Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

HOMELESS PREVENTION PROGRAMS 

Richard P. Kusserow 

INSPECTORGENERAL 

OEI-07-90-00100 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this inspection was to determine the overall effectivenessof selectedhomeless 

prevention programs and to compare the effectivenessof prevention programs which provide 

casemanagement servicesto thosewhich do not. 

BACKGROUND 

There is a growing belief among social serviceproviders that it is more cost effective and more 

humane to prevent homelessnessrather than to just provide emergency shelter and food. The 

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless AssistanceAct is a major sourceof Federal funding to combat 

homelessness,however, the majority of the funding targetsthe needsof those who are already 

homeless. The reauthorization of this Act in Public Law 100-628, Section 423, allows up to 20 

percent of the funds in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (I-IUD) Emergency 

Shelter Grants (ESG) Program to be usedfor homelessprevention. In addition, up to 25 percent 

of the funds in the Department of Health and Human Services’sEmergency Community Services 

Program can be used for homelessprevention activities. The Secretaryof Health and Human 

Serviceshasplaced a high priority on the needsof homelessfamilies in his HHS Program 

Directions Plan. 

A homelessprevention program is defined as a program aimed at stabilizing personsuntil they 

can get beyond the situation that placed them at risk of homelessnesswhile their living 

arrangementsare still in place. Two categoriesof homelessprevention programs were studied. 

The first category includes programs that provide families with one-time assistanceto meet the 

family’s immediate needssuch asrent, utilities, housing location, and food. The secondcategory 

includes those programs which, in addition to the one-time assistance,also provide case 

management services..Casemanagementprograms provide a comprehensive setof services 

aimed at stabilizing the family and helping them reach self-sufficiency. 

METHODOLOGY 

We selectedeight homelessprevention programs and reviewed casesinvolving families that had 

experienced a severeeconomic hardship that had createda substantial risk of eviction and 

becoming homeless. Criteria for selecting the eight programs were basedon HUD regulations 

which are used by homelessprevention programs receiving ESG funds. 

Casehistories and program intake,forms showed that families receiving benefits from these 

programs had exhaustedtheir economic and social support systemsat the time they requested 

assistance. We contacted families who had received assistanceto determine their current living 

arrangements. 

i 
We also contacted each program administrator. We gatheredinformation about the types of 

\ servicesthe program provided, the costs and sourcesof funding, and the number of families 

servedin 1989. 

FINDINGS 

Homeless prevention programs keepfamilies in their homes 

l We located 136 of the 159 families in our sample. Of these, 130 were in permanent 

housing six months to one year after receiving the homelessprevention assistance. 

The automatic or routine provision of casemanagement seryices did not increase the 

likelihood of a functional family remaining in permanent housing 

l One-time assistanceprograms wereable to serve 16 times as many families per year 

with the sametotal budget. 

> Our study did not determine other effects that casemanagement servicesmay have 

had on the family. 

The average benefit paid by the eight homelessprevention programs was one-sixth the cost of 

a typical stay in a shelter 

The homelessprevention programs examined assistonly a small portion of needy families 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Interagency Council on the Homeless should promote homelessprevention programs as 

an effective approach to reduce homelessnessfor families 

Homeless serviceproviders should carefully consider whether to routinely and automatically 

provide case management servicesto all families which request emergency assistance 

The Interagency Council should promote further, more rigorous evaluations of case 

management services 

COMMENTS 

We received comments to the draft of this report from the Assistant Secretaryfor Planning and 

Evaluation, the Assistant Secretaryfor Human Development Services,the Assistant Secretary for 

Family Support Administration, and the Interagency Council on the Homeless. Basedon these 

comments, we made appropriate changesto the report. The comments are discussedfully at the 

ii 
end of the sport. Many valuable comments dealt with areasbeyond the scopeof this study and 

L will be considered in connection with future inspections dealing with homelessissues. 

. . . Ill 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

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

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

The automatic or routine provision of casemanagement services 

did not increase the likelihood of a functional family 

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

The average benefit paid by the eight homeless prevention programs 

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

The homeless prevention programs examined assist only a small portion 

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

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

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

APPENDICES 

Homeless Prevention Services...................................................................... A-l 

Sources of Funding Homeless Prevention Programs ..................................B-l 

Federal Funding of Homeless Prevention Programs ................................. C-l 

Shelter Costs in the 8 Cities .......................................................................... D-l 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this inspection was to determine the overall effectivenessof selectedhomeless 

prevention programs and to compare the effectivenessof prevention programs which provide 

casemanagement servicesto those which do not. 

