U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–046 2008

ENDING HOMELESSNESS FOR 

OUR NATION’S VETERANS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Serial No. 110–80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

VACANT 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

April 9, 2008 

Page 

Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans ................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Bob Filner ............................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Filner ........................................................ 43 

Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite ........................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, prepared statement of .................................... 43 

Hon. Henry E. Brown, Jr., prepared statement of ................................................ 44 

Hon. Joe Donnelly, prepared statement of ............................................................ 44 

Hon. Timothy J. Walz, prepared statement of ...................................................... 45 

WITNESSES 

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Libby Perl, Analyst 

in Housing ............................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement of Ms. Perl ...................................................................... 74 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Peter H. Dougherty, Director, Homeless 

Veterans Programs, Veterans Health Administration ...................................... 37 

Prepared statement of Mr. Dougherty ............................................................ 95 

Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation, Chicago, IL, William 

G. D’Arcy, Chief Operating Officer ..................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement of Mr. D’Arcy .................................................................. 92 

Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training, Inc., Colonel Charles 

Williams, USA (Ret.), Executive Director .......................................................... 28 

Prepared statement of Colonel Williams ........................................................ 88 

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, John Driscoll, Vice President for 

Operations and Programs .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of Mr. Driscoll ................................................................. 45 

Saunders, Michelle, Arlington, VA ......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of Ms. Saunders .............................................................. 82 

Soldier On (United Veterans of America), John F. Downing, President and 

Chief Executive Officer ........................................................................................ 24 

Prepared statement of Mr. Downing ............................................................... 85 

Veterans Village of San Diego, CA, Phil Landis, Chief Executive Officer .......... 29 

Prepared statement of Mr. Landis .................................................................. 90 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic Commission, statement ..................................................................................................... 100 

Miller, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 104 

Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, statement .................................................................................................... 105 

Vietnam Veterans of America, Sandra A. Miller, Chair, Homeless Veterans 

Committee, statement .......................................................................................... 105 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Reports: 

CRS Report for Congress, entitled ‘‘Veterans and Homelessness,’’ Updated 

April 4, 2008, Order Code RL34024, by Libby Perl, Analyst in Housing, 

Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service ................... 110 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

Page

iv 

CRS Report for Congress, entitled ‘‘Counting Homeless Persons: Homeless 

Management Information Systems,’’ Updated April 3, 2008, Order Code 

RL33956, by Libby Perl, Analyst in Housing, Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service ................................................................. 131 

Post Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to John Driscoll, Vice 

President for Operations and Programs, National Coalition for Homeless 

Veterans, letter dated April 10, 2008, and Mr. Driscoll’s responses ............... 143 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Libby Perl, Analyst 

in Housing, Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service, letter dated April 10, 2008, and June 5, 2008, responses .......................... 146 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Michelle Saunders, Veterans Moving Forward, letter dated April 10, 2008, and Ms. Saunders’ 

responses ............................................................................................................... 148 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to John F. Downing, President/Chief Executive Officer, Soldier On, letter dated April 10, 2008, and 

June 5, 2008, responses ....................................................................................... 156 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Colonel Charles Williams, USA (Ret.), Executive Director, Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training, Inc., letter dated April 10, 2008, and Mr. Williams’ 

responses ............................................................................................................... 157 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Phil Landis, Chief Executive Officer, Veterans Village of San Diego, letter dated April 10, 2008, 

and Mr. Landis’ responses ................................................................................... 159 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to William G. D’Arcy, 

Chief Operating Officer, Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation, letter dated April 10, 2008, and Mr. D’Arcy’s responses .......................... 161 

Hon. Bob Filner, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Hon. James B. Peake, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated April 10, 2008, 

also transmitting questions from Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez, and VA responses .................................................................................................................. 162 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

(1) 

ENDING HOMELESSNESS FOR 

OUR NATION’S VETERANS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bob Filner [Chairman of 

the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Filner, Hall, Rodriguez, Donnelly, 

Space, Walz, Brown of South Carolina, and Brown-Waite. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN FILNER 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning and welcome to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs hearing on Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s 

Veterans. We have a lot of competition for attendance today. General Petraeus is testifying before the Armed Services Committee 

and many of our Members share membership with that Committee. 

And, in addition, one of the parties is holding a caucus meeting at 

this very moment, so hopefully, they will attend after the caucus 

is over. Mr. Brown, thank you for being here with us. 

I think we all know that homelessness in America is a national 

tragedy. Few people want to face the issues. Few people want to 

even look at the homeless. And if that is a national tragedy, the 

fact of homeless veterans is, I think, a moral disgrace for this Nation. 

This is not what we had in mind when we said we would help 

veterans, both adjust into civilian society and participate in the 

American dream. There are reasons why that occurs, many of 

which can be dealt with and prevented. We are going to look at 

what the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and community 

organizations are doing, what we should be doing, and how we further the partnerships between the VA and these organizations. 

We see already that the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 

have produced homelessness. We have figures, I am not sure the 

reliability of them, but about 1,500 homeless veterans from these 

conflicts is what is now estimated, although, from what I see, statistics always underestimate the extent of the problem. 

We have to do a better job of dealing with these new veterans, 

and of course, the old veterans. The figures that I see indicate that 

probably half of the homeless on the street tonight are veterans, 

mainly from Vietnam. That is 200,000. And that is a disgrace. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

2 

Many communities have participated in an annual event called 

Stand Down. It was started in San Diego, my hometown, in 1987. 

I was at the first one. And what you saw there was an incredible 

outpouring of community support and a recognition that dealing 

with the issue is a holistic, multifaceted problem. Yes, we have to 

provide housing. And, yes, we have to provide clothes and food. We 

have to provide medical care and dental support, legal advice, alcohol and drug abuse counseling. All these issues are involved in 

dealing with the problem. 

Stand Down started 20 years ago and as I have said at the last 

few Stand Downs in San Diego, I am sick of going to Stand Downs, 

because what we show is that we know how to deal with the problem. For 3 days we bring the resources together and people have 

a sense of security, they have a sense of support, there is a sense 

of hope and progress. But it seems to me as a Nation, and what 

we have a VA for, is to do that 365 days a year. That is what we 

should be doing for our homeless veterans. 

So, I look forward to the panels this morning from the Department of Veterans Affairs, from community groups, from people who 

have dealt with this for a long, long time. Before the first panel I 

will recognize Ms. Brown-Waite for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Filner appears on p. 43.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Every 

American should have a safe place to live, and unfortunately, that 

is not always the case. We have a serious problem with homelessness in our Nation. And while this problem is not just specific to 

veterans, it is deeply troubling that men and women who have 

served in uniform are over-represented in the homeless population. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses who are here today to 

present their expert views. Without the dedication and strong advocacy of many of you that have taken the time to be here today, we 

would not have such a successful program like the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training (MCVET) to help homeless veterans. 

Several research studies have been taken to determine why so 

many veterans are homeless, although they have been somewhat 

inconclusive. A number of contributing factors have been identified 

that contribute to a veteran becoming homeless. First, lack of support upon returning home; substance abuse disorder; inner personal relationships and psychiatric disorders. While psychiatric disorders are considered a contributing factor, I found it noteworthy 

the Rosenheck Fontana Study found, ‘‘No unique association between combat-related post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and 

homelessness.’’ Similarly, a direct connection between military 

service and homelessness has not necessarily been found. 

