I 

Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENEML 

HOMELESS FAMILIES AND 

ACCESS TO AFDC 

OCI’OBER 1992 
OFFICE OF INSPECrOR GENERAL 

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

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

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

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

inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the 

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

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

correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

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

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

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

carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

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

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

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


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


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


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


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


OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECITONS 

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


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


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


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


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


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


Deputy Regional Inspector General. Project staffi


REGION V HEADQUARTERS


Barbara Butz (Team Leader) Susan Hardwick


Jean Dufresne


JoLynn Antonik


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


353-4124.

I I 

HOMELESS FAMILIES AND 

ACCESS TO AFDC 

Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENEML 

#SE RVICl~ 

& L.* 

*+ v 

# 

$ 

s 

% 

$ ‘+$ 

4 

>

+daa 

_BER 1992 0E14M-914)(Mj1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE 

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


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


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


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


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


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


APPENDIXES


k Contacts . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*. . . . ..O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 

B: Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,....O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PURPOSE 

To examine homeless families’ accessl%ility to Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) benefits. 

BACKGROUND 

At the request of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, we began to 

examine the issue of homeless families and access to AFDC. The assumption was that 

many homeless families were not accessing APE, and that the application process in 

particular caused significant problems for homeless families. 

We interviewed directors and caseworkers from 24 emergency family shelters in 8 

cities of varying size and in varying locations. We conducted an extensive review of 

literature and spoke with over 50 people from Federal, State, and local governments, 

academia and professional organizations, non-profit advocacy groups, and providers. 

FINDINGS 

Sixty-nine percent of all homeless families interviewed in a related OIG study were 

receiving AFDC benefits at the time of the interview. Recent literature is consistent 

with this finding. For the 31 percent who were not receiving AFDC, there were 

legitimate reasons, such as employment of a parent or receipt of other income. A few 

had applied for AFDC but had not yet received benefits. 

Fifteen of 24 shelter respondents report 10 percent or less (including none) of their 

total population as first time applicants to the AFDC program. Even for those 

shelters reporting a more than 10 percent proportion, that proportion often translated 

into one, or less than one, family a month as first time applicants to the AFDC 

program. 

Mast sheks mpdents saidfht timeappiicm do not have probhnr waithg for their 

~tMWchkhmtitiWcmofWb&m&. 

Overall, 14 of 24 shelters report that the processing time does not pose a problem for 

first time AFDC applicants because their shelter takes care of the residents’ basic 

needs. Shelter staff often act as advocates on behalf of homeless families for a variety 

of benefits and services. They also said that AFDC caseworkers respond better to 

clients who have such an advocate. 

i 
INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE 

To examine homeless families’ accessibility to Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) benefits. 

BACKGROUND 

At a request from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, we began to 

examine the issue of homeless families and how well they access Federal mainstream 

programs such as AFDC. The assumption for this study was that many homeless 

families were not accessing AFIX, and that the application processing time was a 

hindrance to AFDC access. Furthermore, several past Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) studies had revealed that many barriers hindered substantial numbers of 

homeless individuals from accessing the Federal mainstream programs of Medicaid, 

Supplemental Security Income, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 

Services block grant. (See “Supplemental Security Income for Homeless Individuals,” 

0EI-05-91-OO060, “Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services for Homeless 

Individuals,” OEI-05-91-00064 and “Medicaid and Homeless Individuals” OEI-05-91-

OOO63.) 

Homeless families constitute a significant proportion of the homeless population. 

Estimates vaxy, but average about 30 percent. In general, the homeless family is 

composed of a single woman in her twenties or thirties, with two or more children. To 

a much lesser extent, single fathers, two parent families, and childless couples, make 

up the homeless family population. 

The AFDC program was created by the Social Security Act of 1935 to provide cash 

welfare payments for needy children who have been deprived of parental support or 

care because their father or mother is absent from home continuously, is deceased, 

incapacitated, or unemployed. It is an open ended entitlement program jointly funded 

by the Federal Government and the States. At the Federal level, the AFDC program 

is administered by the Administration for Children and Families, and the Federal 

Government pays half of States’ administrative costs, and from 50 to 83 percent of 

benefits (averaging 54 percent). This is based on the Federal Medicaid matching rate 

which is inversely related to State per capita incomes. States set benefit levels based 

on the “need standard,” which is the income States decide is essential for basic 

consumption items. 

Federal regulations require that States take no more than 45 days to process an 

application. Seventeen States allow themselves 30 days or less to process applications. 

Caseloads in the AFDC program reached record levels across the country at the end 

of 1991. As of November 1991, there were 4.6 million families receiving AFDC, with 

1

over 900,000 new families -turning to the program since July 1989. An average of 

nearly 2,000 children every day had been added to the program during that time 

period. 

