I 
Department  of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR  GENEML 
HOMELESS  FAMILIES AND 
ACCESS  TO AFDC 
OCIOBER  1992  OFFICE OF INSPECrOR  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  components:  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  INSPECITONS 
The  OIGS  Office  of Evaluation  and Inspections  (OEI)  conducts  short-term  management  and

program  evaluations  (calIed 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-todate  information  on the  efficiency, vulnerability,

and effectiveness  of departmental  programs.  This report  was prepared  in the  Chicago  regional

office under  the  direction  of William Moran,  Regional  Inspector  General,  and Natalie  Coen,

Deputy  Regional  Inspector  General.  Project  staffi

REGION  V  HEADQUARTERS

Barbara  Butz  (Team  Leader)  Susan  Hardwick

Jean  Dufresne

JoLynn  Antonik

For  an additional  copy of this report,  please  call the  OEI  Chicago  Regional  Office  at (312)

353-4124.
 I 
I 
Department  of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR  GENEML 
HOMELESS  FAMILIES AND 
ACCESS  TO AFDC 
#
SERVICl~ 
&  L.* 
*+  v 
# 
$ 
s 
% 
$
+$ 
4 
+daa 
>
_BER  1992  0E14M-914)(Mj1  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

PAGE 
EXKUIWE  SUMMARY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  i

INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1

FINDINGS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3

Most  Homeless  Families  Are  Already  On  AFDc  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3

Few Are First Time Applicants  to AFDC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Few  Have  Problems  with the  Application  Processing  Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

APPENDIXES

k  Contacts  . . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.  . . . ..O. ..................... A-1 
B:  Bibliography  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,....O.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  B-1 EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

