Department of Health and Human Sefices 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

EMERGENCY SHELTERS FOR 

HOMELESS FAMILIES 

OCTOBER 1992 
OFFICE OF INSPE(XOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 

inspections conducted by three OIG operating componen~. the Office of Audit Services, the 

Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs 

the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 

correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIGS Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 

Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIGS Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 

investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 

unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, 

administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 

control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 

OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECTIONS 

The OIGS Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 

program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, 

the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 

reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 

and effectiveness of departmental programs. 

This report was prepared in the Kansas City Regional Office under the direction of Don 

McLaughlin, Regional Inspector General, and Jim Wolf, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 

Project staffi 

Kansas City Headquarters 

Dennis Tharp, Project Leader Susan HardWick,Program Specialist 

Tim Dold, Team Leader 

To obtain a copy of this report, call the Kansas City Regional Office at (816) 426-3697. 
I 

Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

EMERGENCY SHELTERS FOR 

HOMELESS FAMILIES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To assess the quality of living conditions and services in emergency shelters for 

homeless families. 

BACKGROUND 

The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, representing the Secretary of the 

Department of Health and Human Semites as a member of The Interagency Council 

on the Homeless, requested us to perform this inspection in order to better 

understand conditions in shelters which serve homeless famiIies. 

We visited 24 homeless family shelters in eight cities of varying sizes and locations. 

We intetiewed shelter directors and caseworkers, homeless program coordinators, 

and 172 homeless families. 

FINDINGS 

Shelter Environment 

Most shelters were clean, but sanitation was a problem in some. 

Shelter security and safety in the neighborhood was not a substantial problem with 

most residents. However, 20 percent of families said that they were concerned for 

their safety. 

Shelter SeMces 

Shelters provided or made arrangements for a variety of services for their residents, 

Seventy percent of families were participating in workshops/classes to help them 

towards self-sufficiency. Case management was provided in 60 percent of the shelters 

reviewed. Children’s education was not greatly disrupted. Most children were 

enrolled in local public schools within 48 hours after arrival at the shelter. Emergency 

health care was available to all shelter residents and “Health Care for the Homeless” 

programs were operational in 7 of the 8 cities we visited. Some shelters had referral 

systems with child protective services bureaus. 

Only 25 percent of the shelters had access to a day care for its residents. 

i 
Income and Benefits 

Most homeless families were already connected with public assistance service before 

they arrived at the shelters. Sixty-nine percent of families were on Aid to Families 

with Dependent Children and 77 percent were receiving Food Stamps. 

Factors A&ding Hopelessness 

Of the factors contributing to a family’s hopelessness, “problems with family” or 

“problems with relatives with whom they resided” was cited as the most frequent 

predisposing factor. Other contributing causes, often in combination with “problems 

with family,” include eviction, domestic violence, and job loss. 

Shelter directors in 25 percent of the shelters said that most of their residents were 

drug abusers. 

Availability of and Access to Shelters 

Seven of 8 city representatives of homeless coalitions in the 8 cities felt there were not 

enough homeless family shelters in their cities. Two-third’s of the shelter directors 

concurred with this finding. 

Most shelters had rules which the families must agree to before being allowed 

admittance to the shelters. Typically, these involved prohibitions against drugs and 

violence, curfews, and requirements to help with chores. 

Two-thirds of the shelters deny admittance for older males. This causes family 

separations in some cases. 

Federal dollars accounted for 18 percent of funding sources for the sampled shelters. 

Most shelters were funded through donations and other sources. 

Overall, the shelters we visited are effectively providing important services to homeless 

families. However, some deficiencies need attention. Our results suggest that State 

and local officials, shelter operators, homeless program coordinators, and others 

wishing to improve shelters for homeless families should focus on: 

o ensuring cleanliness and security where they are lacking 

o
 arranging for day care to be provided to families w“th children who are 

attempting to find work while living in a shelte~ 

ii 
o	 developing policies and effective practices to prevent family separations due to 

restricting admissions of older males. 

At the federal level, the Interagency Council on Homeless could be instrumental in 

providing information and technical assistance to those planning and running sheIters 

for homeless families in the areas we have identified. The Council could also promote 

research on the topic of family separation in shelters. 

... 