In 1987, Congress began a nationwide effort to end homelessness 

among veterans with the enactment of Public Law 100–6. This law 

provided VA with $5 million for contract residential care and nondomiciliary care for homeless veterans. Since then, VA’s homeless 

programs have expanded and grown. Under the Bush Administration, funding has doubled to an estimated $317 million this fiscal 

year. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

3 

In addition to programs specifically targeted to help them obtain 

permanent housing, homeless veterans are also eligible for other 

VA services such as health and dental care. In total, VA estimates 

that it will spend more than $1.6 billion this year to treat homeless 

veterans. While actual numbers are difficult to assess, indications 

are that many of the programs are working. VA’s latest estimates 

show that that number of homeless veterans dropped 21 percent 

this past year, still it is unacceptable that an estimated 154,000 

veterans are on the street on any given night. 

With the increasing number of returning Operation Enduring 

Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans, it is especially important that we ensure that the VA has adequate resources and that it effectively uses those resources to help veterans 

reintegrate into society and lead productive lives. A superb example of such an efficient and effective program lies just a few minutes here up the I–95 corridor. As I mentioned, Colonel Williams, 

Executive Director of MCVET is here this morning. MCVET is a 

very successful program that provides housing, job training, and 

mental health and substance abuse counseling to homeless veterans. Most participants enter the system through an emergency 

housing unit and leave with permanent housing and a good paying 

job. 

The program utilizes military order and discipline to help veterans get their lives back on track by taking personal responsibility 

for their future. In 1997, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) declared MCVET the national model for seamless transition for homeless veterans. 

I believe that for a homeless veteran program to be successful, 

it must go beyond emergency shelters and free hot meals. We need 

more programs like MCVET and other programs that we will hear 

about today. 

Solider On, and the Veterans Village of San Diego, strive not 

only to provide housing and mental health services, but also 21st 

century job skills. 

Mr. Chairman, I too, go to the Stand Downs. And one of the 

things that we hear in the Florida area is that there are so many 

homeless veterans living in the National Forest and yet when we 

have the Stand Downs, I can just share with you that we don’t find 

that many there. As a matter of fact, on almost a biweekly basis, 

we have a homeless veteran who comes into our Congressional Office in Brooksville. We try to get him services. We try to get him 

to the clinic. We have the local VSO come over and counsel him. 

And it is very frustrating that he continues to refuse services. They 

don’t trust government and that is part of the problem. Mr. Chairman, I think you and I can probably agree on that. 

I look forward to the testimony of all the witnesses here today 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Brown-Waite. I ask unanimous 

consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that written statements be made a part of 

the record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the first panel will take their seats. We have 

with us today John Driscoll who is the Vice President for Operjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

4 

ations and Programs at the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV). And he is here to discuss the programs in place to 

help America’s homeless veterans. 

Libby Perl is an Analyst in Housing at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and will discuss her recent reports, ‘‘Veterans 

and Homelessness,’’ and ‘‘Counting Homeless Persons Homeless 

Management Information Systems (HMIS).’’ 

And Michelle Saunders is a wounded veteran from Operation 

Iraqi Freedom who almost became homeless after being discharged 

from the military. 

We look forward to your statements. Your written statements 

will be made part of the record. And if you can summarize their 

orally, that would be great. John, thank you for what you do every 

day. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN DRISCOLL, VICE PRESIDENT FOR OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS, NATIONAL COALITION FOR 

HOMELESS VETERANS; LIBBY PERL, ANALYST IN HOUSING, 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; AND MICHELLE SAUNDERS, ARLINGTON, VA (VETERAN) 

STATEMENT OF JOHN DRISCOLL 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Chairman Filner, distinguished Members of the 

Committee, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans is honored to participate in this hearing. This Committee knows all too 

well that the price of our freedom necessarily includes tending to 

the wounds of the men and women who reserve some portion of 

their lives to preserve it. 

I would like to begin our testimony by expressing our sincere 

thanks and gratitude for the continuing their legacy of this Committee. For two decades you have engaged in a noble cause that 

few others have even wanted to acknowledge. You have asked the 

tough questions, you have demanded accountability, and you have 

shouldered this burden before Congress on behalf of the veterans 

that we represent and you have delivered on your promise. For all 

that, to us, you stand first among those who made the successes 

that I will talk about today possible. 

The Homeless Veterans Assistance Program that NCHV represents began in earnest in 1990. And I am glad to report that the 

battle has turned in our favor. This is the first time NCHV has 

been able to become before this Committee and said that we believe 

that is the case. 

The partnership with the Departments of Veterans Affairs, 

Labor, Housing and Urban Development supported by the legislation and funding measures championed by this Committee are community service providers have helped reduce the number of homeless veterans on any given night in America by 38 percent in the 

last 6 years. 

The VA has presented an estimate of the wounded veterans, 

homeless veterans to this Committee every year since 1994. In 

2002, that number stood at about 314,000; in 2006 that number 

had dropped to 194,000. There are two non-government veteran 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

5 

specific programs serving the men and women who represent nearly a quart of this Nation’s homeless population, and these programs 

are primarily responsible for this reduction in veteran homelessness. The VA’s Homeless Providers Grant Per Diem Program and 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DoLs) Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) were created in the late eighties to 

provide access to service for veterans who were unable to get help 

from federally funded mainstream homeless programs. 

The Grant Per Diem Program is the foundation of the nationwide 

VA and community partnership that funds nearly 10,000 service 

beds in non-VA facilities in every State. The VA has quadrupled 

it’s support for this partnership since 2002. The purpose of the program is to provide stable housing and supportive services necessary 

to help homeless veterans achieve self sufficiency to the maximum 

extent possible. Clients are only eligible for this assistance for up 

to 2 years and the client progress must be reported to the Grant 

Per Diem Office quarterly. All programs are required to connect financial and program performance audits annually. 

In September of 2007, after a year long review of this program, 

the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that an 

additional 11,000 beds are needed to meet the demand presented 

by the Nation’s homeless veterans. The VA concurred with that 

finding. 

We have two recommendations for this program. The first is to increase the annual appropriation to $200 million. The projected 

$137 million in the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request will 

increase the number of beds in the program, but not really to the 

extent that the GAO report has found necessary. 

We know that some VA officials would be concerned about the 

administrative capacity to handle such a large infusion of funding, 

but we believe that the documented need to do so should drive the 

debate on this issue. 

In 2006, the VA created the position of Grant and Per Diem liaisons to provide additional administrative support. The VA published a comprehensive program to better instruct the grantees on 

funding and grant compliance issues. They expect to provide intensive training for these liaisons. 

Additional funding would increase the number of beds, but it 

could also increase the level of other services that have been 

strained by the budget constraints that they have been operating 

under. We need more money for drop in centers for homeless veterans. This is the first line of defense where veterans who feel they 

need help and are reaching out to somebody are going to be received and embraced and referred to the people who can help take 

care of their issues before they are threatened with homelessness. 