PURPOSE 
To  examine  homeless  families  accessl%ility to Aid to Families  with Dependent 
Children  (AFDC)  benefits. 
BACKGROUND 
At  the  request  of the  Assistant  Secretary  for  Planning  and  Evaluation,  we  began  to 
examine  the  issue  of  homeless  families  and  access  to  AFDC.  The  assumption  was  that 
many  homeless  families  were  not  accessing  APE,  and  that  the  application  process  in 
particular  caused  significant  problems  for homeless  families. 
We  interviewed  directors  and  caseworkers  from  24 emergency  family  shelters  in  8 
cities  of varying  size  and  in varying  locations.  We  conducted  an  extensive  review  of 
literature  and  spoke  with over  50 people  from  Federal,  State,  and  local  governments, 
academia  and  professional  organizations,  non-profit  advocacy  groups,  and  providers. 
FINDINGS 
Sixty-nine  percent  of all homeless  families  interviewed  in a related  OIG  study were 
receiving  AFDC  benefits  at the  time  of the  interview.  Recent  literature  is consistent 
with this finding.  For  the  31 percent  who were  not  receiving  AFDC,  there  were 
legitimate  reasons,  such  as employment  of a parent  or receipt  of other  income.  A few 
had  applied  for AFDC  but  had  not yet received  benefits. 
Fifteen  of 24 shelter  respondents  report  10 percent  or  less  (including  none)  of their 
total  population  as first  time  applicants  to  the  AFDC  program.  Even  for  those 
shelters  reporting  a more  than  10 percent  proportion,  that  proportion  often  translated 
into  one,  or  less  than  one,  family  a month  as  first  time  applicants  to  the  AFDC 
program. 
Mast sheks  mpdents  saidfht  timeappiicm  do not have probhnr  waithg for their 
~tMWchkhmtitiWcmofWb&m&. 
Overall,  14 of 24 shelters  report  that  the  processing  time  does  not  pose  a problem  for 
first  time  AFDC  applicants  because  their  shelter  takes  care  of the  residents  basic 
needs.  Shelter  staff  often  act  as  advocates  on  behalf  of homeless  families  for  a variety 
of benefits  and  services.  They  also  said  that  AFDC  caseworkers  respond  better  to 
clients  who  have  such  an  advocate. 
i  INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
To  examine  homeless  families  accessibility  to Aid  to Families  with Dependent 
Children  (AFDC)  benefits. 
BACKGROUND 
At a request  from  the  Assistant  Secretary  for Planning  and  Evaluation,  we began  to 
examine  the  issue  of homeless  families  and  how well they  access  Federal  mainstream 
programs  such  as AFDC.  The  assumption  for this study was that  many  homeless 
families  were  not  accessing  AFIX,  and  that  the  application  processing  time  was a 
hindrance  to AFDC  access.  Furthermore,  several  past  Office  of Inspector  General 
(OIG)  studies  had  revealed  that  many  barriers  hindered  substantial  numbers  of 
homeless  individuals  from  accessing  the  Federal  mainstream  programs  of Medicaid, 
Supplemental  Security  Income,  and  the  Alcohol,  Drug  Abuse,  and  Mental  Health 
Services  block  grant.  (See  Supplemental  Security  Income  for Homeless  Individuals, 
0EI-05-91-OO060,  Alcohol,  Drug,  and  Mental  Health  Services  for Homeless 
Individuals,  OEI-05-91-00064  and  Medicaid  and  Homeless  Individuals  OEI-05-91-
OOO63.) 
Homeless  families  constitute  a significant  proportion  of the  homeless  population. 
Estimates  vaxy, but  average  about  30 percent.  In general,  the  homeless  family  is 
composed  of a single woman  in her  twenties  or thirties,  with  two or more  children.  To 
a much  lesser  extent,  single fathers,  two parent  families,  and  childless  couples,  make 
up  the  homeless  family population. 
The  AFDC  program  was created  by the  Social  Security  Act  of 1935 to provide  cash 
welfare  payments  for  needy  children  who  have  been  deprived  of parental  support  or 
care  because  their  father  or mother  is absent  from  home  continuously,  is deceased, 
incapacitated,  or unemployed.  It is an open  ended  entitlement  program  jointly  funded 
by the  Federal  Government  and  the  States.  At  the  Federal  level,  the  AFDC  program 
is administered  by the  Administration  for Children  and  Families,  and  the  Federal 
Government  pays half of States  administrative  costs, and  from  50 to 83 percent  of 
benefits  (averaging  54 percent).  This  is based  on the  Federal  Medicaid  matching  rate 
which  is inversely  related  to State  per  capita  incomes.  States  set benefit  levels based 
on the  need  standard,  which  is the  income  States  decide  is essential  for basic 
consumption  items. 
Federal  regulations  require  that  States  take  no more  than  45 days to process  an 
application.  Seventeen  States  allow themselves  30 days or less to process  applications. 
Caseloads  in the  AFDC  program  reached  record  levels  across  the  country  at the  end 
of 1991.  As of November  1991, there  were  4.6 million  families  receiving  AFDC,  with 
1
 over  900,000 new families -turning  to the  program  since  July  1989.  An  average  of 
nearly  2,000 children  every  day had  been  added  to the  program  during  that  time 
period. 
From  July  1989 to November  1991, every  State  in the  country  experienced  growth  in 
the  AFDC  program.  Forty-five  States  experienced  growth  of 10 percent  or more,  20 
States  reported  growth  of 20 percent  or more,  20 States  had  30 percent  or  more 
growth,  and  10 States  experienced  growth  over  40 percent  in  their  AFDC  caseloads. 
For  the  entire  country,  this  averages  at  24.1  percent  growth. 
METI-IODOI.DGY 
During  pre-inspection  we conducted  an  extensive  review  of available  literature.  We 
also spoke  with  over  50 people  from  Federal,  State  and  local  governments,  academia 
and  professional  organizations,  non-profit  advocacy  groups,  and  providers. 
We  examined  data  from  an OIG  study  on the  quality  of emergency  shelters  for 
homeless  families.  This  consisted  of information  from  24 emergency  family  shelters  in 
8 cities  in 8 States.  Two  of the  cities  are  large  metropolitan  areas,  four  are  large 
cities,  and  two are  small  to medium  size cities.  The  OIG  staff visited  all 24 shelters, 
and  interviewed  shelter  directors,  staff,  and  up to  10 different  residents  in each  shelter. 
(See  Emergency  Shelters  for Homeless  Families,  0EI-07-91-O0400.) 
By telephone,  we re-contacted  directors  and  caseworkers  at  the  24 shelters  and 
gathered  information  more  specific  to the  issue  of AFDC  and  difficulties  associated 
with the  application  process. 
See  Appendixes  A and  B for a list of contacts,  list of cities,  and  a bibliography. 
SCOPE 
In general,  we examined  the  issue of homeless  families  accessing  AFDC.  Specifically 
we examined  the  issue  of timeliness  -- whether  the  amount  of time  that  it takes  to 
process  an AFDC  application  creates  significant  problems  for homeless  families  trying 
to access  AFDC. 
Although  we did not  set  out  to examine  the  capacity  of the  AFDC  program  to prevent 
family hopelessness,  this issue  arose  repeatedly  during  intemiews  with  respondents 
from  the  shelters,  the  government,  professional  organizations,  and  academia.  We  also 
discovered  that  this issue  is well documented  in the  literature  on homeless  families. 
This  review  was conducted  in accordance  with  the Interim Standards for Inspections 
issued  by the  Presidents  Council  on Integrity  and  Efilciency. 
2
 FINDINGS