111 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S”” ““”””””””””” “ 1


FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . � � � � . � � � � � . � “ “ “ “ “ 3


Shelter Environment


Shelter Services


Income and Benefits


Factors Affecting Hopelessness


Availability ofand Access to Shelters


mmm~AmONS . . . . . . . . . . ...-.......--=== .=-. ==.. =.. =.. ”-””9 

APPENDICES 

A Tabular Present.ations ofShelterMe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A-l 

Observations of Living Conditions 

Homeless Families’ Perspectives 

Shelter Directors’ Perspectives 

Demographicsof Homeless Families 

Sources of Funding 

B.
 Descriptions of Shelters Visited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-. ”””” .B-l 
INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE 

To assess the quality of living conditions and services in emergency shelters for 

homeless families. 

BACKGROW 

According toa U.S. Conference of Mayors repofiissued in December 1991, requests 

byhomeless families foremergency shelter are increasing. Such requests increased by 

an average of 17 percent in 1991 in 28 surveyed cities. Of the homeless population, 

the report estimates that homeless families with children comprise 35 percent of the 

total homeless population, with an average of 60 percent of the family members being 

children. 

Our study was requested by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 

representing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as a 

member of The Interagency Council on the Homeless. It was undertaken to 

determine first hand the quality of living conditions and availability of services in 

emergency shelters which serve homeless families. 

METHODOLOGY 

We performed field work in eight cities. These were purposively selected to ensure 

representation in our sample of cities both large and small and in various geographic 

areas. The selection of cities was based on information from the Conference of 

Mayors report, discussions with preinspection contacts, and other groups. 

We went to two large metropolitan cities (Los Angeles and Chicago), four “mediumsized” cities (Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, and Minneapolis), and two smaller cities 

(Little Rock and Louisville.) We conducted telephone interviews with city officials 

responsible for programs for the homeless to obtain a profile of the city’s homeless 

shelters, networking of homeless services, and whether or not the city had “Health 

Care for the Homeless.” 

We selected three family shelters in each city fkom a list provided by the local 

homeless official or the local coalition for the homeless. We visited these shelters and 

conducted interviews with each of their directors or responsible staff. We used an 

observation checklist which we developed expressly for the purpose of assessing the 

living conditions of each shelter. We also obtained a copy of shelter policies/rules. 

We completed up to 10 interviews at each family shelter with families currently 

receiving semices within the shelter. These families were selected randomly, based 

1

upon lists of families we received from the shelter director or case manager. We 

interviewed 172 heads of homeless families across the eight sampled cities. 

Finally, we interviewed shelter directors, case workers, and coordinators of homeless 

programs in each of the eight cities in order to gain their perspectives about the 

availability of shelters for homeless families. 

We conducted our review in accordance with the Interim Standards for Inspections 

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

2

FINDINGS


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


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


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


present our data in three separate forms.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


gathered and from what sources.


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


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


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


and heard.


SHELTER ENVIRONMENT


Cleanliness


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


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


bathrooms were in disrepair.


S=@


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


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


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


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


at a shelter.


SHELTER SERVICES


General Sew”ce Orientation


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


families are receiving in the shelters include:


3 
Counseling 

Goal-setting 

Budgeting 

Parenting 

Co-dependency training and recognition 

Alcoholics Anonymous 

Drug rehabilitation program 

Graduate Equivalency Degrees 

Day care 

Local Head Start program 

“Reading is Fundamental” program 

Self-esteem classes 

Housing assistance 

Recreational programs for children 

Food pantry 

Clothes closet 

Personal hygiene items . Follow-up 

Only one or two shelters had all of these types of services. A few shelters generally 

offered just bedding and a couple of meals a day. Some of those shelters did not offer 

any additional services. If the resident wanted to look for an affordable apartment or 

find a job, the resident was on her own. The resident’s motivation and initiative 

determined the success of her endeavors. 

Even when these services were offered in shelters, it was up to the resident to take 

advantage of them. 

Among the semices which were of special interest were the following: 

Workshom/Classes 

Seventy percent of families were participating in workshops or classes. These included 

such areas as budgeting, parenting, drug rehabilitation, and counseling. 

Case Mana~ement 

Sixty percent of homeless families received case management. A homeless family 

would meet with a counselor or social worker once weekly to go over problems, goals, 

and housing. 

