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 Colcii 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 programs; and (3) what impact McKinney has had in reducing 

homelessness. 
FINDINGS 

Approach 

FINDING 1: McKinney has helped States and communities in their overall.pproach to 

homelessness. Whether their approach has been to provide emergency services or to focus on 

more permanent solutions, McKinney has helped make their approach more viable by 

expanding available services. 

Coordination 

FINDING 2: McKinney has been a vehicle 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.


FINDING 3: McKinney sfragmented structure makes long-term planning and the 

development of comprehensive, integrated programs difcult. The frgmentation of 

McKinney is a barer to accessing funds, conducting long-term planning, and developing 

comprehensive programs or integrated services. 

Impact 

FINDING 4: McKinney has helped meet emergency needs, but respondents do not view it 

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. 

RECOMMENDATION #2: Improve coordination at the State and local levels to reduce

fragmentation, enhance planning, and simplify funding. RECOMMENDATION #3: Strengthen accountabilty and oversight at Federal, State and 

local levels 


Identify and implement ways to assist the homeless through 

traditional Federal programs. 

RECOMMENDATION #4: 

In implementing these recommendations, parcular concern should be given to children in 

homeless families and homeless individuals who are chronically mentally il, 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 Coutcil 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. 

McKinney s 17 progrs ar funded by six Federal agencies. Collectively they address the 

homeless population s need for emergency foo and shelter, trsitional and permanent 

housing, priar and mental health care services, education, job trning, alcohol and drg 

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 of the Deparent of Health 

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 

the homeless with non-McKinney funds or are priar 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 

local approaches to homelessness? Two: Has McKinney served to strengthen or weaken State 

and local coordination efforts? And thee: Has McKinney had any impact in reducing the 

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 

during the past 5 years, especially with regard to the focus of their programs and the mi of 

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 

been influenced by many interrlated factors, including the extent and nature of homelessness 

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. 

FINDING 2: MCKINNEY HAS BEEN A VEHICLE FOR DIAWGUE ABOUT THE 

HOMELESSNESS ISSUE. 

There is consensus among respondents that "dialogue, communication," and 

networking" have increased considerably during the past years. 

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 

programs. Providers raely knew of McKinney progrs 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 

Federal programs and how to access them or about successful local progrs. 

FINDING 3: MCKINNEY' S FRAGMENTED STRUCTURE MAKES WNG-TERM 

PLANNING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED PROGRAMS 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. 

Some said that the cost of completing a lengthy, cumbersome application with xtensive 

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." Stil another said: "If they would make the levels of funding 

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, are too low; and, (3L the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project does not provide 

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 

suggested simplifying its progr strcture. 

IMPACT 

FINDING 4: MCKINNEY HAS HELPED MEET EMERGENCY NEEDS/BUT RESPONDENTS DO NOT VIEW IT AS THE LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO HOMELESSNESS. 

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 

mentaly il, or substance abusers in the last 5 years, the 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 

for the next few years, the vast majority also recognize that McKinney alone l not end 

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 tyical: "Dealng with the welfare system contiues to be overwhelmg to 

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, 

housing rehabilitation and constrction, and BU 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 

the rudimentar stages of developing one. . 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. 

When we asked providers where they tu for information or assistance U!: !9ney programs, only a third mentioned a Federal progr 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 

Council 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. 

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 

currently existing programs, it would provide some flexibility for grantees who want to use 

their funds for a varety of homeless multiple purposes. 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 

process. This type of process has worked successfully in other federally funded programs 

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 editorial changes to this report in order to address their concerns about the recomjlendations. 
, 

APPENDIX A 

Bibliography 

American Public Welfare Association Memo. Washington, D. : May 11 , '987 

A Status Report on Homel ss Familes in America s Cities: A 29 City Survey. United States 

Conference of Mayors. Washington, D.C.: May 1987 

A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America s Cities: 1989. The United States 

Conference of Mayors. Washington, D. : 1989 

A Status Report on the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. The United


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. 

Januar 15 , 1990, p. 39 

Bun, Marha R. and Cohen , Barbara E., America s Homeless: Numbers, Characteristics, and 

Programs that Serve Them. Urban Institute Press. Washington, D. e.: July 1989 

Bun, Marha R. and Cohen , Barbara E. Feeding the Homeless: Does the Prepared Meals 

Provision Help? The Urban Institute, Washington, D. e.: October 31 , 1988 

Center on Budget and Policy Prorities. 
 Poverty in Rural America: A National Overview.

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

Copley, Steve. "Boeing Investment Breaths Life into Downtown Hotel." Boeing News. 

