Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

HOMELESS  PREVENTION  PROGRAMS 

Richard  P. Kusserow 
INSPECTORGENERAL 
OEI-07-90-00100  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
The purpose of this inspection was to determine the overall effectivenessof selectedhomeless 
prevention programs and to compare the effectivenessof prevention programs which provide 
casemanagement servicesto thosewhich do not. 
BACKGROUND 
There is a growing belief among social serviceproviders that it is more cost effective and more 
humane to prevent homelessnessrather than to just provide emergency shelter and food.  The 
Stewart B. McKinney  Homeless AssistanceAct is a major sourceof Federal funding to combat 
homelessness,however, the majority of the funding targetsthe needsof those who are already 
homeless. The reauthorization of this Act in Public Law 100-628, Section 423, allows up to 20 
percent of the funds in the Department of Housing and Urban Developments (I-IUD) Emergency 
Shelter Grants (ESG) Program to be usedfor homelessprevention. In addition, up to 25 percent 
of the funds in the Department of Health and Human ServicessEmergency Community Services 
Program can be used for homelessprevention activities.  The Secretaryof Health and Human 
Serviceshasplaced a high priority on the needsof homelessfamilies in his HHS Program 
Directions Plan. 
A homelessprevention program is defined as a program aimed at stabilizing personsuntil they 
can get beyond the situation that placed them at risk of homelessnesswhile their living 
arrangementsare still in place. Two categoriesof homelessprevention programs were studied. 
The first category includes programs that provide families with one-time assistanceto meet the 
familys  immediate needssuch asrent, utilities, housing location, and food.  The secondcategory 
includes those programs which, in addition to the one-time assistance,also provide case 
management services..Casemanagementprograms provide a comprehensive setof services 
aimed at stabilizing the family  and helping them reach self-sufficiency. 
METHODOLOGY 
We selectedeight homelessprevention programs and reviewed casesinvolving families that had 
experienced a severeeconomic hardship that had createda substantial risk of eviction and 
becoming homeless. Criteria for selecting the eight programs were basedon HUD regulations 
which are used by homelessprevention programs receiving ESG funds. 
Casehistories and program intake,forms showed that families receiving benefits from these 
programs had exhaustedtheir economic and social support systemsat the time they requested 
assistance. We contacted families who had received assistanceto determine their current living 
arrangements. 
i  We also contacted each program administrator. We gatheredinformation  about the types of 
\  servicesthe program provided, the costs and sourcesof funding, and the number of families 
servedin 1989. 
FINDINGS 
Homeless prevention programs keepfamilies  in their homes 
l 	 We located 136 of the 159 families in our sample. Of these, 130 were in permanent 
housing six months to one year after receiving the homelessprevention assistance. 
The automatic or routine provision  of casemanagement seryices did not increase the 
likelihood  of a functional  family  remaining  in permanent housing 
l 	 One-time assistanceprograms wereable to serve 16 times as many families per year 
with the sametotal budget. 
> 	 Our study did not determine other effects that casemanagement servicesmay have 
had on the family. 
The average benefit paid by the eight homelessprevention programs was one-sixth  the cost of 
a typical  stay in a shelter 
The homelessprevention programs examined assistonly a small portion  of needy families 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The Interagency Council  on the Homeless should promote homelessprevention programs as 
an effective approach to reduce homelessnessfor  families 
Homeless serviceproviders should carefully  consider whether to routinely  and automatically 
provide case management servicesto all families  which request emergency assistance 
The Interagency Council  should promote further,  more rigorous evaluations of case 
management  services 
COMMENTS 
We received comments to the draft of this report from the Assistant Secretaryfor Planning and 
Evaluation, the Assistant Secretaryfor Human Development Services,the Assistant Secretary for 
Family Support Administration,  and the Interagency Council on the Homeless.  Basedon these 
comments, we made appropriate changesto the report. The comments are discussedfully  at the 
ii  end of the sport.  Many valuable comments dealt with areasbeyond the scopeof this study and 
L  will  be considered in connection with future inspections dealing with homelessissues. 
. . . 
Ill  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION  ......................................................................................................1 

FINDINGS  ..................................................................................................................5 

Homeless prevention  programs  keep families  in their homes ........................5 

The automatic  or routine  provision  of casemanagement services 

did not increase the likelihood  of a functional  family 

remaining  in permanent  housing ......................................................................7 

The average benefit  paid by the eight homeless prevention  programs 

was one-sixth the cost of a typical  stay in a shelter  ......................................10 