Health Care 

Emergency health care was available to all health care residents. Almost one-third of 

the shelters have written medical emergency policies. The others have emergency 

protocol which they follow, basically consisting of contacting emergency medical 

4 
services or, for example, getting a van to transport a pregnant woman to a public 

hospital. These remaining shelters did not have anything in writing in the rules handout or in the office regarding medical emergencies. 

We were informed that shelter staffers had current cardiopulmonary resuscitation 

(CPR) certification in some of the shelters, and that staffers are trained in emergency 

response techniques. If a crisis arose which warranted trained personnel, the staffers 

would simply call emergency medical services. 

Non-emergency health care was also available in 7 of 8 cities. There was a “Health 

Care for the Homeless” program in 7 of the 8 cities. 

Education 

A school-age child’s education was not disrupted because he or she was in a homeless 

family shelter. Most shelters were able to connect children with a local public school 

within 48 hours of coming into the shelter. 

Child Welfare 

We did not find evidence of children being taken away from families while in the 

shelter. A few shelters did have a referral system established with the local child 

protective services bureau. 

Dav Care 

Only 6 of 24 shelters had access to a day care. Mothers were experiencing difficulties 

when they were forced to take children along on job interviews and housing searches. 

INCOME AND BENEl?I’lS 

Most homeless families are already connected with public assistance services before 

they arrive at the shelters. However, every shelter encouraged AFDC participation 

and Food Stamps, and would help the families get hooked up with public assistance 

services if they were not already receiving benefits. They counseled or required the 

families to save the benefits in order to make a security deposit or rent payment in the 

future. 

Only one shelter would not let the families receive AFDC checks or Food Stamps 

while staying in the shelter. Their justification for this was that the families were 

receiving three cooked meals daily and were not being charged for lodging, so they did 

not need those public assistance sefices while residing in the shelter. They did 

encourage working with the local AFDC caseworker and arranging for assistance 

benefits immediately upon dismissal from the shelter. 

5

Sixty-nine percent of the families were on AFDC and 77 percent were receiving Food 

Stamps. Some ofthose notreceiting ~Chadapplied for benefits and were 

awaiting their first benefit check. Many others were not eligible for AFDC because of 

employment of one or both parents or because of income from other sources like 

Supplemental Security Income or Social Security. 

Additional aspects of the accessibility of shelter families to AFDC are discussed in a 

companion OIG report, “Homeless Families and Access to AFDC’ (OEI-05-91-00061). 

FACI’ORS AFFECTING HOMEIESSNESS 

Reasons for Hopelessness 

We asked the homeless families what event precipitated their current experience with 

hopelessness. Following are the reasons which they gave: 

47 percent - problems with families


36 percent - eviction


18 percent - domestic violence


17 percent - job loss


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


Drug Abuse 

Shelter directors in 25 percent of the shelters said that most of their residents were 

drug abusers. Our review team members were also told by some shelter residents of 

drug use in or in the vicinity of some of the shelters. 

AVAILABILITY OF AND ACCESS TO SHELTERS 

Availability of Shelters 

Seven of eight city representatives of city homeless coalitions or mayor’s offices 

indicated that there are not enough shelters in the city to satisfy the demands of 

homeless families. Two-thirds of the shelter directors said that there are not enough 

homeless shelters nor enough “emergency family” shelters. A couple of these directors 

stated that there are sufficient shelters, but not enough for families. One director said 

there are plenty of shelters, but vexy little affordable housing in the area. 

Families are typically alerted to shelters by a homeless hot line, an AFDC caseworker, 

a city commission/coalition, a former resident, or word-of-mouth. Other modes 

through which families become aware of the availability of shelters include billboards, 

United Way, police departments, Red Cross, and churches and community groups. 

6

Usually there is a central referral agency or hot line which tells families which shelters 

have vacancies, and also which shelters they might qualify for admittance. 

Referrals by county welfare workers are extremely common and were the main source 

of referral in a couple of cities. In Boston, families are almost always referred through 

their AFDC caseworker. Families experiencing hardships or tragedies might be 

referred by the Red Cross or the police department. 

Every city except Little Rock AR had a city coalition or a mayor’s office which 

coordinated homeless assistance and outreach. In Little Roc& our contact was the 

Salvation Army. They were able to inform us of all the shelters in that city. The LOS 

Angeles mayor’s office has contracted with an outside entity to perform homeless 

networking for the metro area. 