MOST  HOMELESS  FAMILIES  IN SHELTERS ARE ALREADY  ON AFDC. 
Sixty-nine  percent  of all families  interviewed  in the  ongoing  OIG  study  on homeless 
family shelters  were  receiving  AFDC  benefits  at the  time  of the  interview.  For  the  31 
percent  who were  not  currently  receiving  AFDC,  there  were  a number  of legitimate 
reasons.  These  included:  employment  of the  single mother,  employment  by the 
husband,  the  mother  or father  received  Supplemental  Security  Income  or Social 
Security  Administration  benefits,  they  had  applied  and  were  waiting  for benefits,  and 
one  shelter  did not  allow families  to receive  benefits. 
Recent  literature  and  our  interviews  with local government  and  service  providers 
support  these  findings.  Our  research  indicates  that  most  homeless  families  are  already 
receiving  AFDC  benefits  at the  time  they  become  homeless,  or have  received  AFDC 
sometime  in the  past,  but  have  lost their  benefits  due  to sanctions,  changes  in 
eligibility,  or other  administrative  reasons. 
Eighty-two  percent  of families  in a Los Angeles  (LA)  shelter  listed  AI?DC as 
 
a source  of income  at the  time  they became  homeless  (Forbes,  1991). 
Seventy-three  percent  of homeless  families  in LA were  on AFDC  at the  time 
	
of shelter  intake  (Wood  1989). 
&xty-four  percent  of homeless  women  in Chicago  shelters  were  receiving 
	
welfare  benefits  and  another  19 percent  had  received  public  aid  in the  past, 
1989). 
(MCCOUII, 
Ninety-five  percent  of families  are  receiving  AFDC  benefits  at the  time  of 
	
shelter  intake,  according  to the  New York  City Human  Resources 
Administration  (HRA). 
In New York  State,  the  Westchester  County  Rehabilitation  Center  processes 
	
all homeless  families  in the  county  prior  to placement  in a shelter  or other 
housing  situation.  They  reported  a 95 percent  AFDC  caseload. 
Respondents  in rural  Wisconsin  and  Illinois  reported  that  most  homeless 
	
families  are  already  on AFDC  when  they  enter  the  shelter  system. 
3
 vERYFEw  Residents  IN THE24sHELm  ARE  FIRsTTIME 
APPLICANTS  m  AFDc 
Directors  and  caseworkers  from  the  24 shelters  we contacted  told  us that  very few of 
their  shelter  population  are  first time  applicants  to the  AFDC  program.  The  graph 
below  illustrates  their  responses. 
FirstTime A  licantsto AFDC 
asapro portion vf? OtaishelterPOpulation
141 
04  1% -10%  ll%:m%  ovor20%  dOnYknw 
~dw~ 
source  OIG interviewwsith directorsand caseworkersat 24 shelters. 
As shown,  15 of the  24 shelter  respondents  report  10 percent  or less (including  none) 
of their  total  population  as first time  applicants  to the  AFDC  program.  Even  for 
those  shelters  reporting  a more  than  10 percent  proportion,  that  proportion  often 
translated  into  one,  or less than  one,  family a month  as first time  applicants  to the 
AFDC  program. 
Shelter  respondents  reporting  a higher  proportion  of their  residents  as first  time 
applicants  to the  AFDC  program  do not  report  any more  problems  with  the 
application  process  than  shelters  reporting  a smaller  proportion. 
Most  of the  shelter  respondents  say that  eligible  first time  applicants  wait  30 days or 
less to receive  their  first check. 
  1 shelter:  60 days, 
3 shelters:  45 days, 
 
  10 shelters:  30 days, 
5 shelters:  21 days, and 
 
4 5 shelter  respondents  did not  know  how long. 
 