We need more grants for women who now account for 14 percent 

of the combat personnel operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

frail and elderly, which is as the Chairman eluded to the Vietnam 

veteran generation, we are all getting a little older. 

Veterans who are terminally ill and veterans with chronic mental illness need housing supports until the organizations helping 

them can find other longer-term housing options for them. 

The second program is the Department of Labor’s Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, which has been very near and dear 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

6 

to this Committee’s heart. You know that approximately 14,000 to 

16,000 homeless veterans are placed into employment every year at 

less than $2,000 per placement. This program expires at the end 

of fiscal year 2009, Mr. Chairman. And even though it has been authorized at $50 million a year since 2005, less than half has been 

appropriated for it. So to whatever extent possible, we would ask 

that you could apply a little pressure on behalf of those veterans 

who need that service. 

Which brings us to the question of prevention of veteran homelessness. Everything that we have accomplished and all the successes that we have made, necessarily points to the next step in 

this campaign. The lack of affordable, permanent housing is sited 

as the number one unmet need of America’s veterans according to 

the VA Challenge Report. We commend the work of the HUD and 

VA to make up to 10,000 HUD/VA supportive housing (HUD– 

VASH) vouchers available to veterans with chronic health and disability challenges and another increase in equal measure slated for 

fiscal year 2009. 

But the affordable housing crisis extends far beyond the VA 

healthcare system and it’s community partners. Once veterans successfully complete their Grant Per Diem Programs, many of these 

veterans still cannot afford fair market rents, most of them will 

never be able to afford mortgages, even with the VA home loan 

guarantee. They are still essentially at risk of homelessness. 

NCHV supports two measures that would address these issues. 

The first is a ‘‘Veterans Health Care Improvement Act,’’ H.R. 2874, 

which would provide grants to community and community agencies 

to provide services to low-income veterans in permanent housing to 

reduce their risk of homelessness. The services they would be eligible for would be case management, job counseling and training, 

transportation assistance, and child care needs. 

The second measure would make funds available to increase the 

availability of affordable housing units for low-income veterans and 

their families. The ‘‘Homes for Heroes Act,’’ introduced in both the 

House and the Senate, addresses this issue and NCHV has been 

privileged to work with staff in both Houses to support this Congressional action. 

In summary, most of the historic achievements of this broad coalition now engaged in the campaign to end homelessness among 

veterans have occurred in just the last 6 years. I am pretty emotional about this. I have been there for most of them. 

We believe the next critical step is to develop and implement a 

prevention strategy that addresses the health and social and economic needs of OIF/OEF veterans before they are threatened with 

homelessness. 

Never before in the history of this country have we concerned 

ourselves with preventing homelessness during a time of war for 

our veterans. For all our collective accomplishments and God willing with your support, I believe this will be our finest hour yet. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Driscoll and the VA Challenge 

Report appear on p. 45.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. Ms. Perl, we appreciate 

your being with us this morning. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

7 

STATEMENT OF LIBBY PERL 

Ms. PERL. Chairman Filner and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is 

Libby Perl and I am an analyst at the Congressional Research 

Service. 

As requested, in my testimony I will provide a brief summary of 

the Federal programs that assist homeless veterans, a brief overview of research regarding homeless veterans and funding levels 

for those programs. I have submitted a written statement that provides greater detail, for the record. 

Comprehensive national research regarding individuals who are 

homeless that includes detailed information about homeless veterans is rare. So much of the information researchers have relied 

on dates back to surveys from the 1980s and the 1990s. Despite 

this, each major study that has attempted to estimate veterans as 

a percentage of the homeless population has found that veterans 

are over represented among homeless individuals. 

What has been found is that male veterans are between 1.25 and 

1.38 times as likely to be homeless as non-veterans and women veterans are estimated to between 2.7 and 3.6 times as likely to be 

homeless as women who are not veterans. These estimates do not 

include veterans from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Congress has created a number of programs targeted specifically 

to homeless veterans. There are three major categories of programs 

for homeless veterans that I will cover. First, permanent supportive 

housing; second, transitional housing; and third programs that provide services of some kind. I will describe five of these programs. 

First, the category of permanent housing. The only program that 

provides permanent supportive housing specifically for homeless 

veterans, that is, housing with no time limit together with various 

supportive services is administered through a collaboration between the VA and HUD called HUD–VASH and John mentioned 

it in his testimony. 

Homeless veterans receive Section 8 vouchers for permanent 

housing, while VA provides supportive services. With Section 8 

vouchers, veterans find apartments or rental units in the private 

market and pay about 30 percent of their income toward rent. Currently, there are somewhere around 1,000 HUD–VASH vouchers 

that were made available to veterans back in the early 1990s. However, in the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations Act, an additional $75 

million was appropriated for HUD–VASH vouchers which HUD estimates will fund about 9,800 vouchers. And the President has also 

requested $75 million more for fiscal year 2009 for another 9,800 

vouchers. 

The next category, transitional housing, is time limited depending on the program. The idea is for individuals in the transitional 

housing to have some time to get on their feet and find permanent 

housing. The Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program 

that John mentioned is the major program for transitional housing 

for homeless veterans. The Grant and Per Diem Program allows 

veterans to stay in the housing for up to 24 months and also provides supportive services. The Grant and Per Diem Program typically receives the most funding of any program targeted to homeless veterans and serves more than 15,000 veterans a year. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

8 

In the area of healthcare, the VA operates two programs that 

provide healthcare assessments and treatment for homeless veterans. The two programs, Healthcare for Homeless Veterans and 

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans, assess and treat a large 

percentage of veterans who have mental health and substance 

abuse issues. 

In the Healthcare for Homeless Veterans Program, VA Medical 

Care staff conduct outreach to homeless veterans who don’t typically use VA medical services and then they provide clinical assessments and referrals for treatment. In 2006, of the nearly 61,000 

Healthcare for Homeless Veterans participants, 82 percent had a 

serious psychiatric or substance abuse issue. 

The Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans Program is a little 

different in that residents live on site while receiving treatment. In 

fiscal year 2006 veterans stayed in domiciliary care an average of 

104 days and of the nearly 5,300 veterans who were admitted to 

domiciliary care programs, almost 93 percent were diagnosed with 

a substance abuse disorder, and more than half, about 57 percent, 

were diagnosed with serious mental illness. 

In the area of employment services, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program administered through the Department of 

Labor provides grants to organizations that help homeless veterans 

find and maintain employment. In fiscal year 2006, HVRP placed 

about 8,700 veterans in employment, which was 65 percent of those 

who entered the program. 

In 2001, a Demonstration Program through the Department of 

Labor and the VA was funded to provide job training for veterans 

who were leaving prison or other institutions. Before the authorization expired in fiscal year 2006, the program helped 1,100 veterans 

find employment, which was about 54 percent of those who entered 

the program. 

I will conclude briefly with funding levels. There is a table attached to my statement that will provide more detail. In fiscal year 

2008, about $317 million is expected to be either obligated or appropriated for these programs that I have described and a few others that I didn’t mention. And that does not include the cost of the 

HUD–VASH vouchers that I discussed and it doesn’t include the 

treatment cost of homeless veterans, such as hospital stays and 

long term care. 