Entrance and E1i~ibilitv Policies 

Every shelter had published rules which they either (1) read aloud to the head of the 

family, (2) handed out to the head of the family, (3) required the head of the family to 

agree and sign the rules, or a combination of these three methods. All families were 

aware of the rules. 

Very few families are refused admittance if there is a vacancy and the family qualifies. 

However, in one city, certain “at-risk” families were not accepted because the mother, 

for example, had a history of violence at other shelters or if a member of the family 

was highly intoxicated or was carrying dangerous weapons. 

Less than five percent of the families themselves refused admittance to shelters. The 

most common reason for a family to refuse admittance to a shelter is that they do not 

want to split up family members if the shelter has a policy of not accepting teenage 

and adult males. In rare circumstances, the family may refuse admittance if it does 

not like the appearance of the shelter or feels that it is not suitable to house their 

family. Very rarely, the family refuses because they do not want to perform chores or 

follow rules. 

Violations which warrant a family’s immediate dismissal include violence toward other 

residents or staffers, intoxication, drug abuse, drug or weapon possession, and 

unattended children. These rules were basically universal throughout all the cities, 

w“th infractions in any of the areas warranting immediate dismissal. In some shelters, 

three or four violations of other rules might accumulate to enough “warnings” that they 

would be kicked out if they received more than three or four warnings in a month. 

Probably the most abused rule or the subject of many “warnings” in the shelters was 

missing the established curfew. Mothers or heads of families would typically be given 

a “warning” for coming in late, regardless of their reason for being late. 

When asked if families were allowed to re-enter the shelter if they have been released 

because of a prior violation, two-thirds of the directors said the family could re-enter if 

7

circumstances were necessary to do this. Most of the shelter directors stated that reentry is handled on a case-by-case basis and that if the resident or family had a history 

of violent behavior or noncompliance, they would not be allowed to re-enter. Only 

two directors stated that the families would not be allowed to re-enter. Three family 

shelters in one city claimed successful placement into permanent housing and that they 

had experienced no recidivism. 

Familv Se~aration 

Two-thirds of the shelters separate from the rest of the family or deny admittance for 

male children over 12 years old, husbands, and other adult male family members. 

These policies caused family separation for 10 percent of shelter families. (The 

percentage is relatively low because few homeless families in shelters included older 

adult males.) 

Eu!@iu 

Funding sources include government, private, and charitable organizations. Less than 

one-fifth of funding sources used to sponsor shelters and shelter activities was federal 

dollars. Eighty-two percent of funding sources were non-federal. Two-thirds of the 

shelters were funded largely by donations. 

8

RECOMMENDATIONS


Overall, the shelters we visited were effectively providing important services to 

homeless families. However, some deficiencies need attention. Our results suggest 

that State and local officials, shelter operators, homeless program coordinators, and 

others wishing to improve shelters for homeless families should focus on: 

Ensuring cleanliness and security where they are lacking. 

Family shelters should not be dirty, unsanitary, or unsafe. Those few shelters 

that were not clean, or where safety was a problem, probably could have been 

clean or safe with greater attention by management and greater community 

support. Shelter managers and homeless program coordinators might want to 

visit other shelters themselves to get a sense of what can be done to overcome 

common problems of facility conditions. 

Arranging for day care to be provided to families with children who are 

attempting to find work while living in a shelter. 

Difficulty in obtaining suitable day care was the single most common service 

lacking in shelters. This provides a major impediment to families obtaining 

good employment and ensuring the safety and welfare of children while the 

parents are at work. Shelter directors and homeless family program 

coordinators need to pay particular attention to this area. 

Developing policies and effective practices to prevent f@ separations due to 

restricting admissions of older males. 

This is a complex problem for which we currently have no clear answer. There 

are obviously difficult and important tradeoffs here: the security risks inherent 

in allowing older males free access in shelters for homeless families and the 

need to prevent the separation of families. Additional research and insight are 

needed here. 

At the federal level, the Interagency Council on Homeless could be instrumental in 

providing information and technical assistance to those planning and running shelters 

for homeless families in the areas we have identified. The Council could also promote 

research on the topic of family separation in shelters. 

