeless population. However, homeless 
persons may also receive aid from other traditional Federal programs, both targeted and 
general. Targeted programs include: the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program, the 
Community Services Program, Aid to Familes with Dependent Children (AFC), Medicaid, 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), 
and Food Stamps. General programs include those which provide mental health, substance 
abuse, job training, public housing, or veterans services. 
As the principal mechanism to coordinate McKinney programs, McKinney created the 
Interagency Council on the Homeless (hereafter referred to as "the Council"), comprised of 
the heads of 15 Federal agencies. The Secretar of the Deparent of Housing and Urban 
Development (BUD) serves as the Chairman, and the Secretar  Deparent of Health 
of the 
and Human Services (HS) serves as the Vice Chaian. To help provide technical assistance  to States and localities, the Council has staff in Washington, D.C. plus HUD staff in each 
region, detailed to the Council, who serve as regional coordinators. The Council also asked 
each Governor to designate a State contact person to work with them. 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 
We conducted an extensive literature review for this study on topics such as: 
(I) the 
characteristics, causes, and current status of homelessness, (2) funding of varous homeless 
programs, (3) urban assistance policies, and (4) McKinney s implementation 
accomplishments, and suggested modifications. (See Appendix A for a bibliography of the 
material reviewed. 
For background, we met with persons from national organizations involved with homelessness 
issues: the National Governors' Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
Law Center on Homelessness and Poveny, the Roben Wood Johnson Foundation, the Council 
of State Community Affais Agencies, and the National Allance to End Homelessness. 
We talked with 236 people for this study, primary during March and Apri 1990. For State 
perspectives, we spoke with 52 State contacts, from all 50 States, Washington, D.C., and 
Pueno Rico. For local perspectives, we spoke to 184 people in the ten States where HHS 
regional offces are located (MA, NY, PA, GA, IL, TX, MO, CO, CA, WA) in thee tyes of
settings: the large city where the HHS regional offce is 
locate; a mid-size city with 
population between 75,000-200,000; and a rural area with a county population of under 
75,000. (See Appendix B for a list of these States and sites. 
Local respondents included 102 public and private non-profit providers receiving McKinney 
funds, and 82 other respondents from city human service or community development 
agencies, community action agencies, task forces, Federal Emergency Management Agency 
boards, and advocates. Some of these other respondents are also providers, because they serve 
priar 
the homeless with non-McKinney funds or are  recipients of McKinney funds, which 
they then subcontract to smaller providers. 
The ten States we visited collectively received almost half of al McKinney funding from 
1987-1989. Five (CA, NY, TX, IL, PA) rank as the top five recipients; they alone received 
36 percent of all McKinney funds for those years. 
This inspection focuses on three mai topics. One: Has McKinney caused changes in State or 
to homelessness? Two: Has McKinney served to strengthen or weaken State 
local  approaches 
efforts? And thee: Has McKinney  in reducing the 
and local  coordination  had any  impact
problem of homelessness? The fmdings of this inspection are presented with respect to each 
of these topics (approach, coordination, and impact), followed by recommendations of 
possible ways to improve the effectiveness of McKinney as well as the traditional Federal 
programs.  FINDINGS