As I mentioned, there is table attached and it will provide breakdowns of funding by program over the years. This concludes my remarks. Thanks, again, for the opportunity to speak here today and 

I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perl appears on p. 74. The CRS 

Reports for Congress, authored by Ms. Perl, entitled ‘‘Veterans and 

Homelessness,’’ Updated April 4, 2008, Order Code RL34024 appears on p. 109, and ‘‘Counting Homeless Persons: Homeless Management Information Systems,’’ Updated April 3, 2008, Order Code 

RL33956, appears on p. 130.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Perl. Ms. Saunders, we appreciate your being here and it takes some courage to tell personal stories, so thank you for sharing with us. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

9 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE SAUNDERS 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Sir, thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee, I just want to take this opportunity to thank you all 

for allowing me to speak about my personal experiences and for the 

veterans that have come before me and after me. 

I am coming from a little bit different perspective. I am not here 

to talk about how successful our programs are. I am here to basically talk about why they are not successful in my eyes, and why 

I think there is a lot of systemic issues that are not being addressed. We talk about programs that exist right now for homelessness and there are many issues that happen prior to them becoming homeless. And those, I think, are the issues that we have to 

address. 

My story, basically, is that I was wounded in Iraq in 2004. I 

spent 22 months at Walter Reed rehabilitating. Through that time, 

I was promised many different jobs and opportunities and I latched 

on to that. Maybe I was being a little bit naive, but I thought because I served my country for 10 years that I was going to have 

a great job when I got out of the military. 

The fact of the matter is that it was very, very hard to, especially 

in this town, to find a job. Being a servicemember that had 10 

years of experience, I thought that I wouldn’t have a problem at 

all. After almost 19 months I sat many nights with a loaded gun 

saying that I wasn’t worth anything, because I didn’t know who to 

turn to and I was too prideful to talk to my family about what was 

going on. I was dealing with a lot of post traumatic stress, a lot 

of survivors guilt and just didn’t know what to do. Didn’t know 

where to go and I just knew that I just wanted to be out of the 

military and get away from all the bureaucracy that was going on 

through my transition. 

After I retired in May of 2006, I finally I got a job by the grace 

of God, through the Department of Labor because I had called 

them every single day, probably about 5 times a day, until they finally said, ‘‘Why don’t you come down here. We will find you a job.’’ 

Ironically, I got a job working as an employment specialist to 

help other transitioning servicemembers. When I got into that job, 

I realized that I was really excited to get into the trenches and try 

to help my brothers and sisters who were transitioning. A lot of 

things happened. At first I was very excited and then I started to 

realize that how our successes in our programs were measured 

were based on numbers, not on quality of service, which was very 

frustrating to me because you don’t measure success on a number. 

If I have 25 people that I am putting into a database just because 

I met with them and said, ‘‘Okay, fine.’’ That was a success. 

There are five major components that have to happen simultaneously that are not happening. And basically, they stem from 

identifying the servicemembers first. Identifying those who are 

coming back, informing them. Assessing their issues, assisting 

them and monitoring them. We have many, many different agencies right now doing multiple duplications of this. 

For 6 months while I was at Walter Reed, they had no clue 

where I was. It took them 6 months to find me after two extensive 

surgeries and multiple sessions of counseling. Finally, 6 months 

later, somebody came to me and said, ‘‘Where have you been? Why 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

10 

haven’t you been to formation? Well, sir, sorry I was incapacitated. 

I was in surgery.’’ 

I apologize for being all over the board. I have so much to say 

and sometimes I just get a little overwhelmed. We must ensure 

that our transition programs are better. Our transition programs 

right now basically are folks that are going through a transition assistance program are forced to go to a class for 2 days. Most of our 

men and women that have been wounded are on multiple medications, they are not going to retain a whole lot. They have been in 

medical treatment facilities for ‘‘X’’ amount of months. All they 

want to do is go home. They want to be with their families. 

Most of them are receiving a Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) policy from anywhere to $25,000 up to 

$100,000 payout. As a 20-year-old kid and $100,000 I don’t care 

who are and how much counseling or how much financial counseling you have had, you are going to misspend that money. You 

are going to misuse that money. 

A lot of our servicemembers are going into debt so they are not 

thinking that they are not going to have a job when they get out. 

They got TSGLI, they are drawing Social Security Disability Insurance while they are in the medical treatment facilities. It is the 

last thing on their mind is getting a job and being able to take care 

of themselves when they get out. So they are not taking that 

proactive approach, because they don’t know any better. 

It is a huge problem. It is a huge problem that our military or 

our U.S. Department of Defense cannot identify folks because there 

are multiple databases, are multiple months of information going 

into databases, and a lot of it is anecdotal so they can’t find these 

folks when they get out. When they leave the military installations 

and the get put into a temporary retirement status, they put them 

into CVHCOs which are civilian based health organizations and 

completely forget about them. That is an issue, because by the time 

we find them, we are reading about them in the paper or watching 

them on the news. 

So identifying is a really big issue right now. Another big issue 

that we are running into is the lack of continuum of care through 

basically the VA and some of the programs. You know, if you are 

not completely blown up and you don’t have a visible wound, then 

you go to the back of the list. Basically, you are on the bottom of 

the pile because we can’t identify what is wrong with you. 

Some of these programs are reactive programs as opposed to 

proactive programs. Like, for instance, I know that the American 

Legion hire or not hire heroes, hometown to heroes. In order for 

them to help you, you have to already be in a homeless situation 

in order to be able to get provided grant money to help your family 

through these programs or through these problems you have to literally have to be homeless before they can help you. 

The criteria for some of these programs is completely backward 

and we are working in a vacuum and we are putting it basically, 

‘‘a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.’’ And so I guess I am here 

more to talk about the systemic issues and to try to prevent homelessness as opposed to cleaning up the mess that is already out 

there and it is getting worse. 

And so that is kind of what I have to say. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

11 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders appears on p. 82.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that with us. 

It gives a lot of information. 

Mr. Rodriguez, you have dealt with this issue in the civilian 

world and as a Congressman. We thank you for your leadership. 

And you have 5 minutes to address the panel. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just had 

the Secretary of the VA over to San Antonio to visit us. We took 

him to one of the few homeless shelters that we have there through 

the American GI Forum and they seem to be doing a pretty good 

job. But it is a small program in comparison to the need that is 

out there. 