9

APPENDIX A


TABULAR PRESENTATIONS OF SHELTER LIFE 

Obsemations of Living Conditions


Homeless Families’ Perspectives


Shelter Directors’ Perspectives


Demographics of Homeless Families


Sources of Funding


A -1 

A-2 

A-3 

A-4 

A-5 

A-6 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

LIVING CONDITIONS IN EMERGENCY FAMILY SHELTERS 

(REVIEW TEAM’S OBSERVATION OF SHELTER CONDITIONS) 

manliness security Fire Safety Bunk Beds/ 

Crii 

SheL I Y I Y I N I None 

Shel. IY IY IY Ic 

SheL Y Y Y B, C 

SheL I YIN I Y I Y I B, Cl 

SheL I Y I Y] I Y I c 

Shel. I Y I Y1 I Y I B, C 

She]. I Y I N I Y I B, C 

Shel. Y Y Y B, C 

Shel. Y N Y c 

She]. Y Y Y B, C 

SheL Y/N Y Y B, C 

She]. Y Y Y B, C 

Shel. N N Y C1 

Shel. Y/N Y Y B, C 

SheL I N I N I Y I B 

SheL I Y I Y I Y I B, C 

She]. Y Y1 Y B, C 

SheL Y Y Y c 

She]. Y Y1 Y c 

SheL Y Y Y B, C* 

SheL Y Y Y B, C 

SheL Y Y Y B, C 

SheL Y Y Y B, C 

SheL Y Y Y B, C 

Y1 = Exceptional security system B = Bunk Beds C = Cribs 

C1= only one crib available 

A -2 
QUN1’l”Y OF SERVICES AS PERCEIVED BY HOMELESS FAMILIES 

(INTERVIEWS OF 172 HEADS OF HOMELESS FAMILIES) 

QUALITY OF FOOD?


KITCHEN DUTY CHORES?


CLEANLINESS OF FACILITY?


CONCERNED W/FAMILY SAFETY?


BATHINGflOILET CLEANLINESS?


REST ROOM ACCESSIBILITY?


BABY BEDS/CRIBS?


BUNK BED ACCOMMODATIONS?


LIKED PRIVACY OF FACILITY?


LIKED THE RULES?


HAD ITEMS STOLEN FROM THEM?


CLASS PARTICIPATION?


CASE MANAGEMENT?


SUFFICIENT SERVICES OFFERED?


I 78% liked: 22% disliked 

I 61% helDed out: 39% did not 

I 96% clean: 4% unclean 

] 20% concerned: 80% safety OK 

! 92% clean: 8% unclean 

27% own rest room; 73% share 

\ 50% received baby beds/cribs 

I 40% are sleeping on bunk beds 

I 68% liked; 32% disliked 

\ 73% liked; 27% disliked rules 

I 18% yes; 82% no 

I 70% attended; 30% did not 

I 60% received; 40% did not 

I 63% yes; 37% want additional SVCS* 

“A few of the additional services suggested include: 

(in order of most requested) 

On-site Day care 

More housing assistance 

On-site G.E.D. classes 

Baby sitting 

Parenting classes 

Bus tokens 

Personal counseling 

sefices 

More leisure activities for children


Job training


Career counseling


Increased privacy (e.g. private rooms)


A -3

AVERAGE CUT-OFF DAY? 

AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY? 

FAMILIES’ NEEDS BEING MET? 

CASE MANAGEMENT? 79% ves: 21% no 

ADVISORY GROUP? 969Z0yes; 4910no 

FAMILY SAFETY? 13% concerned; 87% OK 

OCCUPANCY CAPACITY? average is 49 beds 

PERSONAL VIOLATIONS”? 58% yes; 42% none 

FAMILIES GET OWN ROOM? 54% yes; 46% no 

DENY HUSBANDS/MALES? 67% yes; 33940no 

DAY CARE AVAILABIIJIY? 25% yes; 75% 

% OF FAMILY RECIDMSM? average is 8% 

MAY RE-ENTER IF KICKED OUT? 67910yes; 33% 

FORMAL MEDICAL EMERGENCY 29% yes; 71% 

POLICY? 