APPROACH 
FINDING 1: MCKINNEY HAS HELPED STATES AND COMMVNITIES  N THEIR 
OVERALL APPROACH TO HOMELESSNESS. 
States and communities are moving through an evolutionary process in their 
approach to homelessness. 
We asked respondents if they had changed their approaches to the problem of homelessness 
mi of 
during the past 5 years, especially with regard to the focus of their programs and the 
services. Over 75 percent of al respondents said they have gradualy shifted from a heavily 
emergency response towards establishing a continuum of transitional or long-term services, or 
both, geared toward a permanent solution. 
This progression towards permanent solutions appears to be an evolutionar process. It has 
factors, including the extent and nature of homelessness 
been influenced by many interrlated 
in an area, the length of time a community has been dealng with it, the degree of public or 
legislative .concern, and the availabilty of service dollars and non-moneta resources. In 
general, we found that the longer a State or city has grppled with the problem, the more 
likely they were to have better identified the needs of their homeless population, mobilized 
resources, established a network of emergency services, and trained their sights on transitional 
or long-term services. 
States are clearly undergoing this kind of evolution. The majority of the State contacts said 
that their States had shifted to a more transitional (60 percent) or long-term (21 percent) focus. 
Only 12 percent said their State had just begun to deal with the problem. In 23 States 
governors have offcially proclaimed homelessness as a priority, and in five more, unoffcially. 
According to State contacts, this has led to increased services or funding. All but one State 
have changed their mix of program or services; expansion has taken place across the board, 
with about 20 percent of the State contacts reponig an increase in shelter services, housing, 
or health or suppon services. Two-thirds of the States have some son of special funding for 
the homeless, although amounts var from $20,000 to over $100 millon; In fact, half of the 
providers in our sample receive some son of special State funding. 
On the local level, over 80 percent of the providers interviewed reportd having expanded 
their mix of programs and services in the past 5 years by adding one or more new types of 
services; for example: 19 percent have increased either trsitional or permanent housing; 
25 percent have expanded health, mental health or substance abuse services; 25 percent have 
increased suppon services such as job training, day care, or education; and, 4 percent have 
expanded prevention effons. .  ' ,
As a general rule, the large cities in our sample appear to be half a step ahead of mid-size 
cities, which in turn are a full step ahead of rural areas. Very few (6 percent) of the large-city 
providers remain at a purely emergency response; most have moved beyond this and are 
focusing on the transitional (36 percent) or long-term (42 percent) needs of their homeless 
populations. While similar proponions of the providers in mid-size cities are also focusing on 
transitional and long-term needs, a quaner said they are stil at an emergency s&ge. As to 
rural providers, half are at an emergency focus (just beginning to deal with the problem), 
whereas only 13 percent have shifted to a long-term focus. 
However, this difference is not ironclad. Looking across States, New York, Massachusetts and 
Washington are clearly farher along this continuum than Georgia, Texas, Missour, or 
Colorado. On the local level, all three sites in New York State were geared toward a 
long-term focus. In Pennsylvania, the large city we visited had fallen back to a primarly 
emergency response due to city budget cuts, while the mid-size city remaied 
geared toward a 
long-term focus. 
McKinney has helped States and communities make their approach to 
homelessness more viable by expanding available services. 
McKinney dollars were a welcome resource everywhere. McKinney has played a positive 
role in expanding services, either alone, in combination with other factors, or simply as a 
supplement to services that existed before 1987. At least 75 percent of al providers who have 
expanded services in the last 5 years, whether emergency, trsitional housing, health 
suppon services, creited this expansion all or in pan to McKiney. 
McKinney s most visible contrbution has been in places where there was no focus on the 
homeless as a distinct population prior to 1987. Close to one-half of the respondents who said 
they have just begun to deal with the problem credited McKiney with enabling them to do 
so. We heard comments such as: "McKinney waves the flag to say, ' Wake up - we ve got a 
problem  " and, "If there were no McKinney funds, our program wouldn' t exist 
In places that were aleady addressing the problem, McKinney helped create a wider mix of 
services than previously existed. For example, McKinney "has been a catalyst in the 
community for change" towards a more long-term solution, or "allowed us to serve 
specialized populations." One provider explaied how he used McKinney to stabilize his 
emergency services, then got McKinney funds for transitional services, which in turn "
gave us 
more credibility with other providers." The city and business community gave his agency 
grants for the first time, and he was able to turn more of his attention to long-term solutions. 
In places which had been dealing with the problem for a long time, we often heard comments 
such as "the city focus is ahead of the McKinney focus." Here, McKinney did not lead but 
rather enhanced already existing effons. For example, in 1989, New York City had a $500 
milion annual budget for a broad range of homeless programs; because it was almost entirely 
State and city funding (90 percent), we were told that McKinney "augments what we are  " "
already doing." In San Francisco, which alady had an agenda to create comprehensive 
transitional services, McKinney helped by providing additional funds for such services. 
COORDINATION 
The term "coordination" had several different meanings to our respondents. F'r most, it 
meant "information-sharng," although some constred it to mean joint planning or service 
integration. Consistent with these distinct differences in the way in which coordination was 
interpreted, we present separate findings for each meaning. 
MCKINNEY HAS BEEN A VEHICLE FOR DIAWGUE ABOUT THE 
FINDING  2: 
HOMELESSNESS ISSUE. 
There is consensus among respondents that "dialogue,  communication," and 
networking years. 
" have increased considerably during the past 
The vast majority of respondents have seen an increase in communication at the State or local 
level, and often both. Task forces and coalitions have sprung up everywhere. Fony-four 
States have a statewide governmental task force on homelessness. State agencies are 
represented on 43 of these task forces, and are the sole members in one-thd. In half of these 
task forces, persons from the Governor s offce, providers, advocates, voluntar organizations, 
and others are also represented. By far, the most frequently mentioned activity of these task 
forces is information-sharg. 
Twenty-five States also have one or more other statewide coordiating bodies, typically a 
coalition of non-profit providers, advocates, voluntar or church organizations, and others. 
State contacts say that the primar activities of these groups are sharng information about 
programs and resources for the homeless, and advocacy. 
Respondents everywhere have also seen an increase in information-sharng at the local level, 
between providers themselves or between local government, providers and others. Sixty-five 
percent of the providers in our sample are members of a local task force. Almost all said they 
found the task force helpful, primarly for puroses of informtion-sharng or provider 
networking. They said it helps them lear how to get funding as well as find out what other 
providers are doing and what programs are most successful. 
McKinney has clearly enhanced information-sharing in many places; however 
few understand the various McKinney programs or how they fit together. 
The majority of our respondents echoed the sentiments of the State contact who said: 
McKinney has brought about a major degree of information-sharng." For example, where 
there is a State-level governI1ental task force, 60 percent of the State contacts said that 
McKinney led to its creation. In addition, 75 percent of the providers credited McKinney with 
playing a role in this increase in information-sharng. Many respondents indicated that  McKinney had a "trckle-down effect" by raising public awareness and giving the issue of 
homelessness "credibilty. 
However, in some places, factors independent of McKinney led to increased 
information-sharng and the development of task forces. In States such as NeYi York and 
California, for example, the increasing visibilty of homeless people on the str  ts, as well as 
increased media attention, has raised public awareness and stimulated govern  nta or 
legislative interest. 
Everywhere, we heard how the infusion of new programs and dollars, including McKinney 
dollars, led groups to get together to compete for funds. Unfonunately, some said that this 
competition for funds has led to turf battes, since "we all go to the same welL" 
Although information-sharng has increased, this has not led the local respondents in our study 
to a thorough understanding of McKinney. To help focus our discussions, we handed them a 
list of the varous McKiney programs. Many expressed surrise at the number and varety of 
progrs 
programs. Providers raely knew of McKinney  other than the ones they ar funded 
by. Many asked what we knew about a specifc program, or who they could contact for 
information. 
In addition, many local respondents were not aware of Federal effons to help coordinate 
McKinney programs. Sixty percent of the providers, and half of the other local respondents, 
were not aware of any such effons. Also, only 18 percent of the providers, as contrasted with 
75 percent of the State contacts, mentioned the regional coordinator for the Council. It should 
be noted, however, that those local respondents who were aware of Federa coordination 
effons were in States where the Council had recently held a regional conference. 
The majority of providers said that Federal assistance would be helpful to tell them about 
progrs. 
Federal programs and how to access them or about successful local 
MCKINNEY'S FRAGMENTED STRUCTURE MAKES WNG-TERM 
FINDING  3: 
PLANNING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED PRO
GRAMS DIFFICULT. 
We found little evidence that increased information-sharng has resulted in either joint 
planning or service integration. The fragmentation of McKinney causes many problems for 
States and localities both in getting funds and coordinating planning and service delivery. An 
advocate noted: "They re decent programs, very positive. The problem is with coordination 
. . . the complexity." We also heard numerous comments to the effect that fragmentation 
makes local coordination, in paricular, "a nightmare." Finally, the fragmentation of programs 
has often caused confusion: "Money is going allover the place and no one really knows 
where it s going. . . there are too many players.  The fragmentation of McKinney is a barrer to accessing funds. 
Respondents said that because the funding cycles of the different McKinney programs are 
disjointed, providers someties do not lear that funds ar avaiable in time to apply. Many 
complained that the application process, especially for housing programs, is tocf complex. 
xtensive 
Some said that the cost of completing a lengthy, cumbersome application with 
documentation discourages smaller providers with minimal administrative funds and staff 
from applying. Others said that the one-year funding cycle leaves too little time, for smaller 
providers especially, 'to complete applications, look for matching funds or meet other program 
req uirements. 
Respondents in mid-size cities and rura areas say that when it comes to getting McKinney 
housing and social service dollars, they are at a competitive disadvantage with those in large 
cities, who are more sophisticated and have 
grater resources at hand. 
Few respondents anywhere described coordination related to long-range 
planning. 
The fragmentation of McKinney programs, disjointed funding cycles, the one-year funding 
cycle, and fluctuating award amounts are all barers to long-rage planning. A State contact 
noted that it is difficult to have a comprehensive State plan when most McKiney funds don 
flow directly through the State. A person from a city huma service agency said that it is hard 
for the city to develop comprehensive plans when McKinney funds ar awarded to private 
non-profit organizations without the city s involvement. 
A provider said that his agency plans as dollars become available, since they never know how 
much they can count on. A recipient of Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds said the agency 
received $38,000 in 1987, $6,000 in 1988, and $35,00 in 1989. Another, whose successful 
job training demonstration program was not funded for a second year, noted: "It forces you to 
think twice about applying. If they would make the levels of funding 
" Stil another said: "
more predictable, that in itself would drastically help foster coordination. 
The consensus among respondents is that the Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan 
(CHAP) has not been an effective tool for coordinating planning and should be improved. 
Many view it as a list of resources and services rather than a plan. Some label it "purely an 
exercise we go through " with "no teeth." The most common suggestions for improving the 
CHAP are closely related: to incorporate all McKinney, or all homeless, programs in the 
CHAP, and to make the CHAP a strategic planning document. Providers, especially, stressed 
that they need to be much more involved than at present in preparng local CHAPs. 
There is little evidence of formalized coordination of services. 
Only 20 percent of the providers in our sample who belong to a local task force said it helped 
them by promoting service integration or reducing duplication. And, while 80 percent said 
they made routine referrals, only one-fifth said that these referrals were formalized; none of  these providers were in rural aras. Few specifically mentioned using case management 
techniques or adding case management services in the past 5 years. Some noted that case 
management was not an allowable expenditure in their grant. (This issue might be explored in 
a future study. See Appendix C for a list of recommended follow-up studies. 
Only 10 providers, all but one from California or New York, described specifiJattempts to 
improve access to services by bringing homeless services together in one place, Some believe 
that "this just is not practical or even possible" due to barers such as turf battles, the 
diffculty of working with providers who are nOt used to serving the homeless, or logistical 
problems associated with providing some services, such as prenatal care, in a shelter. Others 
say it is not feasible to serve familes, the mentaly il, substance abusers, and youth in one 
place due both to their different needs and concerns for safety. Some oppose the idea of 
bringing homeless services together in one place, in priciple, because it may "make life too 
comfonable for the homeless person" or create a separte service system. 
Howe  , shon of establishing a "one-stop-shop," many providers do want to build more 
formal service networks. Some task forces have developed resource 
dictories or used 
McKinney funds to establish a coordinator position to this end. Funher, 20 respondents knew 
providers who propose to more formally integrte services or provide a more comprehensive 
mix in one location. 