I wanted to ask a couple of things. Ms. Saunders, thank you very 

much for your testimony. You talked about how there is a need for 

us to do some prevention in advance and not after, picking up the 

person after they become homeless. I was wondering, Mr. Driscoll, 

if the VA is engaged in home healthcare, where we reach out and 

work with the family in any way at the present time? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Well, I am sure that they can fill you in better 

than that. What I do know is the VA Readjustment Counseling 

Centers Vet Centers, their purpose is to help be that first line of 

defense for combat veterans who feel strains, need help finding 

what access to whatever services they need, whether it is educational, whether it is housing supports. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But we do not provide any home healthcare that 

you are aware of? Because I know we provide it under Medicare, 

Medicaid, Medicare Advantage. And I am just talking about that 

because I just had a group of home healthcare professionals come 

over, and it seems like it might be a program that might be able 

to reach out before that person gets thrown out or finds himself out 

of the picture. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Right. I am not aware of anything in that regard. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. You mentioned the drop in centers. How 

many do we have, throughout the country? Do we know? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Well, formally I could not answer that. I know 

that members of NCHV almost all of them to some degree have an 

open door policy. You come in and we will help you. You know, a 

lot of the communities where those organizations operate, the word 

gets around. Homeless people talk to other homeless people. VA 

used to fund those through the Grant and Per Diem funding on a 

higher level, and I may be misspeaking so I do not want to do that. 

But I do know that on the last few grant cycles for the Grant and 

Per Diem they have not been able to increase funding for the drop 

in centers. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The drop in centers? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Right. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Ms. Perl, I know you mentioned jails, and I was 

glad because I never hear those comments and sometimes I feel 

like I am the only one who is mentioning this issue. I do not have 

any statistics to show this, but I think that a lot of our Vietnam 

veterans in the process of trying to deal with their post traumatic 

stress, self-medicated and found themselves taking illegal drugs 

and found themselves in jail. You mentioned a program that was 

working with them. Can you tell me a little bit about that? 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

12 

Ms. PERL. There are a couple programs that I mentioned. The 

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans Program is run onsite at 

VA Medical Centers and veterans are able to stay there, not in the 

hospital but in residential care and receive treatment while living 

in the facilities for substance abuse issues or mental healthcare. As 

I mentioned, veterans stay in those facilities generally a little over 

100 days based on the most recent estimates that I have from the 

VA. 

And the other one, Healthcare for Homeless Veterans, is more of 

an outreach program to try to find those veterans who are out 

there who are not coming into the VA maybe for the treatment of 

substance abuse issues and mental healthcare. And the VA does 

outreach, brings them in, does clinical assessment, and then refers 

for treatment. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know, and I think it was indicated that we do 

not have good research to identify homeless veterans. There are 

questions as to the numbers that are out there based on the new 

way of determining who is homeless and who is not and how many 

are out there. And I recall very distinctly, because I taught a class 

in community mental health, the largest number of people, because 

I used to take people to the private sector, the public sector, and 

one of the things I taught my students is that the largest number 

of the mentally ill were in our prisons. And I presume that is still 

the case, in some of those areas. But there has got to be a way of 

not only dealing with the ones that are in there now as they are 

released. Maybe coming up with some programs, Ms. Saunders, 

where we can reach out so that it does not happen in the first 

place. I do not know if you want to comment on that. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes sir, I do, actually. The way, the problem is 

that, and this is from my perspective, and I am part of this generation. And I think anybody that has been, who has ever served can 

attest to, we have the same exact issues as we did when folks came 

back from Vietnam. The problem is that there was never a place 

to go after they leave the gates of the installations. There was not 

an environment created for them to go to be able just to breathe. 

A lot of people do not realize that when you go through a traumatic event like that, especially if you have a family, when you 

come home you are expected, you know, you get a pat on the back 

and you are expected to go out there and, you know, be productive 

in society. But what happens is when you go through something 

traumatic like that, we live in a society where murder is not normal, where killing is not normal. And so when you see things like 

that and you commit things like that, whether it is time of war or 

not, your spirit is broken. Your whole family as a unit is broken. 

And people are not understanding that. So when you come back 

you are forced to go out and find a job, go out and find a job, go 

out and find a job in order to take care of your family. But you cannot do that because you are stuck. You are stuck in a place where 

you are just broken and you do not know how to heal. 

So you just continue to shove it down, and shove it down, and 

shove it down, because you have other responsibilities to take care 

of, meaning your family, or you have to be productive in society because there are those things called bills that we have to pay. And 

so when you stuff all that down inside, it comes out of you. It surjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

13 

faces later on and severe things happen. You fall into severe depression. You turn to alcohol, you turn to drugs because that is the 

only thing you know how to do, is to be numb because you do not 

want to feel. So there is not an environment created yet out there 

for that after you leave the gates of the installation. And it is the 

last stop for the next 10,000 miles and a lot of people get lost in 

that. 

I am in the process of developing a program right now. I started 

a foundation started Veterans Moving Forward. And what we do is 

we want to provide that continuum of care, that rehabilitation, that 

drug and alcohol counseling, but also have that educational component attached to it. Because when something like that happens you 

lose your self-worth. You do not know what you are worth anymore 

because the only thing you knew is what you did in the military. 

And you wore that uniform and you wore it proud. So when you 

lose that you are completely stripped of all your pride. So to rehabilitate is key, but we have to create that environment first. And 

that goes with transitional housing, rehabilitation, drug and alcohol, and education to give them another skill. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. I do want to just thank 

the whole panel. And Mr. Chairman, if I can, I know one other 

item that was brought up and it keeps bothering me. The fact that 

we have had a good 3,000 that have committed suicide while in the 

military just recently. And a good number, or higher, outside of the 

military. And when they commit suicide, and that just came to 

mind in terms of what you experienced when you were at night by 

yourself with the depression that you talked about. Having that 

gun and, and sometimes playing with it, we really need to look at 

how we treat the veterans that, the soldiers I should say, that have 

committed suicide while in the military. 

I had a young lady who committed suicide, or supposedly committed suicide, while she was in Iraq. And she got treated by our 

veterans and by the system extremely rudely. The family gets no 

benefits whatsoever. And I would hope that, when they commit suicide, afterward it is a different situation, but it is still the same. 

And so we really need to, I do not know what the answer is, look 

into this and how we can come to grips with it because we do not 

want to encourage that treatment while they are in the military. 

But at the same time we need to see how we can deal with it in 

a manner that is more just, to both those that are in the military 

as well as those that are out of the military in terms of the benefits 

that they might be entitled to and other things. And now I am talking more in terms of the family, also, that are left behind. And 

thank you very much. Yes ma’am. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. May I address that? Is that possible? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If the Chairman would allow. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Again, going back to some of the systemic issues 

I know we went through that being at Walter Reed. There is a real 

inability for the services, the service components, all of them, to 

admit that post traumatic stress is an issue. Coming from a battalion commander down or a brigade commander down, if that commander stands in front of his trooper and says, ‘‘Hey look it is okay 

to go through what you are going through right now. What you saw 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

14 

was not normal.’’ That message is not being put out. And until that 

message is put out there is going to be a stigma. And my brother 

and my sister to the left and right of me are going to look at me 

different if I bring that to the surface. 

So again, you hide it. You do not want your peers to know, especially if you are going to be retained on active duty, because you 

are going to look at as, oh, as one of those. That is a huge, huge 

problem. And until our military stands up and addresses that as 

an issue, that will never, ever go away. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree, Ms. Saunders, 

you know we have really got some problems in getting this thing 

sorted out. I believe very strongly, I am the Ranking Member on 

the Economic Opportunity, and a lot of these problems can be 

averted if we can get people where they can make a living wage 

along with solving the other problems that you are talking about. 