The homeless prevention  programs  examined assist only a small portion 

of needy families  .............................................................................................. 11 

RECOMMENDATIONS  .........................................................................................13 

COMMENTS ............................................................................................................13 

APPENDICES 
Homeless Prevention  Services...................................................................... A-l 
Sources of Funding  Homeless Prevention  Programs ..................................B-l 
Federal Funding  of Homeless Prevention  Programs ................................. C-l 
Shelter Costs in the 8 Cities .......................................................................... D-l  INTRODUCTION 
PURPOSE 
The purpose of this inspection was to determine the overall effectivenessof selectedhomeless 
prevention programs and to compare the effectivenessof prevention programs which provide 
casemanagement servicesto those which do not. 
BACKGROUND 
In recent years, efforts have been made at Federal, State, and local levels to take a proactive 
position on homelessness.There is a growing belief among social service providers that it is 
more cost effective and more humane to prevent homelessnessrather than to just provide 
emergency shelter and food. 
The Stewart B. McKinney  Homeless AssistanceAct, signed into law on July 22, 1987, is a major 
sourceof Federal funding to combat homelessnessin the United States. It created a number of 
new programs and augmentedexisting programs to protect and improve the lives and safety of 
the homeless. The majority of all McKinney Act funding targetsthe needsof those who are 
already homeless. However, when the Act was reauthorized in November 1988, Public Law 
100-628, Section 423, allowed up to 20 percent of the funds in the Department of Housing and 
Urban Developments (HUD) Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program to be usedfor homeless 
prevention.  In addition, the reauthorization allowed up to 25 percent of the funds in the 
Department of Health and Human Servicess(HHS) Emergency Community ServicesProgram 
to be used for homelessprevention activities. 
Another sourceof funds under the McKinney Act that may be used for homelessprevention is 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  The McKinney  Act has also made it 
possible for low-income families whose income and assetsare less than their monthly expenses 
to receive food stampswithin five days of application. 
Another sourceof Federal and Statehomelessprevention assistanceis the Aid to Families with 
Dependent Childrens (AFDC) Emergency AssistanceProgram. In addition, other State and 
local programs have been createdto servethat population at risk of becoming homeless. These 
programs provide a range of servicesincluding rent and utility  subsidies,housing location, and 
landlord/tenant mediation. 
Prevention programs aredefined in a HUD report, entitled Homeless AssistancePolicy and 
Practice in the Nations Five Largest Cities, asprograms aimed at stabilizing personsuntil they 
can get beyond the situation that placed them at risk of homelessnesswhile their living 
arrangementsare still in place. Clearly, the purposeof homeless prevention programs is not 
limited to avoiding episodesof homelessness,but also at avoiding evictions and other 
destabilizing events.  Two categories of homelessprevention programs were studied. The first category includes 
programs that provide families with one-time assistanceto fulfill  an immediate need. There is 
usually a set limit  to the amount of cash assistanceprovided, and only the familys  basic needs 
are met.  The servicestypically  offered are rent/mortgage payments, utility  payments, referrals 
for food and clothing, location of affordable housing, and landlord/tenant mediation. 
The secondcategory includes thoseprograms which provide casemanagementas well ascash 
assistance. This type of program identifies the various needsthat must be met to stabilize a 
family  and help them reach self-sufficiency.  A casemanager works with the family  to help them 
accessthe servicesavailable to meet those needs. Besides addressingthe basic needsof housing 
and food, casemanagement may also provide counseling, GED classes,job skills training, and 
life skills instruction such as budgeting and parenting. 
When a program usesthe casemanagementapproach, the families they serveautomatically and 
routinely receive casemanagement services. Likewise, programs using the one-time assistance 
method of homelessprevention only have the means to provide cash assistanceand a few basic 
services(See Appendix A) regardlessof the type and extent of the families problems. It appears 
that the decision determining which type of assistancethe family  receivesdependson which 
providers door the family  opens. 
The funding sourcesfor the programs selectedfor the study varied as shown in Appendix B. 
Four of theseprograms received Federal funding from the McKinney  Act (SeeAppendix C). 
Other funding sourcesinclude State,county, city, private donations, foundation grants, United 
Way, and fund raising. 
METHODOLOGY 
In order to gain a basic understanding of homelessprevention programs and obtain leadsin 
identifying  programs to study, we contacted the National Governors Association (NGA), the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), and the American Public Welfare Association (APWA). 
Each of theseassociationsare actively involved in homelessissues. The NGA hasestablished 
the Governors Homeless Policy Work Group which is currently examining the implementation 
of the McKinney  Act and tracking legislative proposals that affect the homeless. The USCM 
annually collects data from 27 cities and publishes a report called, A StatusReport on Hunger 