The fragmented strcture of McKiney hinders service coordination, regardless of whether the 
services are funded by McKinney or other sources. One problem is that "there ar too many 
channels of funding." Since funds flow to States, cities, counties and providers, it is diffcult 
to know where money is going or whether services ar being duplicated. One provider noted 
that coordinating health care services is difficult because McKinney health care funds flow 
through three separte programs. A few other local respondents complained that McKinney 
funds "get lost at the State level." 
Disjointed funding cycles between McKinney programs and State and local governments 
make it "impossible to get funds to compliment each other." For example, one person said 
that his city prefers to give CDBG monies to those who have not been awarded ESG funds, 
but due to time frames previously established by the city for CDBG, must distrbute CDBG 
funds before ESG funds are awarded. 
There were complaints that restrctions on the use of funds within some McKinney programs 
are barers to providers who want to offer more comprehensive services. Some examples 
were: (1) HUD Section 8 funds cannot be used for required social services; thus grantees 
must seek funding for the ten-year life of a project on a year-by-year basis from elsewhere; 
(2) caps on preventive services in ESG and the Emergency Community Services Homeless 
Assistance programs, and the $300 cost-per-user rate in Health Services for the Homeless 
program the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project does not provide 
, are too low; and,  (3L 
funds for suppon services, clothing, bus fare, or tools, all a necessar compliment to job 
training.  -'. -_..'-- , "