BACKGROUND 

In recent years, efforts have been made at Federal, State, and local levels to take a proactive 

position on homelessness.There is a growing belief among social service providers that it is 

more cost effective and more humane to prevent homelessnessrather than to just provide 

emergency shelter and food. 

The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless AssistanceAct, signed into law on July 22, 1987, is a major 

sourceof Federal funding to combat homelessnessin the United States. It created a number of 

new programs and augmentedexisting programs to protect and improve the lives and safety of 

the homeless. The majority of all McKinney Act funding targetsthe needsof those who are 

already homeless. However, when the Act was reauthorized in November 1988, Public Law 

100-628, Section 423, allowed up to 20 percent of the funds in the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s (HUD) Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program to be usedfor homeless 

prevention. In addition, the reauthorization allowed up to 25 percent of the funds in the 

Department of Health and Human Services’s(HHS) Emergency Community ServicesProgram 

to be used for homelessprevention activities. 

Another sourceof funds under the McKinney Act that may be used for homelessprevention is 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The McKinney Act has also made it 

possible for low-income families whose income and assetsare less than their monthly expenses 

to receive food stampswithin five days of application. 

Another sourceof Federal and Statehomelessprevention assistanceis the Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children’s (AFDC) Emergency AssistanceProgram. In addition, other State and 

local programs have been createdto servethat population at risk of becoming homeless. These 

programs provide a range of servicesincluding rent and utility subsidies,housing location, and 

landlord/tenant mediation. 

Prevention programs aredefined in a HUD report, entitled “Homeless AssistancePolicy and 

Practice in the Nation’s Five Largest Cities,” asprograms aimed at stabilizing personsuntil they 

can get beyond the situation that placed them at risk of homelessnesswhile their living 

arrangementsare still in place. Clearly, the purposeof “homeless prevention” programs is not 

limited to avoiding episodesof homelessness,but also at avoiding evictions and other 

destabilizing events. 
Two categories of homelessprevention programs were studied. The first category includes 

programs that provide families with one-time assistanceto fulfill an immediate need. There is 

usually a set limit to the amount of cash assistanceprovided, and only the family’s basic needs 

are met. The servicestypically offered are rent/mortgage payments, utility payments, referrals 

for food and clothing, location of affordable housing, and landlord/tenant mediation. 

The secondcategory includes thoseprograms which provide casemanagementas well ascash 

assistance. This type of program identifies the various needsthat must be met to stabilize a 

family and help them reach self-sufficiency. A casemanager works with the family to help them 

accessthe servicesavailable to meet those needs. Besides addressingthe basic needsof housing 

and food, casemanagement may also provide counseling, GED classes,job skills training, and 

life skills instruction such as budgeting and parenting. 

When a program usesthe casemanagementapproach, the families they serveautomatically and 

routinely receive casemanagement services. Likewise, programs using the one-time assistance 

method of homelessprevention only have the means to provide cash assistanceand a few basic 

services(See Appendix A) regardlessof the type and extent of the families’ problems. It appears 

that the decision determining which type of assistancethe family receivesdependson which 

provider’s door the family opens. 

The funding sourcesfor the programs selectedfor the study varied as shown in Appendix B. 

Four of theseprograms received Federal funding from the McKinney Act (SeeAppendix C). 

Other funding sourcesinclude State,county, city, private donations, foundation grants, United 

Way, and fund raising. 

METHODOLOGY 

In order to gain a basic understanding of homelessprevention programs and obtain leadsin 

identifying programs to study, we contacted the National Governor’s Association (NGA), the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), and the American Public Welfare Association (APWA). 

Each of theseassociationsare actively involved in homelessissues. The NGA hasestablished 

the Governor’s Homeless Policy Work Group which is currently examining the implementation 

of the McKinney Act and tracking legislative proposals that affect the homeless. The USCM 

annually collects data from 27 cities and publishes a report called, “A StatusReport on Hunger 

and Homelessnessin America’s Cities.” The APWA is currently involved in two special projects 

concerning the lack of affordable housing for the lowest of the low income. 