and Homelessnessin Americas Cities.  The APWA is currently involved in two special projects 
concerning the lack of affordable housing for the lowest of the low income. 
We selecteda purposeful sample of eight programs from a universe of 27 programs collected 
from the above mentioned associations. We usedthe following  criteria to selecttheseeight 
programs. They are basedon the HUD regulations used by homelessprevention programs 
which receive ESG funds. These criteria were usedeven though not all of our studied programs 
actually received ESG funds. 
l  The program must target families. 
l 	 The assistanceprovided must be necessaryto avoid eviction or termination of utility 
services.  l  The program assistsfamilies who are experiencing a suddencrisis. 
l 	 The programs assistanceis temporary and the families have a reasonableprospectof 
resuming a self-sufficient status. 
Programs we selectedare located in the following  cities. 
Charleston, South Carolina  Minneapolis, Minnesota 
KansasCity, Missouri  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
Los Angeles, California  Salt Lake City, Utah 
Louisville,  Kentucky  San Diego, California 
Of the eight programs, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Louisville routinely provided  case 
management services. The remaining five programs, Charleston, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Salt 
Lake City, and San Diego, provided assistanceon a one-time only basis and did not provide case 
management. 
For each of theseeight programs we obtained information concerning the types of servicesthe 
program provided, the costs and sourcesof funding, and the number of families servedin 1989. 
We also interviewed program administrators to obtain their perspectiveson the needsof their 
clients and the effectivenessof their programs. 
During the preliminary  stagesof the inspection, the Office of the Assistant Secretaryfor 
Planning and Evaluation requestedthat our study focus specifically on families.  The Secretary 
of Health and Human Serviceshasplaced a high priority  on the needsof homelessfamilies in his 
HHS Program Directions Plan. 
We made onsite visits to each program and reviewed casefiles involving  families. which were 
opened in 1989 and closed for six months up to one year. We randomly selectedtwenty casesin 
each of sevenprograms. The eighth program had only 19 casesthat met the selection criteria, 
resulting in a total sample of 159 cases. 
Casesin eachprogram were selectedonly when it was documented in the casehistory that the 
family  was on the verge of being evicted or becoming homelesswhen assistancewas first 
sought. Casefiles either contained a narrative about the familys  background and reasonfor 
seeking assistanceor an intake form with similar information.  In all cases,we documented the 
reasonwhy each family  in our samplewas seeking homelessprevention assistance.The 
majority of thesecaseswere seekingrent or mortgage assistancebecausethey were being 
evicted due to the loss of their major income source. Some had experienceda marital separation 
or divorce, while others had beeninvolved in a seriousaccident or experienced a medical crisis 
that made it impossible to maintain their housing payment. Other casehistories statedthat the 
families were living  in overcrowded situations by doubling up with friends or relatives and were 
being forced to move but had no resourcesor funds to do so. 
While onsite, we made attempts to locate families using the last known telephone numbersfound 
in the program casefiles.  If contact was unsuccessful,other resourceswere usedto find a 
Page 3  current telephone number or to determine the families current status. These resourcesincluded 
relatives, neighbors, employers, landlords, telephone books, local offices providing AFDC, 
Social Security Disability  Insurance, and Section 8 Housing Authorities. 
After a family  was located, whenever possible, we conducted a short interview by telephone 
using a discussion guide. The interview was conducted to obtain economic and demographic 
information,  to determine the current living  arrangementsof the family, to assessthe familys 
feelings about the effectiveness of the assistancethey received, and to determine if the family 
becamehomeless at any time after receiving the assistance. The interviews were also usedto 
confirm the initial  preliminary  assessmentthat the family  had been on the verge of eviction or 
homelessness. 
Many of the homelessprevention programs requestedproof that the families had exhaustedtheir 
economic and social support systemsbefore giving any monetary assistance.This especially 
applied to those programs receiving McKinney  money since one of the statutory criteria for 
receiving ESG funds statesthat a prevention programs assistancewill  not supplant funding from 
any other source. The programs would assessthe families eligibility  for traditional types of 
assistances<uch as food stamps,AFDC, or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) before providing 
assistance. Several programs required an eviction or foreclosure notice before they would offer 
assistance. Eviction or loss of utility  servicesis another requirement for the McKinney  ESG 
monies. Other programs required the families to contribute up to half of the back rent with funds 
from personal sourcesbefore they would offer any cash assistance. Another example includes 
having the families sell personal items in a garage sale to make money towards their rent. 
The following  statistics about the averagefamily  in our sample are characteristic of a family  who 
is only slightly better off than a family  who is already homeless. It standsto reasonthat this 
family  is slightly better off than a homelessfamily  becausethey are still in a pm-homeless stage. 
l  54 percent received AFDC or SSI as their main income source 