From July 1989 to November 1991, every State in the country experienced growth in 

the AFDC program. Forty-five States experienced growth of 10 percent or more, 20 

States reported growth of 20 percent or more, 20 States had 30 percent or more 

growth, and 10 States experienced growth over 40 percent in their AFDC caseloads. 

For the entire country, this averages at 24.1 percent growth. 

METI-IODOI.DGY 

During pre-inspection we conducted an extensive review of available literature. We 

also spoke with over 50 people from Federal, State and local governments, academia 

and professional organizations, non-profit advocacy groups, and providers. 

We examined data from an OIG study on the quality of emergency shelters for 

homeless families. This consisted of information from 24 emergency family shelters in 

8 cities in 8 States. Two of the cities are large metropolitan areas, four are large 

cities, and two are small to medium size cities. The OIG staff visited all 24 shelters, 

and interviewed shelter directors, staff, and up to 10 different residents in each shelter. 

(See “Emergency Shelters for Homeless Families,” 0EI-07-91-O0400.) 

By telephone, we re-contacted directors and caseworkers at the 24 shelters and 

gathered information more specific to the issue of AFDC and difficulties associated 

with the application process. 

See Appendixes A and B for a list of contacts, list of cities, and a bibliography. 

SCOPE 

In general, we examined the issue of homeless families accessing AFDC. Specifically 

we examined the issue of timeliness -- whether the amount of time that it takes to 

process an AFDC application creates significant problems for homeless families trying 

to access AFDC. 

Although we did not set out to examine the capacity of the AFDC program to prevent 

family hopelessness, this issue arose repeatedly during intemiews with respondents 

from the shelters, the government, professional organizations, and academia. We also 

discovered that this issue is well documented in the literature on homeless families. 

This review was conducted in accordance with the Interim Standards for Inspections 

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

2

FINDINGS


MOST HOMELESS FAMILIES IN SHELTERS ARE ALREADY ON AFDC. 

Sixty-nine percent of all families interviewed in the ongoing OIG study on homeless 

family shelters were receiving AFDC benefits at the time of the interview. For the 31 

percent who were not currently receiving AFDC, there were a number of legitimate 

reasons. These included: employment of the single mother, employment by the 

husband, the mother or father received Supplemental Security Income or Social 

Security Administration benefits, they had applied and were waiting for benefits, and 

one shelter did not allow families to receive benefits. 

Recent literature and our interviews with local government and service providers 

support these findings. Our research indicates that most homeless families are already 

receiving AFDC benefits at the time they become homeless, or have received AFDC 

sometime in the past, but have lost their benefits due to sanctions, changes in 

eligibility, or other administrative reasons. 

� Eighty-two percent of families in a Los Angeles (LA) shelter listed AI?DC as 

a source of income at the time they became homeless (Forbes, 1991). 

�	 Seventy-three percent of homeless families in LA were on AFDC at the time 

of shelter intake (Wood 1989). 

�	 &xty-four percent of homeless women in Chicago shelters were receiving 

welfare benefits and another 19 percent had received public aid in the past, 

(MCCOUII, 1989). 

�	 Ninety-five percent of families are receiving AFDC benefits at the time of 

shelter intake, according to the New York City Human Resources 

Administration (HRA). 

�	 In New York State, the Westchester County Rehabilitation Center processes 

all homeless families in the county prior to placement in a shelter or other 

housing situation. They reported a 95 percent AFDC caseload. 

�	 Respondents in rural Wisconsin and Illinois reported that most homeless 

families are already on AFDC when they enter the shelter system. 

3

vERYFEw Residents IN THE24sHELm ARE FIRsTTIME 

APPLICANTS m AFDc 

Directors and caseworkers from the 24 shelters we contacted told us that very few of 

their shelter population are first time applicants to the AFDC program. The graph 

below illustrates their responses. 

FirstTime A licantsto AFDC 

asapro portion v?f Otaishelter’POpulation 141 

04 1% -’10% ll%:m% ovor’20% dOnY”knw 

~dw~ 

source OIG interviewswith directorsand caseworkersat 24 shelters. 

As shown, 15 of the 24 shelter respondents report 10 percent or less (including none) 

of their total population as first time applicants to the AFDC program. Even for 

those shelters reporting a more than 10 percent proportion, that proportion often 

translated into one, or less than one, family a month as first time applicants to the 

AFDC program. 

Shelter respondents reporting a higher proportion of their residents as first time 

applicants to the AFDC program do not report any more problems with the 

application process than shelters reporting a smaller proportion. 