FREE TRANSP. FOR MED EMERG? 79% yes; 21% 

AFFILIATED W/HOT LINE? 96% yes; 470 no 

JOB PLACEMENT REFERRALS? 83% ves: 17% no 

REFER TO TRANSIT. SHELTER? 75% yes; 25% no 

REFER TO TRANSIT. HOUSING? 75% yes; 25% no 

HOOK UP FAMILIES W/WELFARE? 96% yes; 470 no 

SET GOALS W/FAMILY? 96% yes; 4% no 

SHELTER DIRE~ORS DISCUSS ASPECI’13 OF THEIR FAMILY SHELTERS 

(INTERVIEWS OF 24 HOMELESS SHELTER DIRE~ORS) 

II 

II


no 

no 

no 

no 

II 

II 

II


II 

“Violations of personal security include percentage of families 

involved in: 

Physical Violence/Attacks 

Serious Threats to their Well-being 

Thefts of Money, Food Stamps, or Personal Belongings 

A -4

�

DEMOGRAPHICS OF HOMELESS FAMILY SHELTER POPULATION


(STATISTICS PROVIDED BY 172 HOMELESS FAMILIES)


AVERAGE FAMILY? 

HOMELESS FOR HOW LONG? 

FAMILIES STAYED BEFORE? 

STAYED (Q OTHER SHELTERS? 

HUSBAND/MALES PROHIBITED? 

MED EMERGENCY @ SHELTER? 

HOW MANY FAMILIES EVICTED? 

VICTIM/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? 

EMPLOYED BEFORE HOMELESS? 

LOST JOB, NOW HOMELESS? 

QUJT JOB;MOVED? 

PROBLEMS W/RELATIVES? 

HAVE SOME FORM OF INCOME? 

FAMILIES RECEIVING AFDC? 

Mother with two children 

6 1/2 months 

9% 

35% 

10% of families 

24% experienced 

36%* 

18%0 

33% 

17%* 

16%* 

47%” 

split up in shelter 

med.emerg.’s 

87%; e.g. employrnent,AFDC,SSI 

69% 

FAMILIES RECV’G FOOD STAMPS? 77% 

Respondents could have more than one 

reason for being homeless. 

A -5

to 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

x— 

x 

— 

— 

— 

x 

x 

— 

x 

— 

x 

x 

— 

— 

x 

— 

x 

— 

x 

— 

— 

x

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x

— 

— 

— 

— 

x

— 

x 

x 

— 

— 

x 

. 

x 

— 

x

— 

x

x 

x 

x 

x 

r 

* 

x 

x 

T 

+ 

x 

xx 

lx 

: 

x 

x 

X1X 

lx 

4 

x 

x 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

x 

— 

x 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

. 

— 

— 

— 

x 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

x 

x 

x 

x 

— 

— 

x

— 

x 

— 

— 

x 

x 

— 

x 

— 

— 

x 

— 

x 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

x 

x 

— 

— 

T 

x 

I 
APPENDIX B 

DESCRIPTIONS OF SHELTERS VISITED 

B-1 
DESCRIPTIONS OF SHELTERS VISITED 

(Notes from Field Visits) 

Shelter 1 (which oDerated two facilities) 

The first facility was a 4-plex with each family getting its own apartment. Shared 

facilities inthebasement hcluded awasher and dryer. The4-plex wasabout40 years 

old, but the conditions were clean and pesticides were used twice monthly. 

The second facility was an older home in a residential area. There was a couple that 

lived there on the first floor that oversaw operations, visitors, repairs, etc. Families 

were given their own rooms, and sometimes families would get two adjacent rooms. 

Occupancy was about 14-15 people upstairs sharing a 2-shower facility. Also, a couple 

of families could be housed downstairs. There was a large recreational room 

downstairs and house phone. We noted lots of donated furniture, toys, and bedding. 

(The average Length of Stay (LOS): 1-2 months.) 

Shelter 2 

This shelter was adjacent to a school. A small building, it housed residents on the top 

two (2 of 3) floors. All shelter residents were single mothers. No husbands or 

teenage males were allowed. They had recently initiated a counseling program for the 

young children. This was a much-need undertaking, the director thought, and was 

appearing to be successful. Just having someone listen to the kids was a priority of 

this shelter. The building was old, and the furnishings were very old, but clean. 

(Average LOS: 14 days.) 