l  46 percent of families had at least one person employed 

l  Average income was $615 per month 

l  65 percent were single-female-headed households 

l  Families had 3.9 members 

l  Families had 2.5 children 

l  Average age of male was 35 

l  Average age of female was 33 

Page4  FINDINGS 
The following  findings describe the effectivenessof the eight homelessprevention programs in 
keeping families in their permanent homes. In addition, a comparison was made to determine if 
there was a difference in a familys housing outcome when they received assistancefrom a 
program that routinely offered casemanagementservicesover a program that did not. 
Due to the inability  to createa control group, we are not able to predict whether or not these 
families would have become homelesswithout the homelessprevention assistance.However, 
we do know thesefamilies were facing eviction.  Eviction itself is a crisis for families, certainly 
a serious disruption for them. Furthermore, had they been evicted, their risk of homelessness 
would have greatly increased. Hence, we tried to determine if those families who received 
assistancewere able to avoid eviction as well as homelessness. 
For programs which offered casemanagementservices,we restricted our assessmentto the 
impact the programs serviceshad on the families housing situation. It is beyond the scopeof 
this study to determine if a family  should or should not have received casemanagementservices. 
Since this study focused on housing servicesprovided by homelessprevention programs, we did 
not review casefiles for ancillary problems the families may have had such as alcoholism, drug 
abuse,or mental illness. Therefore, we could not determine if casemanagementwas or was not 
used correctly.  Our intention was simply to determine if casemanagementservicesaffected 
housing outcomes, not whether they should have beenoffered for other reasons. 
F'lNDINGl. 
Hom$ess prevention programs keepfamilies  in their homes 
The eight homelessprevention programs have been effective in preventing evictions and 
homelessness.As shown in the following  chart, we located 136 of the 159 families identified in 
our sample. Of these 136 families, we found 130 living in permanent housing six months to one 
year after receiving the homelessprevention assistance. 
Four of the families we located were living with relatives. 
Two of the families were homelessat the time of the study. One of the homelessfamilies was 
living in a transitional living facility. 
We were unable to locate the remaining 23 (14 percent) of the families by any of several 
resources. Theseresourcesincluded relatives, neighbors, employers, landlords, telephone books, 
local offices providing AFDC, Social Security Disability  Insuranceand Section 8 Housing 
Authorities.  According to the U.S; CensusBureau, 2.8 percent of the countrys population move 
out of statein a years period of time.  This may account for approximately four families.  We 
are unable to ascertainwhether the remaining 19 families, who were not located, were evicted, 
are homeless,or inpermanent housing.  159  Homeless  Prevention  Families: 
Where  Are  They  Now? 
Permanent Housi 
130 
Living with Relative 
4 
As an additional basis for evaluating the effectiveness of theseprograms, we followed  up on 
specific casesto determine how well off families were after obtaining benefits.  We conducted 
telephone interviews with  84 (62 percent) of the families located and found 70 (83 percent) of 
thesefamilies in the same residence as when they received the assistance. Of the 84 families 
who were interviewed, only  1 had to live in a shelter after receiving the assistance. Only five 
had to live with relatives or friends after receiving the assistance. 
We also questioned clients about their satisfaction with the assistancethey received and the 
statusof their current living  arrangements. On a scale where the options to the client ranged 
from very little,  somewhat, or a whole lot of help, 74 (88 percent) of the clients interviewed 
indicated that the assistancethey received was a great deal of help to their families.  In fact, 73 
(87 percent) of the families reported their current living  arrangementsto be stable. These 
families were in no danger of eviction or losing their homes at the time of interview. 
We found that these families relied on the homeless prevention programs as a last resort because 
they had exhausted their economic and social support systems. Over half of the families relied 
on AFDC or SSI as their main sourceof income.  However, this source of economic support was 
not adequate to sustain the family  during an economic crisis.  Many families commented that the 
assistancefrom the homeless prevention programs was what they needed to bolster their 
economic and social support systems. Following  are typical statementsmade by the families in 
this regard. 
page
6  Vt  (the assistance)  kept me and my three kid3 off the street. 
The  rental payment  helped me get over the hump so I didnt  get evicted. 
I  would  have been homeless ifI  had not received aid from  FEMA. 
While we were unable to establish a control group of families who did not receive assistance,we 
were able to make somecomparisons with 454 families scheduledfor eviction by the 
Philadelphia Housing Authority  (PHA) in fiscal year (FY) 1989. The homelessprevention 
program that deals with the PHAs evictions was able to prevent 62 (14 percent) of thesefamilies 
from losing their homes by offering financial support. Of these62 families,  14 were part of our 
study and were found in permanent housing six months to one year after receiving assistance. 