To remedy the problems caused by the fragmentation of McKiney, many respondents 
progr 
suggested simplifying its  strcture. 
IMPACT 
MCKINNEY HAS HELPED MEET EMERGENCY NEEDS/BUT RE
FINDING  4: 
SPONDENTS DO NOT VIEW IT AS THE LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO HOMELESS
NESS. 
McKinney has made more services available, especially emergency services, 
and improved the quality of life 
for some. 
Despite a lack of formal evaluation, our respondents did express definite opinions about the 
impact of McKinney on the problem of homelessness. Only 15 percent believe unequivocally 
that McKinney programs have led to a reduction in the number of homeless people; only a 
few providers credited McKinney to any extent with moving the homeless into long-term or 
permanent housing. An additional 25 percent of our respondents, parcularly 
providers, say 
that McKinney program have led to a permanent solution for a few, but "the (homeless) 
population continues to grow. 
The most frequent response to a question about whether McKinney has had positive impact 
was that it bolstered emergency services. Noted one provider  We prevent people from 
staying on the streets." Funhermore, nearly one half said that McKiney has improved the 
quality of life of the homeless by improving or bringing more appropriate services, putting a 
temporar roof over their heads, or alleviating suffering to some degre. In sum, "the 
population is being treated with more dignity. 
Respondents believe that many client populations are not being adequately 
reached, especially the mentally ill, substance abusers and families. 
Despite the fact that many respondents have seen increased effons to taget famies, the 
the 
mentaly il, or substance abusers in the last 5 years,  quarers named at least one 
homeless client group who, they believe, are still not adequately reached. About one-third 
these respondents mentioned the mentally il and substance abusers; some added that the 
dually diagnosed (people who are both mentally il and substance abusers), especially, need 
far more services than are now available. About one-quarer said that famies are not 
adequately reached. Others mentioned the rual homeless, teens and youth, or "the hardcore 
homeless," those who have been homeless for a long tie and may be mentaly il, substance 
abusers, or both.
 , " 
Respondents favor continued McKinney funding but advocate additional 
Federal and State efforts through traditional programs to solve the problem 
foremost among them, affordable housing. 
While over 75 percent of our respondents say that McKinney funding should c  ntinue, at least 
l not end 
for the next few years, the vast majority also recognize that McKinney alone 
homelessness. They recommend additional Federal effons to achieve a perm  ent solution. 
Although some respondents acknowledged that trditional Federal assistance programs should 
ideally be part of the solution, many believe that at present, these programs are not adequately 
responsive to the homeless. Only 20 percent of all respondents labeled their Federal agencies 
response "adequate," as compard with over 50 percent who have seen no increase in 
involvement by these program in homeless issues. We heard complaints to the effect that, 
outreach by AFDC, SSI, and so on could be better" or  there is no effective outreach to 
shelters." We also heard comments that these programs are not responsive because they do 
not understand the homeless. Others feared that if funneled thugh trditional program, 
McKinney dollars would "get lost in the shuffe" of the bureaucracy and not reach local 
communities. For these reasons, they said, "the homeless population needs services that can 
be provided through McKinney. 
State-funded general assistace progrs, especially importt to homeless single adults, have 
also been cut in some States. For example, in one State in our sample, the general assistance 
budgethas decreased annually; in another, it was cut by 50 percent in 1990; and in a third, it 
was dropped entiely for 1990. 
Some respondents have tred to improve access for the homeless to these trditional assistance 
programs. McKinney providers help clients make appointments, complete applications, or 
even accompany them to appointments. But success has often been limited. This remark by a 
shelter provider is  Dealng with the welfare system contiues to be overwhelmg to 
tyical: "
clients and advocates alike. 
When asked what should be done to solve homelessness, the most frequent recommendation, 
made by roughly two-thirds of al respondents, was that the Federal government should assure 
the homeless access to affordable housing. This meant a varety of things, including 
transitional, low income, low cost and subsidized housing, single room occupancy hotels, 
BU 
housing rehabilitation and constrction, and  Section 8 subsidies. However, many also 
advocated measures to increase the earing power and incomes of the homeless, such as 
improving education or expanding job training, raising the minimum wage, increasing AFDC 
or SSI benefit levels, or creating jobs. Others said the government should increase support 
services and housing specifcally for the mentally il and substace abusers, a large segment of 
the homeless population.  Few respondents are evaluating the implementation and the impa (o.(d 
McKinney programs. 
Only 4 percent of the State contacts, 18 percent of providers (most of theIRiIbHg;e cities), and 
1 percent of the other local respondents reponed having a formal process i8P  to evaluate 
the impact of McKinney programs in their ara. Less than 10 percent sai  re even in 
stages of developing one. 
the rudimentar  . H 
This lack of formal self-eyaluation is of paricular concern given what al?.Pgar  to be weak 
Federal monitoring in some of the McKinney programs. While some FeWfalag n.ces have 
conducted broad evaluations of their McKinney programs, there seems to  e alack of Federal

presence in monitoring the ongoing activities of individual grantees. ForeJarple,; in one 
McKinney program, responsibilty for monitoring has been delegated to a  Qi#pm of
voluntar agencies, which has a relatively small sta to oversee thousand 
tes. In 
other cases, there are no staf assigned at the Federal regional offce leveIJ9s:p cifcaly 
monitor the McKinney programs. 
tu 
When we asked providers where they  !9ney
for information or assistance  U!: 
progr 
programs, only a third mentioned a Federal  representative. The .
fEstlseJE help from a
State, city or county agency, or some other source.  RECOMMENDATIONS