But you mentioned the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), and 

that is a pretty good program. You know, we worked hard and the 

people that administer that are good people and they are working 

hard to try to give good information. But it is difficult. You mentioned that they do not, you know, that they want to go home. You 

know, they are not really interested in getting the information. So, 

I mean, I think everyone would be willing to work with different 

ways of delivering that information, perhaps. But it really is a 

challenge. 

You mentioned the fact that a person gets a large sum of money. 

And, again, that is a problem whether you win the lottery, it is a 

problem if you are an athlete and all of a sudden you are successful, or a movie star, or whatever. You know, those really are core 

problems that are difficult to solve. So like I said, I guess I would 

be very interested in, rather than doing the 2-day TAP Program, 

how would we do that differently? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. I actually am in the process of implementing a 

program, a pilot program at Walter Reed, a three-phase program 

to facilitate those needs. Again, like I said, you know, we are dealing with a different population right now in terms of, for the first 

time in our history of any war the American people are pushing 

back and saying, ‘‘What is going on? Why are we not taking care 

of our veterans?’’ And the fact of the matter is, we are. It is just 

there are so many out there that have already fallen through the 

cracks and now we are working in a vacuum. 

We are in a position where we are dealing with servicemembers 

who have been severely wounded, both emotionally and physically. 

Their time and stay in the military treatment facilities are, you 

know, a tremendous amount of months. Again, I was there for 22 

months. There are folks that are still there today when I was there. 

Again, the last thing on their mind is finding a job. Especially if 

they are, and I hate to say this, and a lot of them are entitled to 

some of the monetary grants and funds that they are receiving 

right now. But when you are sitting in an outpatient room and you 

are drawing VAH and you are drawing Social Security Disability 

Insurance, and you are drawing traumatic group life insurance, 

and you are drawing any kind of grant that you can get your hands 

on because there are multiple programs out there that will give 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

15 

money, grant money, based on what their physical disability or 

emotional disability is, I sit there and I say, ‘‘Well, I am making 

$6,000, $7,000 a month. Why the heck would I want to work right 

now?’’ That is a huge problem. There is a lot of push back because 

of that. And that is our generation, that we have to take care of. 

I mean, there is a societal need right now to take care of them because we are giving them handouts. We are not giving them hand 

ups. I would rather show somebody the way than take them there. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I do not disagree. I mean, the reality is, is how 

do you do that? And I am the guy that would like very much as 

they rehabilitate physically, and mentally, and the other stuff, but 

you know, to get them busy starting their education, almost immediately. You know, doing things like that. But again, along with 

that you do have to figure out how to get the person themselves 

to want to do that. That is our challenge. And I think that is really 

what you are saying. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Well, that is what I have, I have been working 

very, very hard on trying to pilot this program. And basically what 

it is, the phase one starts out as a corporate immersion. I have over 

200 companies across the country, most of them are Fortune 500 

companies, that are willing to work with these guys. And I drive 

home to them, I say, ‘‘Look, this is a mentorship. We have to mentor these folks. We cannot just create jobs for them and put them 

in a job where they are not going to grow. We have to mentor them 

and show them that they are worth something and they are able 

to grow.’’ So that phase one is actually at the military treatment 

facility. And my ultimate goal is to be able to incorporate that as 

part of the TAP program. To get these guys stimulated, to get them 

out of their rooms, to get them out there and engaging in the communities. And that is where it is going to happen, is at the community levels. Because like I said, once they leave the gates of the installation, that is it. 

So if we can do that as a phase one, and then the phase two 

being a week-long mentor program. I have already started it. It is 

called Operation Real Transition, to take them out of that environment again, work them in the team environment with peers that 

are going through exactly the same things that they are going 

through. So that they can talk and they have mentors there at any 

time that they need to talk. Go through, we do mock interviews, 

we do the right questions to ask during, an interview and basically 

what it is like to be in the corporate environment, what it is like 

to get out there and work. And then once they find out, ‘‘Wow, I 

could do this.’’ Or, ‘‘Wow, I did not know that I had this ability or 

these skill sets.’’ Then they say, a light goes on and they say, ‘‘Oh, 

okay, now I am motivated and I want to work.’’ 

And then obviously the phase three would be the facility, the 

transitional housing facility, if they want to work but they want to 

go to school at the same time. Or they just want to go to school 

and continue their care and rehabilitation. Give them a skill, make 

them marketable, for the 21st century workforce. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Can I ask one more thing, Mr. Chairman? I know 

I am running over the clock again. You are a bright gal that presents yourself very well today. You mention that you have been in 

the military for 10 years and you really had a tough time finding 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

16 

a job. And what was, what do you feel like was the reason for that? 

I mean, were you in an age group, or this or that, or did you not 

have the skills that you needed that they were looking for? Was it 

the fact that you had been injured or been in the military? Or, I 

mean all of those things, you know when I talk to corporate America, many of those things are a plus. I mean, they are, you know, 

but what in your particular case, how could we have prepared a 10- 

year person like yourself to be more employable? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Personally, I was scared. I was scared to go to 

an employer and, granted I sent my resume out there, but I was 

scared to go interview because I did not know, I had the hard skills 

but I did not have the soft skills. And that is what corporate America is looking for. They are looking for the soft skills. The hard 

skills are easy. You know, there are training curves and learning 

curves, but it is the soft skills that are really, really hard. And that 

is the whole intent and purpose of mentoring these guys and girls, 

is to show them what it is like to be in a corporate environment. 

You know, you cannot say certain things in a corporate environment that you would to your buddy sitting in your uniform. And 

it is that simple. It is such a simple, simple thing. But that is honestly the biggest step, over that threshold. Folks are just scared. 

They are very intimidated. They do not know the right questions 

to ask. They do not know how to act. So that it is up to us as veterans, ambassadors, to help them through that process. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Donnelly, do you have any questions? 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the concerns 

that I have is the number of OEF/OIF veterans that are already 

starting to show up at the homeless shelters. And what I am wondering, if any of you can help, is what are the steps you think we 

need to take now to try to provide for the veterans so they do not 

reach that point where they come to the homeless shelters? What 

are the things we are missing that have caused these veterans to 

arrive? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Can I answer that? 

Mr. DONNELLY. Wide open. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. I think that is basically what I have been saying, 

you know, for the past 10 minutes or so. It is we have to be 

proactive, or we have to get them before they get out of the gates. 

What is happening is, is that they are falling through the cracks. 

And after they leave the military we cannot catch them. Some of 

them do not want to be found. As Ms. Brown-Waite said earlier, 

you know, there are folks out there that they do not want to be approached. They are so bitter they just do not know how to be. So 

they become numb, and they get into this really, really dark place. 

And so I think that we need to back up and somehow collaborate 

with the military or the Department of Defense and in the Transition Assistance Program. It cannot just be a 2-day class. There is 

a lot that has to happen and 2 days is just not cutting it. 