Thus, for thesecases,the program was successful. 
The remaining 392 Philadelphia families were actually evicted. However, even though the 
homelessprevention program was unable to provide cashassistance,it was able to help 100 (22 
percent) of thesefamilies relocate to other permanent housing. 
Therefore, 292 (74 percent) of the families who were evicted did not receive any assistance. The 
Philadelphia homelessprevention annual report statedthat 20 (7 percent) of the families who 
were evicted did become homeless. These 20 families were unable to find alternative housing on 
their own and acceptedemergency shelter. In Philadelphia, once a family  entersthe citys shelter 
system, the averagelength of stay is 6 months. 
This leaves272 families (69 percent) who were evicted, received no assistancefrom the 
homelessprevention program, and whose whereaboutsare unknown.  It is not possible to know 
if any of thesefamilies becamehomeless,but their eviction was almost certainly a serious 
disruption for them, possibly placing them at greaterrisk of homelessness. 
FINDING  2. 
The automatic or routine provision of casemanagement servicesdid not increase the 
likelihood  of a functional  family  remaining  in permanent housing 
Casemanagementprograms and one-time assistanceprograms differ in the number of services 
offered and the length of time they spendon a case. A casemanagementhomelessprevention 
program typically  offers cash assistancefor immediate needs,as well as a range of additional 
servicesto help families with long-term improvement.  Examples of theseservicesmay include 
educational training, job skills training, and life skills instruction such as budgeting and 
parenting. The one-time assistancehomelessprevention program provides cashassistancefor 
rent/mortgage or utility  payments and a few basic servicesto addressthe familys immediate 
needs(SeeAppendix A).  Corm&n  servicesamong one-time assistanceprograms include 
housing location, landlord/tenant mediation, and referrals to other agenciesfor food and clothing.  The families in our sample were functional families capable of living  in society autonomously; 
however, they had experienced some kind of severeeconomic hardship that had created a 
substantial risk of their being evicted and possibly becoming homeless. Through narrative case 
histories or program intake forms we learned that medical emergencies,domestic separations, 
and lack of employment are 3 reasonswhy 42 percent (67 of 159) of the families in our sample 
needed help. 
We conducted a comparison of housing outcomes of families who received casemanagement 
serviceswith families  who received one-time assistance. Of the 159 functional families in our 
sample, 59 (37 percent) received casemanagement servicesand 100 received one-time 
assistance. We located 136 of the 159 families  and found that 52 (38 percent) received case 
management services and 84 (62 percent) received one-time assistance. We also found that 130 
of the 136 located families were living  in permanent housing six months to one year after 
receiving assistance. Of the 130 families in permanent housing, 48 of the 52 (92 percent) 
received casemanagement services and 82 of the 84 (98 percent) received one-time assistance. 
For families who received casemanagement services, 3 were living  with relatives and 1 family 
was homeless, living  in a transitional facility.  Similarly,  one of the families who received 
one-time assistancewas living  with relatives after receiving assistanceand only one of these 
families was homeless. As a result of thesecomparisons, we found no significant differences in 
the housing outcomes for families who received casemanagement services. This is shown in the 
chart below. 
Case  Management  Had  No  Significant 
Impact  on  Housing  Outcomes 
48
82 
1 
Case  - Ivl;;)agement 
q 
0  Permanent  Housing  fl  Living w/Relatives  Homeless  Due to the additional servicesprovided by the casemanagementprograms, the number of 
families that can be servedis lower and the cost per family  is higher. The averageprogram cost 
per family  for a one-time assistanceprogram was $143, while the casemanagementprogram 
gave an averageamount of $2,223. Thus, a one-time assistanceprogram is able to serve 16 
times as many families per year with the sametotal budget. A comparison between the two types 
of programs is shown below.  If a functional family has the mental and physical capability to 
maintain their permanent housing, but hasbeen struck by a severeeconomic hardship, it may be 
cost efficient for them to receive assistanceon a one or two-time basis. 
A COMPARISON  OF HOMELESS  PREVENTION 
PROGRAMS  FOR FAMILIES 
CASE  ONE-TIME 
MANAGEMENT  ASSISTANCE 
Average # of Families 
54  873 
ServedPer Program in 1989 
Average Annual Budget*  $120,035  $124,410 
I  I 
Average Program Cost 
$2,223  $143 
Per Family 
Average Length of Case  I  196 days  I  22 days 
* Figure pertains to amount of budget servingfamilies only. 
Due to limitations in our study, we cannot make a determination about whether case 
management was or was not usedcorrectly for the casesin our sample. However, the following 
chart suggestsmany similarities between thosefamilies who received casemanagement and 
those families who received one-time assistance.Furthermore, the deciding factor determining 
whether a family  received casemanagementserviceswas which program it applied to for 
assistance. As noted earlier, some of the programs we examined did not offer casemanagement 
services;others offered them to all applicants. 
Pas 9  SIMILARITIES  EXIST  BETWEEN  CASE  MANAGEMENT 