Most of the shelter respondents say that eligible first time applicants wait 30 days or 

less to receive their first check. 

“ 1 shelter: 60 days, 

� 3 shelters: 45 days, 

“ 10 shelters: 30 days, 

� 5 shelters: 21 days, and 

4�
� 5 shelter respondents did not know how long. 

In only one case (60 days) was the reported processing time longer than the Federal 

and State specified 45-day application processing time limit. At 11 shelters the 

directors and caseworkers reported processing times less than the State-allowed 

processing time. Seven of the shelters reported processing times equal to the Stateallowed processing time. 

Shelters in States with longer processing times do not report more problems caused by 

waiting than the shelters in States with shorter processing times. For example, in the 

five States with a 45-day processing time, three-quarters of the sample shelters (11 out 

of 15) said their residents do not have problems because of the processing time. In 

contrast, in the three States with a 30-day processing time, only one-quarter of the 

shelters (2 out of 7) said residents have no problems with the processing time. 

MOST SHELTER SI’AFF SAID FIRST TIME APPLICANTS TO AFDC DO NOT 

HAVE PROBLEMS WITH WAITING F71R THEIR FIRST CHECK BECAUSE 

THE SHEL.XER TAKES CARE OF THEIR BASIC NEEDS. 

Overall, 14 shelters (60 percent) report that the processing time does not pose a 

problem for first time AFDC applicants. Eleven of these 14 shelters said this is 

because their shelter takes care of the residents’ basic needs. The other three shelters 

say that residents can access emergency assistance money which takes care of 

immediate cash needs. Two respondents did say, however, that homeless families in 

other shelters, or on their own, might encounter difficulties with a waiting period. 

Shelter staff often act as advocates on behalf of homeless families for a variety of 

benefits and setices. Respondents also said that AFDC caseworkers respond better 

to clients who have such an advocate. Some of the shelters require that families save 

their MIX checks until they have enough money to pay for a deposit and first 

month’s rent for housing. Food stamps are also “banked” so the family will have more 

resources from which to get started. Respondents mentioned also that it is in the 

shelters’ best interests to ensure that homeless families are receiving the total amount 

of aid for which they are eligible. 

Of the nine shelter respondents who said residents have problems with waiting for 

their first AFDC check three said it was because their shelter could not provide for 

residents’ basic needs until the check arrives, and another three said it was because 

the maximum length of stay at their shelter was too short to apply and receive 

benefits. 

At the three shelters where the shelter did not have the resources to provide 

completely for the family, personal items (such as toiletries and diapers), 

transportation money, and medical needs were most frequently listed as the things 

they could not provide. Also mentioned were “catch-22” situations in which the 

5

shelter could not provide the money a family needed to obtain the necessary 

documentation (such as birth-certificates) for AFDC applications. 

Three of the shelters said there were problems because the maximum stay in their 

shelter was too short. Generally, housing does not become available in the short time 

period these families stay in these shelters. However, if housing is available, there is 

little a family can do but move to another shelter, without money for a security deposit 

and first month’s rent. 

Also, factors in addition to the processing time might contribute to problems while 

waiting for an AFDC check. For example, in one city, the average length of stay in 

emergency shelters ranged from 14 days to 30 days. Furthermore, the city’s housing 

authority will not allow anyone to apply for public housing unless they are actually 

receiving their welfare checks. A family could be approved by AFDC, but if they have 

not actually received a check they cannot apply for housing. Therefore, although the 

State has an expedited process, and shelters are reporting 21 to 30-day waits for a 

check, all of the shelters from that city are reporting problems with that wait. 

The remaining three respondents, as well as a few who mentioned shelter resources 

and length of stay, brought up various problems such as the “exhausting” nature of the 

application process, the “unfriendly” attitude of some AFDC caseworkers, complicated 

application forms, and the inability of AFDC to prevent family hopelessness. 

Although we did not ask respondents about the capacity of AFDC to prevent family 

hopelessness, many respondents (including those who say their residents have no 

problems while waiting for an AFDC check) pointed out that due to such issues as low 

benefit levels, and sanctioning measures, receipt of AFDC benefits does not, in many 

cases, prevent family hopelessness. These problems are also documented in the 

literature about homeless families. 