We selecteda purposeful sample of eight programs from a universe of 27 programs collected 

from the above mentioned associations. We usedthe following criteria to selecttheseeight 

programs. They are basedon the HUD regulations used by homelessprevention programs 

which receive ESG funds. These criteria were usedeven though not all of our studied programs 

actually received ESG funds. 

l The program must target families. 

l The assistanceprovided must be necessaryto avoid eviction or termination of utility 

services. 
l The program assistsfamilies who are experiencing a suddencrisis. 

l The program’s assistanceis temporary and the families have a reasonableprospectof 

resuming a self-sufficient status. 

Programs we selectedare located in the following cities. 

Charleston, South Carolina Minneapolis, Minnesota 

KansasCity, Missouri Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Los Angeles, California Salt Lake City, Utah 

Louisville, Kentucky San Diego, California 

Of the eight programs, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Louisville routinely provided case 

management services. The remaining five programs, Charleston, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Salt 

Lake City, and San Diego, provided assistanceon a one-time only basis and did not provide case 

management. 

For each of theseeight programs we obtained information concerning the types of servicesthe 

program provided, the costs and sourcesof funding, and the number of families servedin 1989. 

We also interviewed program administrators to obtain their perspectiveson the needsof their 

clients and the effectivenessof their programs. 

During the preliminary stagesof the inspection, the Office of the Assistant Secretaryfor 

Planning and Evaluation requestedthat our study focus specifically on families. The Secretary 

of Health and Human Serviceshasplaced a high priority on the needsof homelessfamilies in his 

HHS Program Directions Plan. 

We made onsite visits to each program and reviewed casefiles involving families. which were 

opened in 1989 and closed for six months up to one year. We randomly selectedtwenty casesin 

each of sevenprograms. The eighth program had only 19 casesthat met the selection criteria, 

resulting in a total sample of 159 cases. 

Casesin eachprogram were selectedonly when it was documented in the casehistory that the 

family was on the verge of being evicted or becoming homelesswhen assistancewas first 

sought. Casefiles either contained a narrative about the family’s background and reasonfor 

seeking assistanceor an intake form with similar information. In all cases,we documented the 

reasonwhy each family in our samplewas seeking homelessprevention assistance.The 

majority of thesecaseswere seekingrent or mortgage assistancebecausethey were being 

evicted due to the loss of their major income source. Some had experienceda marital separation 

or divorce, while others had beeninvolved in a seriousaccident or experienced a medical crisis 

that made it impossible to maintain their housing payment. Other casehistories statedthat the 

families were living in overcrowded situations by doubling up with friends or relatives and were 

being forced to move but had no resourcesor funds to do so. 

While onsite, we made attempts to locate families using the last known telephone numbersfound 

in the program casefiles. If contact was unsuccessful,other resourceswere usedto find a 

Page 3 
current telephone number or to determine the families’ current status. These resourcesincluded 

relatives, neighbors, employers, landlords, telephone books, local offices providing AFDC, 

Social Security Disability Insurance, and Section 8 Housing Authorities. 

After a family was located, whenever possible, we conducted a short interview by telephone 

using a discussion guide. The interview was conducted to obtain economic and demographic 

information, to determine the current living arrangementsof the family, to assessthe family’s 

feelings about the effectiveness of the assistancethey received, and to determine if the family 

becamehomeless at any time after receiving the assistance. The interviews were also usedto 

confirm the initial preliminary assessmenthat the family had been on the verge of eviction or 

homelessness. 

Many of the homelessprevention programs requestedproof that the families had exhaustedtheir 

economic and social support systemsbefore giving any monetary assistance.This especially 

applied to those programs receiving McKinney money since one of the statutory criteria for 

receiving ESG funds statesthat a prevention program’s assistancewill not supplant funding from 

any other source. The programs would assessthe families’ eligibility for traditional types of 

assistance<such as food stamps,AFDC, or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) before providing 

assistance. Several programs required an eviction or foreclosure notice before they would offer 

assistance. Eviction or loss of utility servicesis another requirement for the McKinney ESG 

monies. Other programs required the families to contribute up to half of the back rent with funds 

from personal sourcesbefore they would offer any cash assistance. Another example includes 

having the families sell personal items in a garage sale to make money towards their rent. 