Shelter 3 

This was the only shelter which would not allow receipt of AFDC or Food Stamps. 

Families were informed that, since they receive 3 cooked meals a day, that they do not 

require Food Stamps, and since they don’t have to pay to stay there, they don’t need 

AFDC while staying in the shelter. 

This shelter used to be a hotel. Residents were treated as “guests,” except they had to 

leave their key at the front desk and pick it up when they recentered. They had a high 

degree of privacy and were given a large amount of freedom. Each family got its own 

room. Cribs could be wheeled in for the young children. 

We heard from some residents that some families were selling or were on drugs. 

There appeared to be very little monitoring of their needs, and few personal services 

were offered. (Average LOS: 45 days.) 

B-2

Shelter 4 

This wasadirty, very old building. Thedirector thought ithadbeen alaw office in 

the ‘20s. The shelter was in the older part of downtown. During both days which we 

were there, at least 25-30 single men were loitering on the sidewalk outside the 

shelter. 

Three to four families shared a large room. There was only one bathroom with a 

shower and a bathtub. The shower from the third floor (which housed single women 

as well as mothers) was broken, and all the residents (nearly 40-50 persons were using 

the same bathroom). There was a bathroom off the lobby downstairs which we 

noticed, by obsemation, that many residents were using as they were coming and going 

from the shelter. 

There had been a tuberculosis outbreak a few weeks prior to our visit. Families here 

did not appear to be motivated. Some had been there over six months or had been 

bouncing from shelter to shelter in the city. (Average LOS: 45-90 days.) 

Shelter 5 

This shelter was renovated in December 1990. Formerly, it was a 3-story grammar 

school. Affluent families in the area had each sponsored a “classroom.” Each 

“classroom” was converted into a family living unit. Each family got their own private 

bedroom. Teenage males were allowed inside the shelter, but had to lodge with their 

parents or in adjoining rooms with their families. 

This was a very clean, very “posh” facility. The staffers appeared highly organized, and 

there were many part-time social workers (student interns in training) from the local 

college. This was a poor neighborhood, and was unsafe in the surrounding streets. 

However, the shelter itself was very secure, with camera-monitored entryway, and tight 

security. You had to be beeped in. (Average LOS: 60-75 days.) 

Shelter 6 

This was a brand-new facility built only fifteen months earlier. It was like a small 

roadside inn with 11 rooms for 8 families. (Large families were given 2 adjoining 

rooms). 

It was a very nice, quiet facility and very private for the families. However, we heard 

complaints about the food kitchen across the street, which families must share with the 

other shelters in the complex. (Average LOS: 4-12 months) 

Shelter 7 

This family shelter was once a nursing home. As such, the shelter had a sprinkler 

system and fireproof doors on the bedrooms. Locks were not on the doors because 

B-3 
the director believed residents would start using, storing, and selling drugs. Therefore, 

lack of privacy was an issue with some clients. 

Two families were in one room, based on the number of kids in the family and shelter 

occupancy. Large families had their own room. School-age kids were enrolled within 

one day. Education was very important to this shelter director. Eight of the 10 

intemiewed clients were working on their GED. (Average LOS: 7-14 days.) 

Shelter 8 

This shelter was a converted 100-year-old house between a school and a church and 

was very clean and nicely renovated. The director was motivated to obtain all the 

possible funding for the shelter. Funding sources included McKinney, FEW State, 

county, and donations. The shelter employed three licensed social workers. 

The shelter had a fire alarm system, smoke alarms, and fire extinguishers. Every room 

had bunk beds which, unlike bunk beds in other shelters, were very nice and had very 

sturdy side rails on both sides of the upper bunks. Multiple families were in each 

room, so privacy was an issue at this shelter. 

Over half the mothers who resided in the shelter were currently on drugs. Because of 

the extensive drug problem, the director started a drug rehabilitation program. The 

curfew is 6 p.m. The director stated that they do not want the clients on the street 

with the selling and use of drugs. (Average LOS: 20 days.) 

Shelter 9 

This shelter was in a 30-year-old, 2-story brick apartment building. The shelter was 

very clean and consisted of 4 units with 4 beds per unit. The bedroom doors did not 

have locks, but had smoke and fire alarms. 