FAMILIES  AND  ONE-TIME  FAMILIES 

CASE MANAGEMENT  ONE-TIME 
Female-headedHouseholds  68%  63% 
Two-Parent Households  31%  36% 
I  I 
Number of Children  2.5  2.4 
Average Monthly  Income  $578  $538 
Employed  31%  34% 
Received AFDC  37%  34% 
Our finding  should not be construed to mean that we are discouraging the use of case 
management as a viable and effective way to deal with families who have multiple problems 
such as alcoholism, drug abuse,or mental illness. We did not attempt to examine the validity  of 
casemanagement asan important intervention in such cases. However, our study showed that 
one-time assistanceprograms may be more cost effective in avoiding eviction. 
Thus, we are suggesting that programs need to clarify their goals and carefully distinguish 
between the needsof the families and their capability to help them. If the goal is to help as many 
families aspossible avoid eviction and remain in their homes, the one-timeassistanceprogram is 
probably more effective.  If the goal is to provide additional long term help, casemanagement 
services,although comparatively more expensive, may be warranted. In any event, more 
stringent evaluation of casemanagement serviceswould be useful. 
FINDING  3. 
The average benefit paid by the eight homelessprevention programs  was one-sixth the cost of 
a typical stay in a shelter 
The analysis of data gathered in this inspection found that each of the eight homelessprevention 
programs am cost effective as shown in the following  chart. These programs distributed a total 
of $59,789 in cash assistanceto the 136 families we were able to locate. The averagecash 
assistancegiven to thesefamilies for rent/mortgage, utilities, etc. was $440. The averagecost for 
a family  to stay one month in a shelter is $995.  We are not claiming that the families in our study who received assistancewould have been 
homeless had they not received assistance. However, each family  who avoids a shelter stay by 
receiving assistanceis cost effectively  servedby the homelessprevention program. 
Shelter  Costs  Are  Higher 