We need to start mentorships, we need to get interns, we started 

that with Operation War Fighter, where we got Federal agencies 

involved with the servicemembers that are rehabilitating at Walter 

Reed right now. We get them out of their rooms, we get their 

minds stimulated, we get them engaged, we get them active in the 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

17 

community within the agency where they learn that, ‘‘Wow, I can 

have some pride in what I am doing right now.’’ That is such a 

huge, huge key and it is such a huge part of their rehabilitation. 

And so by backing up before they leave the military, I think, is 

where we need to hit that head on. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. I would like to add something here. And one of 

my concerns, especially with OIF/OEF, is that it is appropriate to 

place the spotlight on this young veteran returning population. But 

I think we have to do it with respect to the greater population. Just 

as was the case after Vietnam, it is a tiny, tiny minority of troops 

that come home after Iraq and Afghanistan that immediately go 

and seek assistance outside of their families, outside of their communities. And I can only really speak to my own personal experience, just as you do. I really appreciate hearing your testimony. 

When I got home from Vietnam, I was decorated. It was the first 

time in my life I ever really thought that I amounted to anything. 

And I went to Walter Reed, worked on the surgical intensive care 

unit and, I mean, I was the man. But it was not until about 3 years 

later, I was home with my adopted family at Christmas, when Dr. 

Hake in all his wisdom took me aside and said, ‘‘You know John, 

no matter how much I agree with you and I usually do, you have 

an intensity that scares people.’’ And of course I thanked him, gave 

him a hug, and went outside and had a good cry because he had 

said basically what I knew all the time up to that point, is that as 

long as I am in that clinical environment, and life and death, and 

blood and guts up to my elbows, I am fine. But I could not walk 

out of that hospital and laugh and feel good having a, you know, 

pounding down a beer with my buddies. 

So I would say that there is no singular answer. Everybody has 

his own baggage, and everybody has his own way of responding. I 

think what we are seeing in the early going, because it still is in 

the early going for this cohort, is people who do not have those 

family support networks, those circle of friends, that real sense of 

purpose when they get home, they go through the anxiety of separation. Military is oftentimes the only family some of these young 

people have. And when they leave it, they are vulnerable. And even 

if they do not act like they are vulnerable, inside they feel they are 

vulnerable. 

This is why I alluded to the fact that the VA Readjustment 

Counseling Centers, that needs to be public, it is a huge resource 

but a lot of veterans do not realize it because, as my colleague said, 

when you are ready to go home, you are ready to go home. You do 

not need anybody telling you what you think you might need, or 

where to turn 4 or 5 years down the road. It is not until it all 

catches up with you. That is when you need to know that there is 

a VA Readjustment Counseling Center, or there is a communitybased organization that no matter what your problem is and the 

reasons you have it, you will not be judged. You will not be turned 

away. And that is why these community-based organizations need 

to continue getting that funding. That is why the VA needs to really spruce up, I believe, the VA Readjustment Counseling Centers. 

But they have to publicize that so the veterans coming home, that 

do not have the family supports, know there is a lot of help out 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

18 

there. I think most of the time veterans who need help just do not 

know where to turn to get it. And there is a lot of help out there. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you very much for your service. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Brown-Waite. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Ms. 

Saunders, I want to thank you for your service. Ten years of service and you are still obviously serving and trying to help others by 

being here today. 

In your written testimony, and also your oral testimony, you 

spoke about being an Employment Coordinator, and then you also 

mentioned that you have a foundation. Are you still an Employment Coordinator with the Department of Labor? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. I am a consultant for the Department of Labor. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Oh, okay. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. So I am not a General Schedule employee. So 

there is really, it is not a conflict of interest, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. No, no, no. That was not—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. No, I know, I know. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE [continuing]. In any way, shape or form what 

I was alluding to, please do not think that. It is just when you 

jumped to the foundation I just was not sure if you were still—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. I am, I am still affiliated with the Department 

of Labor as an Employment Consultant. However, again, stepping 

back, there are so many programs out there that do not really have 

a lot of substance. And I got frustrated one night, I had a Jerry 

Maguire moment at 3:00 in the morning, and basically wrote out 

what I thought and how I would approach the problem, and how 

I could put my arms around it. So I built a program based on education training, rehabilitation, and transitional housing to create 

that environment. And we are in the process of developing that facility right now. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you. You had also mentioned that you 

did not have the soft skills, and that helping veterans coming back 

in employment interviews is absolutely necessary so that they have 

those skills. Have you been able to attract any corporate individuals who would help in that? Or corporate foundations, even, that 

would be able to send individuals to help the veterans to do that? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes ma’am, I have. I have over, like I said, over 

200 companies, most of them which are Fortune 500 companies. 

One of my biggest advocates is OSI, Outback Steakhouse, Incorporated. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Whose original headquarters was in Tampa. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. There you go. And they have been a huge advocate. And basically, we just had a very successful Operation Real 

Transition mentorship program a month ago in Tampa, Florida, actually, where I had multiple employers come out, HR folks come 

out, and basically spent the week out on a ranch with, we had 39 

servicemembers, wounded servicemembers, that came out. We flew 

them in from all over the country. And—— 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Was that the event at Chinsegut? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I heard about it at the very last minute—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

19 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE [continuing]. And I could not get there but my 

District Director did. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. That is exactly—— 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I wish I had known about it before, because 

I would have been there. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yeah—— 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. But—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Well, I will be sure to invite you to the next one, 

ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you for having it. It really, you know, 

a lot of good information was disseminated there. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. How do we, and any one of the three of you, 

how do we get to the veterans like the one I described who is in 

my office every other week, who does not trust government, and we 

even tried to get him to a not-for-profit homeless shelter that works 

with men. Most of the men have substance abuse problems, be it 

alcohol or drugs, and it is a really good program. Even then, he will 

not go. And I am using my constituent as an example. I am sure 

everyone here, every Member of Congress has many, as I do. But 

this one makes a point of coming to my office. So in a way, he is 

trying to get help. But when it is offered, there is a pull back. How 

do we get to the homeless veteran? You know, Ronald Reagan once 

said the most feared words are, ‘‘I am from the Federal Government. I am here to help.’’ So we can overcome that fear of the government help? Mr. Driscoll. Or anyone. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Well, one of the things that I have learned the 

hard way, I suppose, over the last 7 years at NCHV is no matter 

what is there an available, no matter how much of a perfect fit it 

is for the veteran in crisis, until he is ready to recognize, ‘‘There 

is a big problem inside of me,’’ that help is not going to reach him. 