In attempting to suggest possible ways to improve the McKinney programs, we are mindful of 
the context of the Federal government s involvement with the homeless issue oi'er the past 
several years. We view the first phase (1983-1987) as one of minimal involvertent, with the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) providing emergency food and shelter 
funds. The second phase (J 987 -1991) involves the passage and implementation of McKinney, 
with a wide varety of Federal agencies providing a range of services to different homeless 
populations through a number of different grantees. We anticipate that a third phase would 
begin in late 1991 , after passage of a revised McKinney, and would continue for 4 or 5 years 
beyond 1991. Since practically none of our respondents felt that McKinney was the long 
range answer to the problem of homelessness, we view the 1991-1996 phase as one of refining 
McKinney s role and bolstering the larger, traditional programs that address some of the long 
range solutions. 
In analyzing respondents' answers, and in putting their answers in the context of other studies 
about the problem of homelessness, we have identified several elements that might be a part 
of any revision of McKinney: simplification, flexibility, long-term planning, coordination 
evaluation and oversight. These elements would help to address respondents ' concerns about 
the need to focus on long-range as well as emergency problems; the need to reduce the 
fragmentation in McKinney; and the need to measure the impact that McKinney is having in 
solving the problems of the homeless. 
With respect to McKinney, we propose three recommendations which address the elements 
identified above. In addition, because McKinney was not viewed by respondents as the 
long-term solution to homelessness, we propose a fourth recommendation which addresses the 
response of the traditional Federal programs to the problem of homelessness. 
For each recommendation , we have presented an aray of options. We recognize that the 
to implement all of these options; 
Council and the varous Federal agencies may not choose 
they are meant to ilustrate and suggest varous strategies for accomplishing the 
recommendations. 
1. 
Structure the McKinney Programs to Faciltate More Comprehensive and 
Integrated Services 
Funds Transfer Option 
One option that would stress flexibility would be to allow the currently existing programs to 
include, up to a cenain percentage, funds that could be spent for a wider range of services. 
For example, one McKinney program might allow for up to 20 percent of a grantee 
expenditures to pay for activities allowed by any other of the McKinney programs. Thus, one  of the housing programs under McKinney would be allowed to pay for support services 
authorized under other McKinney programs. While this would not cut down on the number of 
cmurrentlyu exisltintg iprpogramlse, it w oupld prouvide rsompe fleoxibilsity foer grasntees. w ho want to use 
their funds for a varety of homeless needs. This option expands upon current use of funds for
Program Simplifcation Option 
Another option for restrcturing that would stress simplification and coordination would be to 
consolidate McKinney into major program categories. This might include combining the five 
housing programs into one, the varous health programs into one, and the suppon services into 
one. From a grantee perspective, this would help to alleviate some of the confusion that 
currently exists about the multiple Federal programs that are available and perhaps cut down 
on fragmentation at the local level. 
Functional Categories Option

A third option would be to strcture the Federal funding in accordance with the functional 
ability of the homeless population. 
Current data suggests that over half of the homeless are dysfunctional due to mental 
ilness, substance abuse, iliteracy or other disabling characteristics. The vast majority 
of these people are single and reside in urban areas. Perhaps McKinney could be 
restructured so that the varous programs that relate to this population are grouped 
tOgether. This pan of McKinney might include the mental health and health care 
programs, the housing programs, and the adult education grants. An outrach and 
intensive case management component might also be included. Or, housing and support 
services could be combined; for example, the Shelter Plus Care program, currently in 
the Administration s Homeownership and Opponunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) 
legislation, could be included in this par of McKinney since it specifically addresses 
this population. 
Another segment of the homeless population includes people who are able to function in 
society and in a home, but are experiencing very diffcult times. This population 
includes those who have lost their jobs, are involved in domestic disputes, have had a 
health emergency but have no insurance, or have experienced other severe economic 
setbacks. These people require emergency supponive se  ices for a limited period of 
time. Programs included in this par of McKinney might be emergency food and 
shelter, community services, rental assistance, children and youth education, job 
training, and preventive programs. This segment of the homeless population may 
require less intensive case management and more referrals. The private voluntary 
agencies may playa more substantial role, and there may also be a long term role for 
AFDC to have with the family ponion of this population.  Restructuring the McKinney programs is an attempt to help simplify and coordinate programs 
that many local respondents view as a fragmented and complicated system. However 
respondents do not anticipate that a streamlined Federal funding system under McKinney will 
eliminate homelessness. Instead, they look to the larger, traditional programs such as AFDC, 
SSI, Food Stamps, CDBG, Medicaid, public housing, mental health, substance;abuse, job 
training, education, veterans, and others, to provide the long-term solutions.  ey view 
McKinney as a necessar interim measure until these traditional programs lear how to reach 
out and serve the homeless adequately. 
2. Improve Coordination at the State and Local Levels to Reduce

Fragmentation, Enhance Planning, and Simplify Funding

Cities and States Option 
One way to deal with the current fragmented system is to fund fewer grantees who would 
have more responsibility for coordinating the varous homeless programs. The most obvious 
grantees would be the public bodies at the State and local levels. Which programs should go 
to the States and which should go directly to the local public bodies was not clearly resolved 
in our discussions with respondents. On the one hand, it was clear that the larger cities had 
been dealing with the problem for a longer period of time than either the mid-size cities or 
rural areas, and that they had available a much broader range of programs. In addition, the 
focus of most of the big cities had moved to longer range solutions, whereas State respondents 
were more frequently at the emergency or transitional stage. There were also concerns about 
additional administrative expenses for programs that went though State offces. On the other 
hand, States were clearly in a position to provide additional funding and, in some cases, 
technical assistance, parcularly to smaller communities. 
Local Agencies Option 
Another option would be for the local public body to designate a local agency, whether public 
or private non-profit, to be the recipient of McKinney funds. This would require only one 
local agency to son through the varous fundings available at the Federal and State level and 
would provide a focal point in the community for coordination, planning and evaluation. 
Funding Cycle Option 
Some of the confusion in applying for funds may be reduced if the funding cycles of the 
various McKinney programs were more consistent. This might be accomplished by having 
the applications for the different programs due at approximately the same time of year each 
year.  Case Alanagement Opilon 
Access to services for homeless clients could be improved by emphasizing the importnce of 
case management at local levels. Some McKinney programs authorize expenditures for case 
agement. In these programs, local providers could be encouraged to use McKinney 
funding for this purpose. In addition , the statute could be amended to make case management 
an allowable expense under all of the McKinney programs. 
Planning Option