In only one  case  (60 days) was the  reported  processing  time  longer  than  the  Federal 
and  State  specified  45-day application  processing  time  limit.  At  11 shelters  the 
directors  and  caseworkers  reported  processing  times  less than  the  State-allowed 
processing  time.  Seven  of the  shelters  reported  processing  times  equal  to the  State-
allowed  processing  time. 
Shelters  in States  with longer  processing  times  do not  report  more  problems  caused  by 
waiting  than  the  shelters  in States  with shorter  processing  times.  For  example,  in the 
five States  with a 45-day  processing  time,  three-quarters  of the  sample  shelters  (11 out 
of 15) said their  residents  do not  have  problems  because  of the  processing  time.  In 
contrast,  in the  three  States  with a 30-day processing  time,  only one-quarter  of the 
shelters  (2 out  of 7) said  residents  have  no problems  with  the  processing  time. 
MOST  SHELTER  SIAFF  SAID  FIRST  TIME  APPLICANTS  TO  AFDC  DO  NOT 
HAVE  PROBLEMS  WITH  WAITING  F71R THEIR  FIRST  CHECK  BECAUSE 
THE  SHEL.XER  TAKES  CARE  OF THEIR  BASIC  NEEDS. 
Overall,  14 shelters  (60 percent)  report  that  the  processing  time  does  not  pose  a 
problem  for first time  AFDC  applicants.  Eleven  of these  14 shelters  said  this is 
because  their  shelter  takes  care  of the  residents  basic  needs.  The  other  three  shelters 
say that  residents  can  access  emergency  assistance  money  which  takes  care  of 
immediate  cash  needs.  Two respondents  did say, however,  that  homeless  families  in 
other  shelters,  or on their  own, might  encounter  difficulties  with  a waiting  period. 
Shelter  staff  often  act  as advocates  on behalf  of homeless  families  for a variety  of 
benefits  and  setices.  Respondents  also said that  AFDC  caseworkers  respond  better 
to clients  who have  such  an advocate.  Some  of the  shelters  require  that  families  save 
their  MIX  checks  until  they  have  enough  money  to pay for a deposit  and  first 
months  rent  for housing.  Food  stamps  are  also  banked  so the  family will have  more 
resources  from  which  to get  started.  Respondents  mentioned  also  that  it is in the 
shelters  best  interests  to ensure  that  homeless  families  are  receiving  the  total  amount 
of aid for which  they  are  eligible. 
Of the  nine  shelter  respondents  who said residents  have  problems  with waiting  for 
their  first AFDC  check  three  said  it was because  their  shelter  could  not  provide  for 
residents  basic  needs  until  the  check  arrives,  and  another  three  said  it was because 
the  maximum  length  of stay at  their  shelter  was too  short  to apply  and  receive 
benefits. 
At the  three  shelters  where  the  shelter  did not  have  the  resources  to provide 
completely  for the  family, personal  items  (such  as toiletries  and  diapers), 
transportation  money,  and  medical  needs  were  most  frequently  listed  as the  things 
they could  not  provide.  Also mentioned  were  catch-22 situations  in which  the 
5
 shelter  could  not  provide  the  money  a family needed  to obtain  the  necessary 
documentation  (such  as birth-certificates)  for AFDC  applications. 
Three  of the  shelters  said there  were  problems  because  the  maximum  stay in their 
shelter  was too  short.  Generally,  housing  does  not  become  available  in the  short  time 
period  these  families  stay in these  shelters.  However,  if housing  is available,  there  is 
little  a family can  do but  move  to another  shelter,  without  money  for a security  deposit 
and  first months  rent. 
Also, factors  in addition  to the  processing  time  might  contribute  to problems  while 
waiting  for an AFDC  check.  For  example,  in one  city, the  average  length  of stay in 
emergency  shelters  ranged  from  14 days to 30 days.  Furthermore,  the  citys housing 
authority  will not  allow anyone  to apply  for public  housing  unless  they  are  actually 
receiving  their  welfare  checks.  A family could  be  approved  by AFDC,  but  if they  have 
not  actually  received  a check  they  cannot  apply  for housing.  Therefore,  although  the 
State  has  an expedited  process,  and  shelters  are  reporting  21 to 30-day waits  for a 
check,  all of the  shelters  from  that  city are  reporting  problems  with  that  wait. 
The  remaining  three  respondents,  as well as a few who mentioned  shelter  resources 
and  length  of stay, brought  up various  problems  such  as the  exhausting  nature  of the 
application  process,  the  unfriendly  attitude  of some  AFDC  caseworkers,  complicated 
application  forms,  and  the  inability  of AFDC  to prevent  family hopelessness. 
Although  we did not  ask respondents  about  the  capacity  of AFDC  to prevent  family 
hopelessness,  many  respondents  (including  those  who  say their  residents  have  no 
problems  while waiting  for an AFDC  check)  pointed  out  that  due  to such  issues  as low 
benefit  levels,  and  sanctioning  measures,  receipt  of AFDC  benefits  does  not,  in many 
cases,  prevent  family  hopelessness.  These  problems  are  also documented  in the 
literature  about  homeless  families. 
6
 -APPENDIX  A