The following statistics about the averagefamily in our sample are characteristic of a family who 

is only slightly better off than a family who is already homeless. It standsto reasonthat this 

family is slightly better off than a homelessfamily becausethey are still in a pm-homeless stage. 

l 54 percent received AFDC or SSI as their main income source 

l 46 percent of families had at least one person employed 

l Average income was $615 per month 

l 65 percent were single-female-headed households 

l Families had 3.9 members 

l Families had 2.5 children 

l Average age of male was 35 

l Average age of female was 33 

Page4 
FINDINGS 

The following findings describe the effectivenessof the eight homelessprevention programs in 

keeping families in their permanent homes. In addition, a comparison was made to determine if 

there was a difference in a family’s housing outcome when they received assistancefrom a 

program that routinely offered casemanagementservicesover a program that did not. 

Due to the inability to createa control group, we are not able to predict whether or not these 

families would have become homelesswithout the homelessprevention assistance.However, 

we do know thesefamilies were facing eviction. Eviction itself is a crisis for families, certainly 

a serious disruption for them. Furthermore, had they been evicted, their risk of homelessness 

would have greatly increased. Hence, we tried to determine if those families who received 

assistancewere able to avoid eviction as well as homelessness. 

For programs which offered casemanagementservices,we restricted our assessmento the 

impact the program’s serviceshad on the families’ housing situation. It is beyond the scopeof 

this study to determine if a family should or should not have received casemanagementservices. 

Since this study focused on housing servicesprovided by homelessprevention programs, we did 

not review casefiles for ancillary problems the families may have had such as alcoholism, drug 

abuse,or mental illness. Therefore, we could not determine if casemanagementwas or was not 

used correctly. Our intention was simply to determine if casemanagementservicesaffected 

housing outcomes, not whether they should have beenoffered for other reasons. 

F'lNDINGl. 

Hom$ess prevention programs keepfamilies in their homes 

The eight homelessprevention programs have been effective in preventing evictions and 

homelessness.As shown in the following chart, we located 136 of the 159 families identified in 

our sample. Of these 136 families, we found 130 living in permanent housing six months to one 

year after receiving the homelessprevention assistance. 

Four of the families we located were living with relatives. 

Two of the families were homelessat the time of the study. One of the homelessfamilies was 

living in a transitional living facility. 

We were unable to locate the remaining 23 (14 percent) of the families by any of several 

resources. Theseresourcesincluded relatives, neighbors, employers, landlords, telephone books, 

local offices providing AFDC, Social Security Disability Insuranceand Section 8 Housing 

Authorities. According to the U.S; CensusBureau, 2.8 percent of the country’s population move 

out of statein a year’s period of time. This may account for approximately four families. We 

are unable to ascertainwhether the remaining 19 families, who were not located, were evicted, 

are homeless,or in’permanent housing. 
159 Homeless Prevention Families: 

Where Are They Now? 

Permanent Housi 

130 

Living with Relative 

4 

As an additional basis for evaluating the effectiveness of theseprograms, we followed up on 

specific casesto determine how well off families were after obtaining benefits. We conducted 

telephone interviews with 84 (62 percent) of the families located and found 70 (83 percent) of 

thesefamilies in the same residence as when they received the assistance. Of the 84 families 

who were interviewed, only 1 had to live in a shelter after receiving the assistance. Only five 

had to live with relatives or friends after receiving the assistance. 

We also questioned clients about their satisfaction with the assistancethey received and the 

statusof their current living arrangements. On a scale where the options to the client ranged 

from very little, somewhat, or a whole lot of help, 74 (88 percent) of the clients interviewed 

indicated that the assistancethey received was a great deal of help to their families. In fact, 73 

(87 percent) of the families reported their current living arrangementsto be stable. These 

families were in no danger of eviction or losing their homes at the time of interview. 

We found that these families relied on the homeless prevention programs as a last resort because 

they had exhausted their economic and social support systems. Over half of the families relied 

on AFDC or SSI as their main sourceof income. However, this source of economic support was 

not adequate to sustain the family during an economic crisis. Many families commented that the 

assistancefrom the homeless prevention programs was what they needed to bolster their 

economic and social support systems. Following are typical statementsmade by the families in 

this regard. 

page6 
Vt (the assistance) kept me and my three kid3 off the street.” 

“The rental payment helped me get over the hump so I didn’t get evicted.” 

“I would have been homeless ifI had not received aid from FEMA.” 