6

-APPENDIX A


contacts 

California 

California Dept. of Social Services


Western Center on Law and Poverty, Los Angeles


Illinois 

Illinois Department of Public Aid, Chicago


Illinois Department of Public Aid, Springfield


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


Chicago Coalition Against Hopelessness, Chicago


Chicago Institute on Urban Poverty, Chicago


Public Welfare Coalition, Chicago


Cornerstone Shelter, Chicago


Pacific Garden Mission, Chicago


St. Martin de Porres Shelter, Chicago


Salvation Army Lodge, Chicago


Traveler’s and Immigrant Aid, Project


Traveler’s and Immigrant Aid, Health


Circle Family Care, Homeless Project,


Volunteer Sexvices, Marion


Linkage, Chicago


Care for the Homeless, Chicago


Chicago


BCMW Community Action Agency, Centralia 

Missouri 

OEI Regional Office, Kansas City 

New York 

Human Resources Administration, New York City 

Westchester County Rehabilitation Services 

Texas 

Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and


Families


Debra Rog, Vanderbilt U./ Robert Wood Johnson Foundation


A-1 
Martha Bur$ Urban Institute .


Mark Greenburg, Center-for Law and Social Policy


Julie Strawn, Center on Budget and Policy


Wisconsin 

Dane County Department of Social Services, Madison


Family Crisis Shelter, Milwaukee


Family Crisis Shelter, Stevens Point


West Central Wisconsin Community Action Agency


Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Sew-ices


3 Shelters from Each 

Atlanta, GA 

Boston, MA 

Chicago, IL 

Cleveland, OH 

Little Rock AK 

Louisville, KY 

Los Angeles, CA 

Minneapolis, MN 

Citw 

A-2 
APPENDIX B


Bibliography 

“Aid to Families with Dependent Children.” Congressional Digest. Washington, D.C.: 

Februag 1988 

Burt, Martha. Over the Edge: Z%eGrowth of Homeikxsness in the 1980’s. Russell Sage 

Foundation. New York: 1992 

Bassuk, Ellen L. “Homeless Families.” Scientific American. December 1991 

Benenson, Robert. “Social Welfare Under Reagan.” America’s Needy: Care and 

Cutbacks. Editorial Research Reports. Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington, 

D.C.: 1984 

California Health and Welfare Agency, Dept. of Social Services, Statistical Sexvices 

Bureau. “Aid to Families with Dependent Children: Survey of Homeless – 

Assistance Applications Approved in California during May 1989.” 

December 1990. 

Carlile, Patricia. Statement Before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affain. 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1992 

Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County. “Addressing the Problem of 

Hopelessness in Houston and Harris County.” December 8, 1989. 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Center for the Study of the States. Z?ze 

States and the Poor: How Budget Decirions in 1991 Affected Low Income People. 

Washington, D.C.: December 1991 

Congresswnal QuurterZyAlmanac Volume XLVI. Congressional Quarterly Inc. 

Washington, D.C.: 1990 

DeParle, Jason. “California Plan to Cut Welfare May Prompt Others to Follow.” New 

York l%nes. December 18, 1991 

Dugger, Celia W. “Panel on Homeless Finds Widespread Drug Abuse in New York’s 

Shelters.” New York llmes. February 16, 1992 

Ferriera, Rick. “AFDC and Food Stamp Caseload Growth.” American Public We~are 

Association Memo 

B-1

Flynn, Jack and Robert Nipp. HUD Initiatives Show Gains for Homeless Families, 

MentaUy IV. October 31, 1990 

“Food Stamp Program.” Congressional Digest. Washington, D.C.: February 1988. 

Forbes, Stephanie R. and Jacqueline Leavitt, Ph.D. “New Solutions to Hopelessness: 

The Effectiveness of California’s Homeless Assistance Program.” Dept. of Urban 

and Regional Planning, University of California, Los Angeles. March 1991 

Fraser, Don. “Why Cities Need to Push for Revision of Federal Welfare Laws!” 

Nation’s Cities Weekly. October 21, 1991 

Hancock, Anna. “Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program in Colorado: 45-

Day Processing Time and Its Effect on Homelessness.” Colorado Coalition for the 

Homeless. July, 1990 

Home Base/Regional Support Center for Hopelessness Policy and Programs. 

I?eventing Hopelessness: Bay Area Programs and JWzatl?zey Do. November 1991 

Jensen, Catherine Tim. “Food Stamp Changes Help the Rural Poor.” Food and 

Nutrition. February 1990 

Joe, Tom and Cheryl Rogers. By the Few for the Few: the Reagan WeZfareLegacy. D.C. 

Heath and Company. Lexington, Massachusetts.: 1985 

Koranda, Ann. Violence as a Frectusor to Mental Illness and Hopelessness. Chicago, IL: 

September 5, 1991 

Matsumoto, Masao. “Domestic Food Assistance Programs.” Food and Nutrition. USDA 

Economic Research Service. July-September 1991 

Mattem, Jane. “Assistant Secretary Mary Jarratt Talks About the Food Programs.” 