Enhanced planning could be achieved by expanding and improving the existing CHAP so that 
it could be used as a strategic planning document. To do so, it would need to incorporate 
goals, objectives and action plans, as well as include all homeless programs in a jurisdiction 
regardless of the source of funding. 
3. 
Strengthen Accountabilty and Oversight at Federal, State, and Local Levels 
Self-Evaluation Option 
One way to require more accountability at the local level would be to mandate self-evaluation 
by grantees. As noted in Finding 4, very few grantees currently have a formal self-evaluation 
worked successfully in other federally funded programs 
process. This type of process has 
such as the Head Star program. Of course, mandating self-evaluation raises the issue of 
needing administrative money to car it out. Our assessment is that a small percentage of 
funds, five or less, may be appropriate for planning and evaluation purposes. This would also 
be allowable as an in-kind contrbution for matching purposes. 
Local Council Option 
Another means of providing both coordination and accountability would be to have a local 
council that would develop comprehensive homeless plans for the community and would 
evaluate whether the plans were being accomplished. The council would be comprised of 
McKinney funded providers, voluntary agencies, and State and Federal personnel who work 
in local communities, such as AFDC, SSI, and Veterans Affais personneL If this council 
provided sound qualitative data to a single designated local agency receiving McKiney 
funds, its influence would be increased. In some respects, this council may be viewed as a 
natural extension of the CHAP, except that it would involve providers of all types (health 
support services, housing, education , etc. ) and be linked to all McKinney funding sources in 
the local community. 
Federal Oversight Option 
Oversight on .the pan of the Federal agencies might be increased by providing more formal 
evaluation of the varous programs and by conducting more on-site visits to monitor and  provide technical assistance. As nOted in Finding 4, for most of the McKinney programs there 
did nOt appear to be designated Federal staff who were responsible for going on-site to review 
local programs or to provide technical assistance when called upon. 
4. Identify and Implement Ways to Assist the Homeless through TrCiditional 
Federal Programs 
Outreach Option 
The existing Federal programs could enhance their effons to assist the homeless by 
strengthening their outreach effons, especially to those individuals with mental ilness 
substance abuse problems. 
Targeting Option 
Traditional Federal programs could examine ways to better meet the special needs ofthe 
following subgroups: children who are in homeless families and homeless individuals who 
are chronically mentally il, substance abusers, or bOth.

Federal Coordination Option 
Federal agencies could also enhance their effons to serve the homeless by increasing the 
coordination of their programs at both the State and local levels. Coordination should be 
strengthened bOth among Federal agencies and between them and the providers of homeless 
services at the State and local levels. 
 COMMENTS 
Comments were received from two of the agency representatives (HS and HUD) that sit on 
the Council. Both were in basic agreement with the findings. We have made structural and ed
itorial changes to this report in order to address their concerns about the recomjlendations.  , "

APPENDIX A 
Bibliography 
American Public Welfare Association  Washington, D.  : May 11, '987 
Memo. 
A Status Report on Homel ss Familes in America  United States 
s Cities: A  29  City Survey. 
Conference of Mayors. Washington, D.C.: May 1987 
A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America  1989. The United States 
s Cities: 
Conference of Mayors. Washington, D.  : 1989 
1987. The United

A Status Report on the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 
States Conference of Mayors. Washington, D.  : June 1988 
Barden, J. e. "America s Youth Being Driven to Streets.  New York Times.  February 5, 1990 
Briggs, Michael  Homeless Youths Defy Stereotype, Study Says.  Chicago Sun-Times. 
, 1990, p. 39 
Januar 15
Bun, Marha R. and Cohen America s Homeless: Numbers, Characteristics, and 
, Barbara E., 
Programs that Serve  Urban Institute Press. Washington, D. e.: July 1989 
Them. 
Bun, Marha R. and Cohen Feeding the Homeless: Does the Prepared Meals 
, Barbara E. 
The Urban Institute, Washington, D. e.: October 31, 1988 
Provision Help? 
Poverty in Rural America: A National Overview.
Center on Budget and Policy Prorities. 

Cleveland, Ohio.
Cleveland Veterans Administration.  Domiciliary Care Program. 

Boeing News. 
Copley, Steve. "Boeing Investment Breaths Life into Downtown Hotel." 
Seattle, WA: March 23, 1990 
House of Representatives Conference Report 
Council of State Community Affairs Agencies. 

Washington, D.e.: October 18, 1989. 
State and Homelessness: A Preliminary
Council of State and Community Affais Agencies. 

Policy Dialogue for the 1990's.  Washington, D.  : 1989. 
1984-1986. Washington 
Council of State Community Affairs Agencies.  Biennial Report: 
C. 
Housing the Homeless: State Actions.
Council of State Community Affairs Agencies. 