Funding for the shelter was 100 percent donations. The curfew was 6 p.m. and 

residents were required to attend nightly bible classes. (Average LOS: 30 days.) 

Shelter 10 

This was a 2-story brick building built in the 1970’s. Families received their own 

bedrooms, but they did have to share a communal shower/bathing facility down the 

hall. The shelter was near several temporary blue-collar jobs, e.g., factories, milk, 

construction companies which could employ the men while they were staying in the 

shelter and looking for a full-time job and affordable housing. One family staying 

there was situationally homeless because their car broke down on their way through 

the city. They couldn’t afford to f~ the car. 

There were many summer activities for the children. A self-esteem class for children 

had recently been initiated. Local churches sponsored various programs for the 

B-4 
family residents. (Average LOS: 3 months.) 

Shelter 11 

This shelter’s operations were unique. Residents had to have two verifiable job


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


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


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


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


mock job intemiewing.


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


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


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


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


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


interested.


The shelter’s lodging, however, was of poor quality. Twenty men and 35 women and


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


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


(Average LOS: 45-60 days).


Shelter 12


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Shelter 13


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


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


unattended. Everyone’s kids were sick and sharing flu viruses. Women and children


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


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


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


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


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


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


(Average LOS: 1 1/2 months.)


B-5

Shelter 14 

This was a 1912 mansion. It was huge (approx. 6,500 sq. ft.) Some of the rooms were 

unclean, and nearly all of the rooms were untidy. About 10-15 families could stay in 

this large house. Each family got its own room based on availability, and then there 

was a large “dorm” room where a few mothers with children could be lodged. 

They did have two social workers full-time who helped families set goals and look for 

affordable housing. The family assessment and goal-setting program we were shown 

appeared comprehensive. They also had a day care for children, but did not have 

adequate staff to supemise. They were still accepting some children of formerly 

homeless residents, if the parents could not afford other day care. There was a $10 a 

night charge for each family to stay in this shelter. (Average LOS: 1 month.) 

Shelter 15 

This was a 1930’s school building connected to a church. This facility reeked of foul 

odors. There were two components to the shelter: one for single and pregnant 

women, the other for women with children. No men were allowed into the shelter. 

The women with children shelter was one large room, with rows and rows of bunk 

beds. (Probably about 15 women and 35 children were staying here). On the 

perimeter of the large room were four or five classrooms which housed families 

privately on a first-come-first-served basis. They were dirty, also, as was the rest of 

the shelter. Residents were responsible for finding employment and housing on their 

own. Little assistance was provided to the residents. (Average LOS: 4 months.) 

Note: Shelten 16-18 have a full-time housing coordinator. Shelten 16-18 also have 

‘~amily life advocates” width set goalr, pe~onn case management, and follow up on the 

families after placement into housing. 

Shelter 16 

This shelter was built in 1941. It had been renovated in April of 1992. All-new 

windows were ordered and fitted (due to health concerns with former lead windows), 

the walls were painted, and brand new furniture was donated. It was a clean facility, 

although it was untidy. We heard from staff that many residents had recently been 

cited for not completing weekend cleaning chores. Four or five of the residents 

refused to speak with us. Perhaps because, the staff felt, the residents were angry and 

did not want to cooperate. (Average LOS: 5 months.) 

Shelter 17 

This was an attractive and clean facility for families. There were four bedrooms for 

families - very private, with locks on the doors. Families were encouraged to be selfB-6

sufficient and cook their own meals. A part-time baby sitter would come in nightly


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


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


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


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


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


(Average LOS: 5-6 months.)


Shelter 18


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


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


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


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


residents.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


homeless families were not dysfunctional, but rather had experienced various


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


Shelter 19


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Shelter 20


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(Average LOS: 3 months.)


Shelter 21


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


rooms. (Average LOS: 2 months.)


Shelter 22


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


services.


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


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


churches, and honoraria and lectures presented by the director.


(Average LOS: 52 days.)


Shelter 23


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


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


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


B-8

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


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


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


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


director believed this was the shelter’s greatest asset. Other services offered include:


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


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


Brothers, house meetings, and a “Personal Enrichment” program.


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


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


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


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


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


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


the shelter. (Average LOS: 3 months.)


Shelter 24


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


street as well.


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


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


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


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


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


(Average LOS: 15-30 days.)


B-9