While we were unable to establish a control group of families who did not receive assistance,we 

were able to make somecomparisons with 454 families scheduledfor eviction by the 

Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) in fiscal year (FY) 1989. The homelessprevention 

program that deals with the PHA’s evictions was able to prevent 62 (14 percent) of thesefamilies 

from losing their homes by offering financial support. Of these62 families, 14 were part of our 

study and were found in permanent housing six months to one year after receiving assistance. 

Thus, for thesecases,the program was successful. 

The remaining 392 Philadelphia families were actually evicted. However, even though the 

homelessprevention program was unable to provide cashassistance,it was able to help 100 (22 

percent) of thesefamilies relocate to other permanent housing. 

Therefore, 292 (74 percent) of the families who were evicted did not receive any assistance. The 

Philadelphia homelessprevention annual report statedthat 20 (7 percent) of the families who 

were evicted did become homeless. These 20 families were unable to find alternative housing on 

their own and acceptedemergency shelter. In Philadelphia, once a family entersthe city’s shelter 

system, the averagelength of stay is 6 months. 

This leaves272 families (69 percent) who were evicted, received no assistancefrom the 

homelessprevention program, and whose whereaboutsare unknown. It is not possible to know 

if any of thesefamilies becamehomeless,but their eviction was almost certainly a serious 

disruption for them, possibly placing them at greaterrisk of homelessness. 

FINDING 2. 

The automatic or routine provision of casemanagement servicesdid not increase the 

likelihood of a functional family remaining in permanent housing 

Casemanagementprograms and one-time assistanceprograms differ in the number of services 

offered and the length of time they spendon a case. A casemanagementhomelessprevention 

program typically offers cash assistancefor immediate needs,as well as a range of additional 

servicesto help families with long-term improvement. Examples of theseservicesmay include 

educational training, job skills training, and life skills instruction such as budgeting and 

parenting. The one-time assistancehomelessprevention program provides cashassistancefor 

rent/mortgage or utility payments and a few basic servicesto addressthe familys’ immediate 

needs(SeeAppendix A). Corm&n servicesamong one-time assistanceprograms include 

housing location, landlord/tenant mediation, and referrals to other agenciesfor food and clothing. 
The families in our sample were functional families capable of living in society autonomously; 

however, they had experienced some kind of severeeconomic hardship that had created a 

substantial risk of their being evicted and possibly becoming homeless. Through narrative case 

histories or program intake forms we learned that medical emergencies,domestic separations, 

and lack of employment are 3 reasonswhy 42 percent (67 of 159) of the families in our sample 

needed help. 

We conducted a comparison of housing outcomes of families who received casemanagement 

serviceswith families who received one-time assistance. Of the 159 functional families in our 

sample, 59 (37 percent) received casemanagement servicesand 100 received one-time 

assistance. We located 136 of the 159 families and found that 52 (38 percent) received case 

management services and 84 (62 percent) received one-time assistance. We also found that 130 

of the 136 located families were living in permanent housing six months to one year after 

receiving assistance. Of the 130 families in permanent housing, 48 of the 52 (92 percent) 

received casemanagement services and 82 of the 84 (98 percent) received one-time assistance. 

For families who received casemanagement services, 3 were living with relatives and 1 family 

was homeless, living in a transitional facility. Similarly, one of the families who received 

one-time assistancewas living with relatives after receiving assistanceand only one of these 

families was homeless. As a result of thesecomparisons, we found no significant differences in 

the housing outcomes for families who received casemanagement services. This is shown in the 

chart below. 

Case Management Had No Significant 

Impact on Housing Outcomes 

82 48

1 

Case - Ivl;;)agement 

0 Permanent Housing fl Living w/Relatives q Homeless 
Due to the additional servicesprovided by the casemanagementprograms, the number of 

families that can be servedis lower and the cost per family is higher. The averageprogram cost 

per family for a one-time assistanceprogram was $143, while the casemanagementprogram 

gave an averageamount of $2,223. Thus, a one-time assistanceprogram is able to serve 16 

times as many families per year with the sametotal budget. A comparison between the two types 

of programs is shown below. If a functional family has the mental and physical capability to 

maintain their permanent housing, but hasbeen struck by a severeeconomic hardship, it may be 

cost efficient for them to receive assistanceon a one or two-time basis. 