Washington, D. Culhane, Dennis. "Single Room Housing Won t End Homelessness.  New York Times. 
March 14, 1990 
DeParle, Jascon. "Bush Homeless Plan: '  New York Times. 
Godsend' or False Hope?" 
Februar 
12, 1990 
C.:S uFmmearyb of rFuedearalr Pyrog r1am9s A8vai7lab le to Help the
Federal Task Force on the Homeless. 
Washington, D.
Homeless. 
Filer, Randall K. "What We Really Know About the Homeless.  The Wall Street Journal. 
April 10, 1990 
Finder, Alan. "  O. HOtels: Trying to Revive an Old Idea.  February 9 
New York Times. 
1990. p. C15 
Finder, Alan. "Nonprofit Groups Rebuilding Housing for the Poor.  New York Times. 
March 11, 1990. p. 23 
Foderaro, Lisa W. "All the Money in Westchester Buys Little Hope on Homelessness.  The 
April 8, 1990. p. 6
New York Times. 

Freidmutter Health Care Perspectives: Service-Enriched Housing for Homeless 
, Cindy. 
The Roben Wood Johnson Foundation. New York, New York: February 1989
Familes. 
Golden, Tim. "  , Possibly Violent, and No Place to Go.  April 2, 1990. 
New York Times.

p. Al 
Harney, Kenneth. "  S. May Help Flip the Flophouse Image.  Chicago Sun-Times.  May 18, 
1990. p. 
Washington, D. 
Homelessness Information Exchange.  Family and Child Homelessness. 

May 1989 
Washington, D. C.: 1990
Homelessness Information Exchange.  Transitional Housing. 

Homewards: A Quarterly of the  Homelessness 
Homelessness Information Exchange. 
Exchange, Washington, D.C.: March 1990 
Ifll, Gwen. "Drugs, Homelessness Increasingly Linked.  The Washington Post. 
December 21, 1989. p. A6 
Ifll, Gwen. "New Jersey Battles Homelessness by Preventing It.  The Washington Post. 
March 14, 1990. p. AI; A7 
A - 2
 Ifill, Gwen. "Pittsburgh Finds Diversity Works in Fight on Homelessness.  The Washington 
March 31, 1990. p. A3
Post. 
Committee on Healthcare 
Institute on Medicine.  Homelessness, Health and Human Needs. 

for Homeless People. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.: 1988. 
A Nation Concerned: A Report to the President and
Interagency Council on the Homeless. 

Washington , D.C.: 1988
the Congress on the Response to Homelessness in America. 

Interagency Council on the Homeless.  Council Communique.  Washington, D. C.: Special 
Addition - Vol. 1 , 1988 
Washington, D.  : August 
Interagency Council on the Homeless.  Council Communique. 

1989 
Washington, D.  : October 
Interagency Council on the Homeless.  Council Communique. 

1989 
Washington, D.C.: December 
Interagency Council on the Homeless.  Council Communique. 

1989 
Data Base Informtion on McKinney Grants. 
Interagency Council on the Homeless. 
Washington , D. C.: December 27, 1988 
Non-McKinney Federal Programs Available to Help 
Interagency Council on the Homeless. 

Washington, D.  : July 1989 
the Homeless. 
The McKinney Act: A  Washington
Interagency Council on the Homeless. 
 Program Guide. 
C.: July 1989

Annual Report on the Interagency Council 
Interagency Council on the Homeless.  The  1989 
Washington, D.  : 1989 
on the Homeless. 
Chicago, 11. ; April 1990 
Interagency Council on the Homeless.  Region V Workshop Material. 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. "Resource Lists." Washington, D.  : August 1989 
The State of the Nation  1989. Harard

Joint Center for Housing Studies. 
 s Housing 
University; Cambridge, MA.

Lemov, Penelope. "Transitional Housing Programs Get Under Way.  April 1990 
Governing. 
Matthews, Jay. "Earthquake Swells Ranks of Homeless.  Washington Post.
 October 27 
1989. p. A14 
A - 3  Miller, Henry. "Assessment to the Implementation of Grants to Provide Health Services to the 
Homeless. " Center for Health Policy Studies. May 31 , 1989 
Checklist for Success: Programs to Help the Hungry 
National Alliance to End Homelessness. 

Washington, D. C.: Spring 1990 
and Homeless. 
Mentally III H.omeless 
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. 

Persons: State  Alexandra, VA.: April 25, 1990 
Services. 
States Document 
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. 48 
Expenditure History of the McKinney Act State Grant Program on Mental Health 
Alexandra, VA.: Februar 5, 1990 
Services for the Homeless. 
Synopses of Community Demonstration 
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 

Grant Projects for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment of Homeless Individuals. 
Rockvile, MD. : October 1988 
The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. 

Assistance Act: An Analysis of  Washington, D.C.: November 1989 
its Current Status. 
Pending Homeless Legislation 
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poveny. 

15, 1989. Washington, D. 
August 
Patton, Lary T. "The Rural Homeless." Health Resource and Services Administration 
Public Health Service, U.S. Deparment of Health and Human Services. August 1987 
Quindlen, Anna. "Homes for Those in Need - and Drop the War Fuzzies.  Chicago 
Januar 23, 1990 
Tribune. 
Reardon, Patrcia T. "Doubts Cast on Homeless Count: Inaccurate Census Could Cost 
Chicago Federal Funds.  March 12, 1990. pp. 1; 10
Chicago Tribune. 

Rimer, Sara. "New York City Project to Hospitalize Mentaly II Homeless Makes Inroads. 
New York Times.  July 18, 1989. p. 12

Sanders, Dennis. "The Dream That Failed.  Winter 1989-90. 
Notre Dame Magazine.

pp. 35

Schwarz Combating Homelessness: A Resource Book. 
, David C. and Glascock John H. 
American Affordable Housing Institute. Rutgers, New Jersey 
Stein, Sharon. "We Know Little About Homeless Beyond Images.  Chicago Tribune. 
April! 
, 1990. pp. 1 
A 
 . ,
Tenenbaum S. Depanment of Health 
, Jacob E.  Health Care for the Medically Indigent. 
and Human Services. Washington, D.  : September 1985 
The Council of Better Business Bureaus  Arlington 
' Philanthropic Advisory Service.  Insight:
VA.  , 1989

: Issue 2
The Homelessness Test: There is a Right Answer.  March 1, 1990

New York Times. 