contacts 
California 
California  Dept.  of Social  Services

Western  Center  on Law and  Poverty,  Los Angeles

Illinois 
Illinois  Department  of Public  Aid,  Chicago

Illinois  Department  of Public  Aid, Springfield

City of Chicago  Department  of Human  Semites,  Homeless  Services  and  Programs

Chicago  Coalition  Against  Hopelessness,  Chicago

Chicago  Institute  on Urban  Poverty,  Chicago

Public  Welfare  Coalition,  Chicago

Cornerstone  Shelter,  Chicago

Pacific  Garden  Mission,  Chicago

St. Martin  de Porres  Shelter,  Chicago

Salvation  Army  Lodge,  Chicago

Travelers  and  Immigrant  Aid, Project
 Linkage,  Chicago

Travelers  and  Immigrant  Aid,  Health
 Care  for the  Homeless,  Chicago

Circle  Family  Care,  Homeless  Project,
 Chicago

Volunteer  Sexvices, Marion

BCMW  Community  Action  Agency,  Centralia 
Missouri 
OEI  Regional  Office,  Kansas  City 
New York 
Human  Resources  Administration,  New York  City 
Westchester  County  Rehabilitation  Services 
Texas 
Coalition  for the  Homeless  of Houston/Harris  County 
Washington,  D.C. 
U.S. Dept.  of Health  and  Human  Services,  Administration  for Children  and

Families

Debra  Rog,  Vanderbilt  U./ Robert  Wood  Johnson  Foundation

A-1  Martha  Bur$  Urban  Institute  .

Mark  Greenburg,  Center-for  Law and  Social  Policy

Julie  Strawn,  Center  on Budget  and  Policy

Wisconsin 
Dane  County  Department  of Social  Services,  Madison

Family  Crisis Shelter,  Milwaukee

Family  Crisis Shelter,  Stevens  Point

West  Central  Wisconsin  Community  Action  Agency

Wisconsin  Department  of Health  and  Social  Sew-ices

3 Shelters  from  Each  Citw 
Atlanta,  GA 
Boston,  MA 
Chicago,  IL 
Cleveland,  OH 
Little  Rock  AK 
Louisville,  KY 
Los Angeles,  CA 
Minneapolis,  MN 
A-2  APPENDIX  B