A COMPARISON OF HOMELESS PREVENTION 

PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES 

CASE ONE-TIME 

MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE 

Average # of Families 

ServedPer Program in 1989 54 873 

Average Annual Budget* I $120,035 I $124,410 

Average Program Cost 

Per Family $2,223 $143 

Average Length of Case I 196 days I 22 days 

* Figure pertains to amount of budget servingfamilies only. 

Due to limitations in our study, we cannot make a determination about whether case 

management was or was not usedcorrectly for the casesin our sample. However, the following 

chart suggestsmany similarities between thosefamilies who received casemanagement and 

those families who received one-time assistance.Furthermore, the deciding factor determining 

whether a family received casemanagementserviceswas which program it applied to for 

assistance. As noted earlier, some of the programs we examined did not offer casemanagement 

services;others offered them to all applicants. 

Pas 9 
SIMILARITIES EXIST BETWEEN CASE MANAGEMENT 

FAMILIES AND ONE-TIME FAMILIES 

CASE MANAGEMENT ONE-TIME 

Female-headedHouseholds 68% 63% 

Two-Parent Households I 31% I 36% 

Number of Children 2.5 2.4 

Average Monthly Income $578 $538 

Employed 31% 34% 

Received AFDC 37% 34% 

Our finding should not be construed to mean that we are discouraging the use of case 

management as a viable and effective way to deal with families who have multiple problems 

such as alcoholism, drug abuse,or mental illness. We did not attempt to examine the validity of 

casemanagement asan important intervention in such cases. However, our study showed that 

one-time assistanceprograms may be more cost effective in avoiding eviction. 

Thus, we are suggesting that programs need to clarify their goals and carefully distinguish 

between the needsof the families and their capability to help them. If the goal is to help as many 

families aspossible avoid eviction and remain in their homes, the one-timeassistanceprogram is 

probably more effective. If the goal is to provide additional long term help, casemanagement 

services,although comparatively more expensive, may be warranted. In any event, more 

stringent evaluation of casemanagement serviceswould be useful. 

FINDING 3. 

The average benefit paid by the eight homelessprevention programs was one-sixth the cost of 

a typical stay in a shelter 

The analysis of data gathered in this inspection found that each of the eight homelessprevention 

programs am cost effective as shown in the following chart. These programs distributed a total 

of $59,789 in cash assistanceto the 136 families we were able to locate. The averagecash 

assistancegiven to thesefamilies for rent/mortgage, utilities, etc. was $440. The averagecost for 

a family to stay one month in a shelter is $995. 
_.... 

We are not claiming that the families in our study who received assistancewould have been 

homeless had they not received assistance. However, each family who avoids a shelter stay by 

receiving assistanceis cost effectively servedby the homelessprevention program. 

Shelter Costs Are Higher 

Than Homeless Prevention Costs 

_____.._ - ..___-_ $140 

-_-- ._._..... 

..___..---.-_._ 

..__--. 

-_ _____-___-- .--. 

._.- $40 ----.- _--...-- _-____...--. 

$20 .--. .--- Y -.-..-..-... 

$0 /’ /- /m 

CH KC IA LV MN PH SLC SD 

FINDING 4. 

The homeless prevention programs examined assist only a small portion of needyfamilies 

Many of the eight homeless prevention administrators mentioned they are only able to addressa 

small portion of the needsthat exist in their cities. For example, in Salt Lake City a survey was 

conducted of all the social service agenciesin the metropolitan area. Results determined that 

each agency received an averageof 100 calls per month requesting rent/mortgage assistanceor 

relocation servicesafter the families had already been evicted. A further survey in Salt Lake 

City found that the homeless prevention program is only able to assist 1 of every 12 calls. In 

addition, this homelessprevention program is the only local agency that provides rent/mortgage 

assistance,and their clientele has doubled in the last two years. 

Six of the eight administrators said that the lack of funding and/or staffing is a major barrier to 

their effectiveness. As noted earlier, in Philadelphia, the city’s Housing Authority scheduled454 

evictions in 1989. The homeless prevention program was only able to prevent 62 of these 

page 11 
evictions with cash assistance. An additional 100 were relocated before the eviction took place. 

With all their efforts, 64 percent of thesefamilies’ housing needsremained unmet. 