Seattle, WA: March 23, 1990 

House of Representatives Conference Report 

Washington, D.e.: October 18, 1989. 

Council of State Community Affairs Agencies. 


Council of State and Community Affais Agencies. 
 State and Homelessness: A Preliminary

Policy Dialogue for the 1990's. Washington, D. : 1989. 

Council of State Community Affairs Agencies. Biennial Report: 1984-1986. Washington 

Council of State Community Affairs Agencies. 
 Housing the Homeless: State Actions.

Washington, D.C. 
Culhane, Dennis. "Single Room Housing Won t End Homelessness. New York Times. 

March 14, 1990 

DeParle, Jascon. "Bush Homeless Plan: ' Godsend' or False Hope?" New York Times. 

Februar 12, 1990 

Federal Task Force on the Homeless. Summary of Federal Programs Available to Help the

Washington, D.C.: February 1987 

Filer, Randall K. "What We Really Know About the Homeless. The Wall Street Journal. 

April 10, 1990 

Homeless. 

Finder, Alan. " O. HOtels: Trying to Revive an Old Idea. New York Times. February 9 

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 

New York Times. 
 April 8, 1990. p. 6

Freidmutter, Cindy. Health Care Perspectives: Service-Enriched Housing for Homeless 

Familes. The Roben Wood Johnson Foundation. New York, New York: February 1989

Golden, Tim. " , Possibly Violent, and No Place to Go. New York Times.
 April 2, 1990. 

p. Al 

Harney, Kenneth. " S. May Help Flip the Flophouse Image. Chicago Sun- Times. May 18, 

1990. p. 

Washington, D. 

May 1989 

Homelessness Information Exchange. Family and Child Homelessness. 


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

Homewards: A Quarterly of the Homelessness Information Exchange. Homelessness 

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 

Post. March 31 , 1990. p. A3

Committee on Healthcare 

for Homeless People. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.: 1988. 

Institute on Medicine. Homelessness, Health and Human Needs. 


Interagency Council on the Homeless. 
 A Nation Concerned: A Report to the President and

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

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

Addition - Vol. 1 , 1988 

Washington, D. : August 

1989 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. Council Communique. 


Washington, D. : October 

1989 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. Council Communique. 


Washington, D.C.: December 

1989 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. Data Base Informtion on McKinney Grants. 

Washington , D. C.: December 27, 1988 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. Council Communique. 


Non-McKinney Federal Programs Available to Help 

the Homeless. Washington, D. : July 1989 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. 


Interagency Council on the Homeless. 
 The McKinney Act: A Program Guide. Washington

C.: July 1989


Annual Report on the Interagency Council 

on the Homeless. Washington, D. : 1989 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. The 1989 

Chicago, 11. ; April 1990 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. "Resource Lists." Washington, D. : August 1989 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. Region V Workshop Material. 


The State of the Nation s Housing 1989. Harard


University; Cambridge, MA.


Lemov, Penelope. "Transitional Housing Programs Get Under Way. April 1990 

Joint Center for Housing Studies. 


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 

and Homeless. Washington, D. C.: Spring 1990 

National Alliance to End Homelessness. 


Mentally III H.omeless 

Persons: State Services. Alexandra, VA.: April 25, 1990 

National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. 


National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. 48 States Document 

Expenditure History of the McKinney Act State Grant Program on Mental Health 

Services for the Homeless. Alexandra, VA. : Februar 5, 1990 

Synopses of Community Demonstration 

Grant Projects for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment of Homeless Individuals. 

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 


Rockvile, MD. : October 1988 

The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 

Assistance Act: An Analysis of its Current Status. Washington, D.C.: November 1989 

National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. 


National Law Center on Homelessness and Poveny. 
 Pending Homeless Legislation ­

August 15, 1989. Washington, D. 

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 

Tribune. Januar 23, 1990 

Reardon, Patrcia T. "Doubts Cast on Homeless Count: Inaccurate Census Could Cost 

Chicago Federal Funds. Chicago Tribune. 
 March 12, 1990. pp. 1; 10

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. Notre Dame Magazine.
 Winter 1989-90. 

pp. 35­


Schwarz, David C. and Glascock John H. Combating Homelessness: A Resource Book. 

American Affordable Housing Institute. Rutgers, New Jersey 

Stein, Sharon. "We Know Little About Homeless Beyond Images. Chicago Tribune. 