Food and Nutn”tion. July 1984 

McCourt, Kathleen and Gwendolyn Nyden. “Promises Made, Promises Broken...The 

Crisis and Challenge: Homeless Families in Chicago.” Loyola University. The 

Chicago Institute on Urban Poverty. Travelers and Immigrants Aid. Chicago, 

Illinois, October 1990 

Miller, Dorothy. Women and Social WeZjare.Praeger. New York: 1990 

National Alliance to End Homelessness. Checklist for Success: Programs to Help the 

Hungy and Homeless. Spring 1990 

B-2

National commission on Children. Beyond Rhetotic: A New American Agenda for 

Chikiren. Washington, D.C.: 1991 

National Housing Institute and American Affordable Housing Institute. Preventing 

Hornelessness: A Study of State and Local Hopelessness Prevention Programs. 

October 1991 

Newman, Sandra J. and Ann B. Schnare. Subsidizing Shelter: The Relationship Between 

WeZfareand Housing Assktance. Urban Institute. Washington, D. C.: 1988 

New York State Department of Social Services. BeVenting Returns to Hopelessness: 

Interventions and Outcomes of the Homeless Rehousing Assktance Program. 1990 

The Ohio State University College of Social Work. Preliminary Findings on Rural 

Home/essness in Ohio. Columbus, OH: November 1990 

Parish, Ramona. “Messages from a Welfare Mom.” Newsweek. May 23, 1988 

Porter, Louis II. “249 Kids Homeless on a Typical Night.” Saint Paul Pioneer Press. 

February 25, 1992 

“Record 25 Million People on Food Stamp Rolls.” New York ZImes. March 29, 1992 

Rog, Debra J. ‘The Evaluation of the Homeless Families Program: Challenges in 

Implementing a Nine-City Evaluation.” Evaluating Programs for the Homeless. 

Josses-Bass Publishers. San Francisco: Winter 1991 

Romero, Peter. “Food Stamp Plan May Help the Homeless.” Nation’s Restaurant News. 

July 23, 1990 

Rovner, Julie. “New Cries for Welfare Reform Target Able-Bodied Poor.” 

Congressional Quurterly Wee@ Reprt. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 1992 

The Stanford Center for the Study of Families, Children and Youth. The Stanford 

Studies of Homeiess Families, Children and Youth. November 18, 1991 

“Social Security Programs in the United States.” Social Security Bulletin. Washington, 

D.C.: September 1991 

Steinberg, Jacques. “Bush Budget: Officials See Local Damage.” New York Times. 

February 10, 1992 

Sullivan, Louis, W. Remarkr at the R~”on I Interagency Council on the Homeless 

Workshop. Boston, MA July 11, 1991 

B-3

Taylor, Paul. %umey Finds Many State Cuts Aimed at Poorest of Poor.” Wahington 

Post. December 19, 1991” 

Terranova, Rosemary C. Displacement/Relocation. Catholic Charities Housing 

Resource Center. St. Louis, MO 

United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Fkcal Year 1993 

Budget. Washington, D.C.: January 1992 

United States Department of Health and Human Sem-ices. HHS Mainstream Programs 

That Benejit the Homeless. Washington, D.C. 

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and-Families, Office of Family Assistance. Fiscal Year 1990 QuarterZy 

I%blic Ass&ance Statistics. Washington, D.C., 1990. 

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General. Homeless l%wention programs. Washington, D.C.: Februa~ 1991 

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General. State programs to hovide Shelter and Temporary Housing for Families. 

Washington, D.C.: June 1989 

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security 

Administration. Social Security Bulletin: Annual Statistical Supplement. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: 1988 

United States General Accounting Office. Hopelessness: Too Early to Tell W4at Kim& 

of %wention Assistance Work Best. Washington, D. C.: April 1990 

United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. 1991 Green 

Book Overview of Entitlement Rograrns. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Washington, D.C.: 1991 

United States Interagency Council on the Homeless. Federal Programs To HeZp 

Homeless People. October 1991 

United States Interagency Council. “Federal Progress Toward Ending Hopelessness: 

The 1991/1992 Annual Report.” July 20, 1992 

United States Interagency Council on the Homeless. “Fact Sheet: What are the 

characteristics of the Homeless Population?” The 1989 Annual Repott of the 

Interagency Council on the Homeless. 1989 

B-4

W@ DaviG R. Burciago Valde~ Toshi Hayashi, and Steven Schlossman. Calfomia 

Ch- California Families. Over the Brink Homeless Families in Los Angeles. 

Assembly Office of Research. August 1989 

B-5