The majority of our sampled families (79 percent) seeking assistancewere in need of money to 

pay the rent or mortgage payment. The real estateindustry and home financing institutions 

suggesta household spendno more th,an28 to 30 percent of their income for their housing 

payment. Likewise, tenants in Section 8 Housing pay 30 percent of their monthly income for 

rent. In many cases,theselow-income families who seek assistanceare living in private market 

housing that is not affordable for their income level. For example, in Louisville, more than half 

of the families we interviewed have a rent/mortgage payment that exceeds50 percent of their 

monthly income. Only 7 percent of the families servedby the programs in our sample were 

living in Section 8 Housing. 

We askedeach of the homelessprevention administrators, “What is the most important thing that 

should be done to end homelessnessand the threat of homelessness?” All eight administrators 

statedthe solution to end homelessnessis more affordable housing. 

page12 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Interagency Council on the Homeless should promote homelessprevention programs as 

an effective approach to reduce homelessnessfor families 

Two of the purposesof the Interagency Council on the Homeless are to recommend 

improvements in Federal programs and to collect and disseminateinformation relating to the 

homeless. The Council is the ideal mechanism to deliver the messagethat homelessprevention 

is an effective way to deal with a potential homelesspopulation of families. 

Homeless serviceproviders should carefully consider whether to routinely and automatically 

provide casemanagement servicesto all families which request emergency assistance 

Families, who are able to live in society autonomously but who only require immediate cash 

assistanceto meet the crisis that hasput them in a near-homelesssituation, may not needcase 

management servicesto avoid eviction or homelessness.Program designersand administrators 

need to carefully consider the goals and objectives of their programs. To the extent that their 

purpose is to maximize the numbers servedand minimize the costs,Federal, State, and local . 

funding bodies should not routinely or automatically provide casemanagementservicesand 

should almost certainly not make casemanagementa requirement in homelessprevention 

programs. 

On the other hand, casemanagement servicesmay well satisfy other important family needs. 

Assistance should be rendered according to an assessmentof the family’s specific needs. 

The Interagency Council should promote further, more rigorous evaluations of case 

management services 

It was beyond the scopeof this study to evaluate the efficacy of casemanagementservicesas 

such. We believe it would be useful to do so. 

COMMENTS 

We received comments to the draft of this report from the Assistant Secretaryfor Planning and 

Evaluation, the Assistant Secretaryfor Human Development Services,the Assistant Secretaryfor 

Family Support Administration, and the Interagency Council on the Homeless. Basedon these 

comments, we made appropriate changesto the report Many valuable comments dealt with 

areasbeyond the scopeof this study and will bk consideredin connection with future inspections 

dealing with homelessissues. 

page 13 
Several comments addressedhow it was determined in our sample that a family was “on the 

verge” of eviction or homelessness.We expanded the Methodology section of the report to 

further explain how this was done. Our selection criteria specified that only families that had 

experienced a suddencrisis, that in fact put them on the verge of eviction or homelessness, 

would be selected. We made an initial assessmentof this basedon a review of the caserecords. 

Subsequently,we used interviews to gather data about economic and demographic information, 

current living arrangements,and to confirm the initial assessmenthat the families had indeed 

been on the verge of eviction or homelessness. 

We were askedwhether we had any data on the extent to which the families in our sample had 

multiple problems like drug abuseor mental illness. This was beyond the scopeof our study. 

We have amended the Findings section of the report to statethat “Since this study focused on 

housing servicesprovided by homelessprevention programs, we did not review casefiles for 

ancillary problems the families may have had such as alcoholism, drug abuse,or mental illness.” 

Several comments raised the issue that the study did not have a control group. We agreethat this 

would have been desirable. However, asis often the case,both time constraints and resource 

limitations prevented us from undertaking such a study. However, basedon the data which we 

did collect, we were able to make somecomparisons of families who did and some who did not 

receive assistanceusing information reported by Philadelphia’s homelessprevention program. 

This information is now presentedin the first finding of the report. It provides stronger evidence 

for our finding. 

Two of the commentors statedthat our report erroneously assumedthat families which had 

received assistanceand remained in their homes would have been homeless had they not 

received assistance. We have no way of knowing if the families would have been homelesshad 

they not received assistance. We agreethat such an assumption would be erroneous,and we did 

not mean to make it. However, we do know that thesefamilies were at great risk of being 

evicted. We revised our report to clarify that an eviction itself is a crisis for most families, 

certainly a serious disruption for them;,and in all probability an eviction places them at a greater 

risk of becoming homeless. 