April! , 1990. pp. 1 

A ­

. ,

Tenenbaum, Jacob E. Health Care for the Medically Indigent. S. Depanment of Health 

and Human Services. Washington, D. : September 1985 

The Council of Better Business Bureaus ' Philanthropic Advisory Service. Insight: Arlington 

VA. : Issue 2, 1989


The Homelessness Test: There is a Right Answer. New York Times. 
 March 1, 1990


Washington, D.C.: December 1989 

The National Allance to End Homelessness. Washington, D. C.: August/September 

The National Alliance to End Homelessness. Alliance. 

Allance. 

1989 

The National Alliance to End Homelessness. Allance. Washington, D. : July 1989

The National Allance to End Homelessness. Housing and Homelessness.
 Washington, D.C.: 

June 1988


The National Allance to End Homelessness. There s No Place Like Home. Washington, D. 

The National Mental Health Association and Famlies for the Homeless. 
 Homeless in

America. Acropolis Books. Washington, D.C.: 1988 

The Parnership for the Homeless. Moving Forward: A National Agenda to Address 

Homelessness in 1990 and Beyond. 
 New York, New York: 1989

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. A Bridge. Communications Office. Prnceton, N. 

Autumn 1987 

The Roben Wood Johnson Foundation. The Homeless Familes Program. Prnceton, N.J. 

September 1989


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

Homeless Program. December 1983


The Roben Wood Johnson Foundation and the U.S. Deparent of Housing and Urban 

Development. Programsforthe Chronically Mentally Ill. Januar 1986 

Toelle, Miram E. and Kerwin, Sheila. "Children in Transition. Children Today. 

September-October 1988. pp. 27­

Travelers and Immigrants Aid. Annual Report 1989: Communities of Hope and Justice. 

Chicago, 11.: 1989 

A - 5

United States General Accounting Offce. 
 Homelessness: McKinney Act Programs and

Funding for Fiscal Year 1989. Washington, D. : February 1990 

United States General Accounting Offce. 
 Homelessness Prevention: Demandrjor Aid is

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Response. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 1985 

United States Deparent of Health and Human Services. Health Carefor the Homeless: 

Report to the Congress on the Utilzation and Cost of Health Care Services Provided 

Under Section 340 of the Public Health Service Act. Washington, D.C.: July 1989 

DIG Management Advisory 

Report: "State Programs to Provide Shelter and Temporary Housing for Familes. 

Washington, D. : June 30, 1989 

United States Department of Health and Human Services. 


United States Deparent of Health and Human Services. Implementation of the Stewart B. 

McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Washington, D. C.: October 1987 

United States Deparent of Health and Human Services. Primary Health Services and 

Substance Abuse Services: Grantsfor the Provision of Health Services for the Homeless. 

Washington, D.C.: July 1987 

United States Department of Health and Human Services. 
 Use of the Emergency Assistance

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


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

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

March 1990


Homeless Assistance Policy 

and Practice in the Nation s Five Largest Cities. Office of Policy Development and 

Research. Washington, D. C.: 1989 

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 


1988 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The National Survey of 

Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington 

: 1989 

Shelters for the Homeless. 


A - 6 
United States Deparent of Housing and Urban Development. SAFAH Grants: Aiding 

Offce of Policy Development and 

Research. Washington, D. : November 1988 

Comprehensive Sfrategies for the Homeless. 


United States Deparnnent of Housing and Urban Development. 
 Homeless Assi!tance

Programs. Washington, D. : May 11 , 1987 

United States Deparnnent of Housing and Urban Development. 
 A Report on the 1988

Office of Policy Development and 

Research, Washington, D. C. 

National Survey of Shelters for the Homeless. 


United States Deparent of Labor. Synopses of Homeless Job Training Demonstration 

Division of Performance Management and Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Projects. 

Januar 1989


Welch, William. "Social Security Chief Says Her Agency Neglects Poor. The Indianapolis 

Star. April 6, 1990

A ­

Massachusetts 

Boston 

New Bedford 

Franklin County 

New York 

New York City 

Syracuse 

Allegany County 

Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia 

Erie 

Huntingdon County 

Georgia 

Atlanta 

Columbus 

Athens 

Illnois 

Chicago 

Rockford 

Saline County 

APPENDIX B


States and Sites Contacted 

Texas 

Dalas 

Waco 

Zavala County 

Missouri 

Kansas City 

Springfield 

St. Francois City 

Colorado 

Denver 

Pueblo 

Montrose County 

California 

San Francisco


Stockton 

Crescent City


Washington 

Seattle 

Tacoma 

Skagit County 
. 

... ...

APPENDIX C 

Suggested Topics for Follow-up Studies 

on Services to the Homeless 

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