Bibliography 
Aid to Families  with Dependent  Children.  Congressional Digest. Washington,  D.C.: 
Februag  1988 
Burt,  Martha.  Over the Edge: Z%eGrowth of Homeikxsness in the 1980s. Russell  Sage 
Foundation.  New  York:  1992 
Bassuk,  Ellen  L. Homeless  Families.  Scientific American.  December  1991 
Benenson,  Robert.  Social Welfare  Under  Reagan.  Americas  Needy:  Care and 
Cutbacks.  Editorial  Research  Reports.  Congressional  Quarterly  Inc. Washington, 
D.C.:  1984 
California  Health  and  Welfare  Agency,  Dept.  of Social  Services,  Statistical  Sexvices 
Bureau.  Aid to Families  with Dependent  Children:  Survey  of Homeless   
Assistance  Applications  Approved  in California  during  May  1989. 
December  1990. 
Carlile,  Patricia.  Statement  Before the Senate  Committee  on Governmental  Affain. 
Interagency  Council  on the  Homeless.  Washington,  D.C.:  May  14, 1992 
Coalition  for the  Homeless  of Houston/Harris  County.  Addressing  the  Problem  of 
Hopelessness  in Houston  and  Harris  County.  December  8, 1989. 
Center  on Budget  and  Policy Priorities  and  Center  for the  Study  of the  States.  Z?ze 
States and the Poor: How Budget Decirions in 1991 Affected  Low  Income  People. 
Washington,  D.C.:  December  1991 
Congresswnal  QuurterZyAlmanac  Volume XLVI.  Congressional  Quarterly  Inc. 
Washington,  D.C.:  1990 
DeParle,  Jason.  California  Plan  to Cut  Welfare  May Prompt  Others  to Follow. New 
York l%nes. December  18, 1991 
Dugger,  Celia  W. Panel  on Homeless  Finds  Widespread  Drug  Abuse  in New Yorks 
Shelters.  New York llmes.  February  16, 1992 
Ferriera,  Rick.  AFDC  and  Food  Stamp  Caseload  Growth. American  Public  We~are 
Association  Memo 
B-1
 Flynn, Jack  and  Robert  Nipp.  HUD Initiatives Show Gains for Homeless  Families, 
MentaUy IV. October  31, 1990 
Food  Stamp  Program.  Congressional Digest. Washington,  D.C.:  February  1988. 
Forbes,  Stephanie  R. and  Jacqueline  Leavitt,  Ph.D.  New Solutions  to Hopelessness: 
The  Effectiveness  of Californias  Homeless  Assistance  Program.  Dept.  of Urban 
and  Regional  Planning,  University  of California,  Los Angeles.  March  1991 
Fraser,  Don.  Why Cities  Need  to Push  for Revision  of Federal  Welfare  Laws! 
Nations Cities Weekly. October  21, 1991 
Hancock,  Anna.  Aid to Families  with Dependent  Children  Program  in Colorado:  45-
Day Processing  Time  and  Its Effect  on Homelessness.  Colorado  Coalition  for the 
Homeless.  July,  1990 
Home  Base/Regional  Support  Center  for Hopelessness  Policy and  Programs. 
I?eventing Hopelessness:  Bay Area  Programs  and  JWzatl?zey Do. November  1991 
Jensen,  Catherine  Tim.  Food  Stamp  Changes  Help  the  Rural  Poor. Food and 
Nutrition. February  1990 
Joe,  Tom  and  Cheryl  Rogers.  By the Few for the Few: the Reagan  WeZfareLegacy.  D.C. 
Heath  and  Company.  Lexington,  Massachusetts.:  1985 
Koranda,  Ann.  Violence as a Frectusor to Mental Illness and Hopelessness.  Chicago,  IL: 
September  5, 1991 
Matsumoto,  Masao.  Domestic  Food  Assistance  Programs.  Food and Nutrition.  USDA 
Economic  Research  Service.  July-September  1991 
Mattem,  Jane.  Assistant  Secretary  Mary  Jarratt  Talks  About  the  Food  Programs. 
Food and Nutntion. July  1984 
McCourt,  Kathleen  and  Gwendolyn  Nyden.  Promises  Made,  Promises  Broken...The 
Crisis and  Challenge:  Homeless  Families  in Chicago.  Loyola  University.  The 
Chicago  Institute  on Urban  Poverty.  Travelers  and  Immigrants  Aid.  Chicago, 
Illinois,  October  1990 
Miller,  Dorothy.  Women and Social  WeZjare.Praeger.  New York:  1990 
National  Alliance  to End  Homelessness.  Checklist for Success: Programs to Help  the 
Hungy  and Homeless.  Spring  1990 
B-2
 National  commission  on Children.  Beyond Rhetotic:  A New American  Agenda for 
Chikiren. Washington,  D.C.:  1991 
National  Housing  Institute  and  American  Affordable  Housing  Institute.  Preventing 
Hornelessness: A  Study of State and Local  Hopelessness  Prevention Programs. 