Washington, D.C.: December 1989 
The National Alliance to End Homelessness.  Alliance. 
The National Allance to End  Washington, D. C.: August/September 
Homelessness.  Allance. 
1989 
The National Alliance to End Homelessness.  Allance.  Washington, D.  : July 1989
The National Allance to End  Washington, D.C.: 
Homelessness.  Housing and Homelessness.

June 1988

The National Allance to End  There  Washington, D. 
Homelessness.  s No Place Like Home. 
Homeless in
The National Mental Health Association and Famlies for the Homeless. 

Acropolis Books. Washington, D.C.: 1988 
America. 
The Parnership for the  Moving Forward: A National Agenda to Address 
Homeless. 
New York, New York: 1989
Homelessness in 1990 and Beyond. 

Communications Office. Prnceton, N. 
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  A Bridge. 
Autumn 1987 
The Homeless  Prnceton, N.J. 
The Roben Wood Johnson Foundation.  Familes Program. 
September 1989

Health Care for the
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Pew Memorial Trust. 

December 1983

Homeless Program. 
The Roben Wood Johnson Foundation and the U.S. Deparent of Housing and Urban 
Januar 1986 
Development.  Programsforthe Chronically Mentally Ill. 
Toelle, Miram E. and Kerwin, Sheila. "Children in Transition.  Children Today. 
September-October 1988. pp. 27
Communities of Hope and Justice. 
Travelers and Immigrants Aid.  Annual Report  1989: 
Chicago, 11.: 1989 
A - 5
 Homelessness: McKinney Act Programs and
United States General Accounting Offce. 

1989. Washington, D.  : February 1990 
Funding for Fiscal Year 
Homelessness Prevention: Demandrjor Aid is
United States General Accounting Offce. 

Washington, D.C.: December 12, 1!t89
Great, But Effectiveness is Unknown. 

Homelessness: HUD' s and FEMA's Progress in
United States General Accounting Office. 

Washington, D.  : May 1989
Implementing the McKinney Act. 

Homeless and Runaway Youth Receiving Services
United States General Accounting Office. 

Washington, D.C.: 1989
at Federally Funded Shelters. 

Homelessness: A Complex Problem and the
United States General Accounting Offce. 

Washington, D.C.: April 9, 1985 
Federal Response. 
United States Deparent of  Health Carefor the Homeless: 
Health and Human Services. 
Report to the Congress on the Utilzation and Cost of Health Care Services Provided 
Washington, D.C.: July 1989 
Under Section 340 of the Public Health Service Act. 
DIG Management Advisory 
United States Department of Health and Human Services. 

Report: "State Programs to Provide Shelter and Temporary Housing for Familes. 
Washington, D.  : June 30, 1989 
United States Deparent of  Implementation of the Stewart B. 
Health and Human Services. 
Washington, D. C.: October 1987 
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. 
United States Deparent of  Primary Health Services and 
Health and Human Services. 
Substance Abuse Services: Grantsfor the Provision of Health Services for the Homeless. 
Washington, D.C.: July 1987 
Use of the Emergency Assistance
United States Department of Health and Human Services. 

Washington, D.
and AFDC Programs to Provide Shelter to Familes. 

HOPE: Homeownership and
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Office of Policy Development, Washington, D.C.:
Opportunity for People Everywhere. 

March 1990

Homeless Assistance Policy 
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

and Practice in the Nation  Office of Policy Development and 
s Five Largest Cities. 
Research. Washington, D. C.: 1989 
National Survey of 
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.  The  1988
Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington 
Shelters for the Homeless. 

: 1989 
A - 6  United States Deparent of  SAFAH Grants: Aiding 
Housing and Urban Development. 
Offce of Policy Development and 
Comprehensive Sfrategies for the Homeless. 

Research. Washington, D.  : November 1988 
Homeless Assi!tance
United States Deparnnent of Housing and Urban Development. 

Washington, D.  : May 11, 1987 
Programs. 
A Report on the 1988
United States Deparnnent of Housing and Urban Development. 

Office of Policy Development and 
National Survey of Shelters for the Homeless. 

Research, Washington, D. C. 
United States Deparent of  Synopses of Homeless Job Training Demonstration 
Labor. 
Division of Performance Management and Evaluation. Washington, D.C.:
Projects. 
Januar 1989

Welch, William. "Social Security Chief Says Her Agency Neglects Poor.  The Indianapolis 
April 6, 1990
Star. 
A 
 APPENDIX B

States and Sites Contacted 
Massachusetts  Texas 
Boston  Dalas 
New Bedford  Waco 
Franklin County  Zavala County 
New York  Missouri 
New York City  Kansas City 
Syracuse  Springfield 
Allegany County  St. Francois City 
Pennsylvania  Colorado 
Philadelphia  Denver 
Erie  Pueblo 
Huntingdon County  Montrose County 
Georgia  California 
Atlanta  San Francisco

Columbus  Stockton 
Athens  Crescent City

Illnois  Washington 
Chicago  Seattle 
Rockford  Tacoma 
Saline County  Skagit County  . ------... .--'..
APPENDIX C 
Suggested Topics for Follow-up Studies 
Services to the Homeless 
on 
Coordination between veterans ' programs and: (1) the health care system, and, (2) the 
Supplemental Security Income program 
Linkages between mental health and substance abuse services 
Case management 
Outreach to the homeless by traditional Federal assistance programs 
C - 1