Than  Homeless  Prevention  Costs 

_____.._  -..__-__
$140 
-_-- ._._..... 
..___..---.-_._ 
..__--. 
-_  _____-__._---.- 
----.- _--...-- _-_____..._......-- -. 
$40 
Y 
.--.  .--- -.-..-..-... 
$20 
/  /- /m 
$0 
CH  KC  IA  LV  MN  PH  SLC  SD 
FINDING  4. 
The homeless prevention programs examined assist only a small portion  of needyfamilies 
Many of the eight homeless prevention administrators mentioned they are only able to addressa 
small portion of the needsthat exist in their cities.  For example, in Salt Lake City a survey was 
conducted of all the social service agenciesin the metropolitan area. Results determined that 
each agency received an averageof 100 calls per month requesting rent/mortgage assistanceor 
relocation servicesafter the families had already been evicted.  A further survey in Salt Lake 
City found that the homeless prevention program is only able to assist 1 of every 12 calls.  In 
addition, this homelessprevention program is the only local agency that provides rent/mortgage 
assistance,and their clientele has doubled in the last two years. 
Six of the eight administrators said that the lack of funding and/or staffing is a major barrier to 
their effectiveness. As noted earlier, in Philadelphia, the citys Housing Authority  scheduled454 
evictions in 1989. The homeless prevention program was only able to prevent 62 of these 
page 11  evictions with cash assistance. An additional 100 were relocated before the eviction took place. 
With all their efforts, 64 percent of thesefamilies housing needsremained unmet. 
The majority of our sampled families (79 percent) seeking assistancewere in need of money to 
pay the rent or mortgage payment. The real estateindustry and home financing institutions 
suggesta household spendno more th,an28 to 30 percent of their income for their housing 
payment. Likewise, tenants in Section 8 Housing pay 30 percent of their monthly income for 
rent.  In many cases,theselow-income families who seek assistanceare living in private market 
housing that is not affordable for their income level.  For example, in Louisville,  more than half 
of the families we interviewed have a rent/mortgage payment that exceeds50 percent of their 
monthly income.  Only 7 percent of the families servedby the programs in our sample were 
living in Section 8 Housing. 
We askedeach of the homelessprevention administrators, What is the most important thing that 
should be done to end homelessnessand the threat of homelessness? All eight administrators 
statedthe solution to end homelessnessis more affordable housing. 
page12  RECOMMENDATIONS 
The Interagency Council  on the Homeless should promote homelessprevention programs as 
an effective approach to reduce homelessnessfor families 
Two of the purposesof the Interagency Council on the Homeless are to recommend 
improvements in Federal programs and to collect and disseminateinformation relating to the 
homeless. The Council is the ideal mechanism to deliver the messagethat homelessprevention 
is an effective way to deal with a potential homelesspopulation of families. 
Homeless serviceproviders should carefully consider whether to routinely  and automatically 
provide casemanagement servicesto all families  which request emergency assistance 
Families, who are able to live in society autonomously but who only require immediate cash 
assistanceto meet the crisis that hasput them in a near-homelesssituation, may not needcase 
management servicesto avoid eviction or homelessness.Program designersand administrators 
need to carefully consider the goals and objectives of their programs. To the extent that their 
purpose is to maximize the numbers servedand minimize the costs,Federal, State, and local  . 
funding bodies should not routinely or automatically provide casemanagementservicesand 
should almost certainly not make casemanagementa requirement in homelessprevention 
programs. 
On the other hand, casemanagement servicesmay well satisfy other important family  needs. 
Assistance should be rendered according to an assessmenotf the familys  specific needs. 
The Interagency Council should promote further,  more rigorous evaluations of case 
management services 
It was beyond the scopeof this study to evaluate the efficacy of casemanagementservicesas 
such. We believe it would be useful to do so. 
COMMENTS 
We received comments to the draft of this report from the Assistant Secretaryfor Planning and 
Evaluation, the Assistant Secretaryfor Human Development Services,the Assistant Secretaryfor 
Family Support Administration,  and the Interagency Council on the Homeless.  Basedon these 
comments, we made appropriate changesto the report  Many valuable comments dealt with 
areasbeyond the scopeof this study and will  bk consideredin connection with future inspections 
dealing with homelessissues. 
page 13  Several comments addressedhow it was determined in our sample that a family  was on the 
verge of eviction or homelessness.We expanded the Methodology section of the report to 
further explain how this was done. Our selection criteria specified that only families that had 
experienced a suddencrisis, that in fact put them on the verge of eviction or homelessness, 
would be selected. We made an initial  assessmenotf this basedon a review of the caserecords. 
Subsequently,we used interviews to  gather data about economic and demographic information, 
current living  arrangements,and to confirm the initial  assessmentthat the families had indeed 
been on the verge of eviction or homelessness. 
We were askedwhether we had any data on the extent to which the families in our sample had 
multiple problems like drug abuseor mental illness. This was beyond the scopeof our study. 
We have amended the Findings section of the report to statethat Since this study focused on 
housing servicesprovided by homelessprevention programs, we did not review casefiles for 
ancillary problems the families may have had such as alcoholism, drug abuse,or mental illness. 
Several comments raised the issue that the study did not have a control group. We agreethat this 
would have been desirable. However, asis often the case,both time constraints and resource 
limitations prevented us from undertaking such a study. However, basedon the data which we 
did collect, we were able to make somecomparisons of families who did and some who did not 
receive assistanceusing information reported by Philadelphias homelessprevention program. 
This information  is now presentedin the first finding of the report.  It provides stronger evidence 
for our finding. 
Two of the commentors statedthat our report erroneously assumedthat families which had 
received assistanceand remained in their homes would have been homeless had they not 
received assistance. We have no way of knowing if the families would have been homelesshad 
they not received assistance. We agreethat such an assumption would be erroneous,and we did 
not mean to make it.  However, we do know that thesefamilies were at great risk of being 
evicted. We revised our report to clarify that an eviction itself is a crisis for most families, 
certainly a serious disruption for them;,and in all probability  an eviction places them at a greater 
risk of becoming homeless. 
We received severalcomments that pointed out that the families in the sample had higher income 
levels than the averageAFDC family, not to mention the averagehomelessfamily.  This is not 
surprising since we were not studying homelessfamilies, but rather those at risk of eviction and 
possibly homelessness. The report has beenrevised to clarify that only families that were 
functional and who received servicesfrom a homelessprevention provider were included in this 
inspection.  The scopeof this inspection focused on thesetypes of families, not on families who 
were already homeless. The reasonit focused on functional families is that they are the target 
population for homelessprevention programs. 
By far, our most controversial finding was the one recommending against the routine or 
automatic provision of casemanagement services. Several commentors interpreted our report as 
being against the useof all casemanagementservices. We did not intend such a result. It was 
beyond the scopeof our study to evaluate the efficacy of casemanagement servicesas such, and 
we did not gather information to allow for any conclusions to be drawn about them. Our finding 
page14  &d  recommendation were narrowly focused on the cost effectivenessof casemanagement 
servicesin dealing with an immediate crisis such as an eviction.  We stand by our finding and 
recommendation in this regard, but have revised the report to clarify the narrower focus of our 
study. We agreethat additional study of casemanagementservicesas such is warranted and 
have recommended that it be undertaken. 
Page15  APPENdIX  A 
Homeless  Prevention  Services 
Services  Case Management  One-Time Assistance 
KC  LA  LV  CH  MN  PH  SLC  SD 
Mortgage/Rent  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 
Utilities  X  X  X  X  X  X 
Locate Housing  X  X  X  X  X  X 
KC  =  KansasCity, Missouri  MN  =  Minneapolis, Minnesota 