We received severalcomments that pointed out that the families in the sample had higher income 

levels than the averageAFDC family, not to mention the averagehomelessfamily. This is not 

surprising since we were not studying homelessfamilies, but rather those at risk of eviction and 

possibly homelessness. The report has beenrevised to clarify that only families that were 

functional and who received servicesfrom a homelessprevention provider were included in this 

inspection. The scopeof this inspection focused on thesetypes of families, not on families who 

were already homeless. The reasonit focused on functional families is that they are the target 

population for homelessprevention programs. 

By far, our most controversial finding was the one recommending against the routine or 

automatic provision of casemanagement services. Several commentors interpreted our report as 

being against the useof all casemanagementservices. We did not intend such a result. It was 

beyond the scopeof our study to evaluate the efficacy of casemanagement servicesas such, and 

we did not gather information to allow for any conclusions to be drawn about them. Our finding 

page14 
&d recommendation were narrowly focused on the cost effectivenessof casemanagement 

servicesin dealing with an immediate crisis such as an eviction. We stand by our finding and 

recommendation in this regard, but have revised the report to clarify the narrower focus of our 

study. We agreethat additional study of casemanagementservicesas such is warranted and 

have recommended that it be undertaken. 

Page15 
APPENdIX A 

Homeless Prevention Services 

Services Case Management One-Time Assistance 

KC LA LV CH MN PH SLC SD 

Mortgage/Rent X X X X X X X X 

Utilities X X X X X X 

Locate Housing X X X X X X 

KC = KansasCity, Missouri MN = Minneapolis, Minnesota 

LA = Los Angeles, California PH = Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

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

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

A-l 
APPENDIX B 

Source of Funding Homeless Prevention Programs 

City* X X 

Private Doanations X X X X X 

Foundation Grants X X X 

Fundraising X X 

United Way X X 

* In somecases,the ultimate source offunding for theseprograms is the HUD Community Development 

Block Grant or the HHS Community ServicesBlock Grant. 

KC = KansasCity, Missouri 

LA = Los Angeles, California 

LV = Louisville, Kentucky 

CH = Charleston, South Carolina 

MN = Minneapolis, Minnesota 

PH = Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

SLC = Salt Lake City, Utah 

SD = SanDiego, California 

B-l 
APPENDIX 

Federal Funding of Homeless 

C 

Prevention Programs 

PROGRAMS FEDERAL 

SOURCE AMOUNT 9-6OF BUDGET 

Kansas City MCKINNEY-ESG $ 5,372 12% 

Louisville MCKINNEY-ESG $19,ooo 71% 

Salt Lake City MCKINNEY-ESG/ 

FEMA $37,500 45% 

San Diego MCKINNEY-FEMA $14o,ooo 100% 

ESG = Emergency Shelter Grant from the Department of HUD 

FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency 

C-l 
APPENDIX D 

Shelter Costs In the 8 Cities 

Shelter costs to houseone person for one night varies from city to city. Costsranged from $7.50 

in Charleston to $12.50 in San Diego. The length of time a family spendsin a shelter also varies 

from city to city. In Minneapolis a family staysan averageof 7 days in a shelter. In Philadelphia 

and Kansas City the averagelength of stay for a family in a shelter is 180 days. 

LOCATED AVERAGE SHELTER CITY COST PER PERSONS IN LENGTH NIGHT SAMPLE OF STAY COSTS 

CH $7.50 73 75 days $41,062 

KC $10.50 52 180 days $98,280 

I LA I $8.11 I 81 I 34days 1 $22,335 

LV $10.18 62 60 days $37,870 

$8.78 50 7 days $3,073 

PH $10.50 79 180 days $149,310 

SLC $10.00 48 60 days $28,800 

SD $12.50 69 30 days $25,875 

Total $406,605 

Note: Shelter costswere computedby multiplying costper night, timespersons in sample, times average 

length of stay. 

CH = Charleston, South Carolina 

KC = KansasCity, Missouri 

LA = Los Angeles, California 

LV = Louisville, Kentucky 

MN = Minneapolis, Minnesota 

PH = Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

SLC = Salt Lake City, Utah, 

SD = San Diego, California 

D-l