October  1991 
Newman,  Sandra  J. and  Ann  B. Schnare.  Subsidizing Shelter: The  Relationship  Between 
WeZfareand Housing Assktance.  Urban  Institute.  Washington,  D. C.:  1988 
New York  State  Department  of Social  Services.  BeVenting Returns to Hopelessness: 
Interventions and Outcomes  of the Homeless  Rehousing Assktance  Program.  1990 
The  Ohio  State  University  College  of Social Work.  Preliminary Findings on Rural 
Home/essness  in Ohio. Columbus,  OH:  November  1990 
Parish,  Ramona.  Messages  from  a Welfare  Mom. Newsweek.  May  23, 1988 
Porter,  Louis  II. 249 Kids Homeless  on a Typical  Night. Saint Paul Pioneer Press. 
February  25, 1992 
Record  25 Million  People  on Food  Stamp  Rolls. New York ZImes. March  29, 1992 
Rog,  Debra  J. The  Evaluation  of the  Homeless  Families  Program:  Challenges  in 
Implementing  a Nine-City  Evaluation.  Evaluating Programs for the Homeless. 
Josses-Bass  Publishers.  San  Francisco:  Winter  1991 
Romero,  Peter.  Food  Stamp  Plan  May Help  the  Homeless.  Nations Restaurant News. 
July 23, 1990 
Rovner,  Julie.  New Cries  for Welfare  Reform  Target  Able-Bodied  Poor. 
Congressional Quurterly Wee@  Reprt.  Washington,  D.C.:  March  28, 1992 
The  Stanford  Center  for the  Study  of Families,  Children  and  Youth.  The Stanford 
Studies of Homeiess  Families,  Children and Youth. November  18, 1991 
Social Security  Programs  in the  United  States.  Social Security Bulletin. Washington, 
D.C.:  September  1991 
Steinberg,  Jacques.  Bush Budget:  Officials  See  Local  Damage.  New York Times. 
February  10, 1992 
Sullivan,  Louis,  W. Remarkr  at the R~on  I Interagency Council on the Homeless 
Workshop. Boston,  MA  July  11, 1991 
B-3
 Taylor,  Paul.  %umey  Finds  Many  State  Cuts  Aimed  at Poorest  of Poor.  Wahington 
Post. December  19, 1991 
Terranova,  Rosemary  C. Displacement/Relocation.  Catholic  Charities  Housing 
Resource  Center.  St. Louis,  MO 
United  States  Department  of Health  and  Human  Services.  The Fkcal  Year 1993 
Budget.  Washington,  D.C.:  January  1992 
United  States  Department  of Health  and  Human  Sem-ices. HHS Mainstream  Programs 
That Benejit  the Homeless.  Washington,  D.C. 
United  States  Department  of Health  and  Human  Services,  Administration  for 
Children  and-Families,  Office  of Family  Assistance.  Fiscal Year 1990 QuarterZy 
I%blic Ass&ance  Statistics.  Washington,  D.C.,  1990. 
United  States  Department  of Health  and  Human  Services,  Office  of Inspector 
General.  Homeless  l%wention  programs. Washington,  D.C.:  Februa~  1991 
United  States  Department  of Health  and  Human  Services,  Office  of Inspector 
General.  State programs to hovide  Shelter and  Temporary Housing for Families. 
Washington,  D.C.:  June  1989 
United  States  Department  of Health  and  Human  Services,  Social  Security 
Administration.  Social Security Bulletin: Annual  Statistical Supplement.  U.S. 
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C.:  1988 
United  States  General  Accounting  Office. Hopelessness:  Too Early to Tell W4at Kim& 
of %wention  Assistance  Work Best. Washington,  D. C.: April  1990 
United  States  House  of Representatives  Committee  on Ways and  Means.  1991 Green 
Book  Overview of Entitlement  Rograrns.  U.S. Government  Printing  Office. 
Washington,  D.C.:  1991 
United  States  Interagency  Council  on the  Homeless.  Federal Programs To HeZp 
Homeless  People.  October  1991 
United  States  Interagency  Council.  Federal  Progress  Toward  Ending  Hopelessness: 
The  1991/1992 Annual  Report.  July 20, 1992 
United  States  Interagency  Council  on the  Homeless.  Fact  Sheet:  What  are  the 
characteristics  of the  Homeless  Population?  The 1989 Annual  Repott  of the 
Interagency Council on the Homeless.  1989 
B-4
 W@  DaviG  R. Burciago  Valde~  Toshi  Hayashi,  and  Steven  Schlossman.  Calfomia 
Ch- California Families. Over the Brink  Homeless  Families in Los Angeles. 
Assembly  Office  of Research.  August  1989 
B-5