LA  =  Los Angeles, California  PH  =  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

LV  =  Louisville,  Kentucky  SLC  =  Salt Lake City, Utah 

CH  =  Charleston, South Carolina  SD  =  San Diego, California 

A-l  APPENDIX  B 

Source  of  Funding  Homeless  Prevention  Programs 
City*  X  X 
Private Doanations  X  X  X  X  X 
Foundation Grants  X  X  X 
Fundraising  X  X 
United Way  X  X 
* In somecases,the ultimate source offunding for theseprograms is the HUD Community Development 
Block Grant or the HHS Community ServicesBlock Grant. 
KC  =  KansasCity, Missouri 

LA  =  Los Angeles, California 

LV  =  Louisville,  Kentucky 

CH  =  Charleston, South Carolina 

MN  =  Minneapolis, Minnesota 

PH  =  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

SLC  =  Salt Lake City, Utah 

SD  =  SanDiego, California 

B-l  APPENDIX  C 
Federal  Funding  of Homeless  Prevention  Programs 
FEDERAL 
PROGRAMS  AMOUNT  9-6OF BUDGET 
SOURCE 
Kansas City  MCKINNEY-ESG  $  5,372  12% 
Louisville  MCKINNEY-ESG  $19,ooo  71% 
Salt Lake City  MCKINNEY-ESG/ 
$37,500  45% 
FEMA 
San Diego  MCKINNEY-FEMA  $14o,ooo  100% 
ESG = Emergency Shelter Grant from the Department of HUD 
FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency 
C-l  APPENDIX  D 

Shelter  Costs  In the  8 Cities 
Shelter costs to houseone person for one night varies from city to city.  Costsranged from $7.50 
in Charleston to $12.50 in San Diego.  The length of time a family  spendsin a shelter also varies 
from city to city.  In Minneapolis a family  staysan averageof 7 days in a shelter. In Philadelphia 
and Kansas City the averagelength of stay for a family  in a shelter is 180 days. 
LOCATED  AVERAGE 
COST PER  SHELTER
CITY  PERSONS IN  LENGTH
NIGHT  COSTS 
SAMPLE  OF STAY 
CH  $7.50  73  75 days  $41,062 
KC  $10.50  52  180 days  $98,280 
I 
LA  I  $8.11  I  81  I  34days  1  $22,335 
LV  $10.18  62  60 days  $37,870 
$8.78  50  7 days  $3,073 
PH  $10.50  79  180 days  $149,310 
SLC  $10.00  48  60 days  $28,800 
SD  $12.50  69  30 days  $25,875 
Total  $406,605 
Note: Shelter costswere computedby multiplying costper night, timespersons in sample, times average 
length of stay. 
CH = Charleston, South Carolina 

KC = KansasCity, Missouri 

LA = Los Angeles, California 

LV = Louisville,  Kentucky 

MN = Minneapolis, Minnesota 

PH = Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

SLC = Salt Lake City, Utah, 

SD = San Diego, California 

D-l