And we have a 1–800 vet help line. So first of all, ma’am, I would 

invite you to hand your visitor a card that has our number on it. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I did that. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Oh, okay, well and maybe I have talked to him 

because there are several that call over and over again, and, you 

know, I mean I am like my friend over here. I respect, no matter 

what your issue is, you are a veteran, you call, I respect you. I will 

listen to you. But after about the third or fourth call, I do not have 

a problem saying, ‘‘Why do you keep calling me?’’ You know? I 

mean, I want to help you but you have to help yourself. And that 

is a very touchy thing to do. I do not do it with everybody. But you 

develop a rapport, and just a veteran helping veteran assistance 

programs are extremely successful for veterans in crisis. But the 

bottom line is, until they are ready to receive the help that is available they are not going to. I do not know what else I would say. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Can I piggyback on that? Ma’am, may I ask how 

old this person is? Is he younger or older? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I do not—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. From OIF/OEF, or—— 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. No, no. Late Vietnam. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Late Vietnam? What I have found, and this is 

just from a personal standpoint, there are many of us who do not 

want to talk to somebody in a suit. We do not want to talk to somejbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

20 

body who does not share the same backgrounds as we do. I have 

been able to break through to some veterans that many of my colleagues are like, ‘‘I cannot get through to this person,’’ just because 

I have been there and done that, and have the credibility to walk 

up to that person and throw my arm around them and say, ‘‘Hey, 

what is going on? What is happening?’’ It just, being in the same 

age group is such a huge deal. A lot of the Vietnam veterans, they 

do not want to talk to these younger guys. They want to talk to 

them about war stories, but they do not want to talk to them about 

their stories. 

So I guess it is a tough nut to crack because some of them really 

do not want to be, they do not want the help. They do, but they 

are too prideful to ask for it. And then when you try to drive it 

home, they say, ‘‘No, thanks but no thanks.’’ So I do not think 

there is really an answer to that. I mean, that is tough. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Yeah, but especially in Tampa, I mean, it just, 

you know, I wish we were all in Tampa. And we get those veterans—— 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Well—— 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Yes, ma’am, absolutely. But more to the point, for 

veterans in crisis, because there are some tremendous programs 

there, that is the cradle of the Grant and Per Diem Program. And 

I think that it is incumbent upon us to recognize, and I say this 

to a lot of families. Do not assume responsibility for the choices of 

your loved one. But guide them to the opportunities that exist. If 

we in the service provider network, and particularly in partnership 

with the VA, because even in the most stressful times the military 

mind knows VA is there. They may not act like it, but they know. 

But all we can do, really, is make sure the opportunities are there. 

We cannot push them into the door. We can put our arms around 

their shoulders and try to nudge them in. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. May I ask you to yield? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Yes, I yield. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me tell you what Mr. Driscoll has just indicated, unless a military person takes ownership, it is just like any 

society or any community. If they take ownership of the problem, 

they can deal with it. If they do not take ownership they cannot. 

I had people come in and tell me, ‘‘Mr. Rodriguez, I want to go to 

college.’’ A year later they are telling me, ‘‘Mr. Rodriguez, I want 

to go to college.’’ You finally have to tell them, ‘‘Look, do not tell 

me that anymore unless you register for school.’’ Like with the alcoholic, until they realize that they have a problem, then they can 

deal with it. So they have to take ownership of that situation. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Well, obviously he realizes, the particular 

gentleman realizes he has a problem because he will come in and 

indicate he wants help. But he goes just so far and he cannot go 

any further. But Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging the overtime and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And again, thank you for what you 

are doing. Mr. Driscoll, you said something about somebody estimated the need is 11,000 beds. Did I hear that right? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Yes, sir. The Government Accountability Office, 

that was reported in September 2007 after a year long report—— 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

21 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I know, I do not understand where they get 

this stuff. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. This was actually information they received from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I understand. I mean, in San Diego we need 

a few thousand right in San Diego, so—— 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Oh, oh, I get your point. 

The CHAIRMAN. We seem to continually underestimate the problem because it is going to take some effort and some money to deal 

with it. In the Grant and Per Diem Program, that only goes to institutions that are providing services to a group where at least 75 

percent are veterans. Is that right? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. There are two components, sir. For the capital, 

which is for the billing, construction, renovations, an organization 

has to have 75 percent of their clients as veterans. But the funding 

will only go to 65 percent of the capital costs. So it is actually, it 

is fair to say that is primarily a veterans. As far as the Per Diem, 

if you are a program that has 75 percent clients and you are qualified for Per Diem, you can get that if you have 75 percent veterans. 

But every Per Diem dollar has to be spent for a veterans, not for 

a non-veteran. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. I mean, it would seem to me that, I do not 

know why we have this 75 percent requirement. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. In this day—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We should follow the veteran. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Right. But in this day and age, it is very important, with all of the citizen soldiers we have right now, Guardsmen, 

Reservists, if you do not have capacity to bring in spouses and children, dependent children, then you are breaking up families, basically, by having an exclusive treatment option. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, what I am saying is the Per Diem Grant 

ought to follow the veteran and not just the institution. Do you 

agree with that? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. I would, well, as an individual. I cannot speak to 

NCHV because I have not heard that. But as an individual I would 

have a concern with that, and it is because, and I hope you will 

back me up on this, veterans need more than just a cot and a 

check. I think that is the message that I heard from my colleague 

there. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. But, I mean, we have shelters 

in San Diego that serve anybody. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. They are always strapped for funds. If they are 

serving veterans in an emergency situation, why not help them? I 

mean, the Per Diem is not that great, as you pointed out. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Correct. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know, is it $31 a day or something? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. But I feel that the need is more comprehensive 

than just shelter—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. But in an emergency, why should 

they not be given that help? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Well—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, I understand the comprehensiveness but, 

you are just talking about basic shelter for a night. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

22 

Mr. DRISCOLL. No, actually I am talking just the opposite. 

The CHAIRMAN. No I mean, if somebody needs basic shelter, and 

you are telling me, ‘‘We have a bed here,’’ or, ‘‘We would give you 

a bed but we are not comprehensive enough.’’ That seems to me 

rather cruel right there. What am I missing here? 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Maybe it is just a difference of perspective. Most 

people who walk into the community-based organizations that we 

represent are going to be given a needs assessment. They are not 

going to be just thrown in a corner and kicked out like shelters do 

in the morning. They are going to be referred to the services that 

they need, whether that is through the VA or whether that is 

through their own onsite service providers, or—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Look, there are not enough beds in any city. And 

if somebody can get a bed for that night, why shouldn’t our Federal 

Government help them? That is all I am saying. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. I agree, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just make a suggestion. Ms. Saunders, if 

you could just react quickly, we have a couple of other panels here. 

It seems to me, when we send you, as a soldier, into the—were you 

in the Army? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. You went through boot camp. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. In 12 weeks you learned how to be a soldier, and 

the kind of thinking, unit cohesion, and the psychology. But, when 

you get out we do not have a de-boot camp. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Correct, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Or a basic un-training. I think that as part of active duty, we should take 10 or 12 weeks, the same amount as boot 

camp, with the cooperation of VA and the Department of Defense 

to provide a de-boot camp. Take a company of soldiers so you have 

that cohesion and allow the family to participate, which is important in both diagnosis and treatment. Make sure everybody gets a 

professional evaluation for PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI), 

because virtually everybody in my estimation has it, and you have 

to prove to me you do not rather than come in and we prove you 

do. We would use that information for an immediate, diagnosis 

without any stigma. Early treatment is vital with the support of 

the family, comrades from the company. Then, address these other 

issues of education and vocational training, certification, and other 

options. Make it part of your active duty. I mean, everybody wants 

to get home but the last 10, 12 weeks. It could be utilized to address the problems our transitioning servicemembers may have. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Sir, you are so dead on. That is exactly what I 

am trying to do right now. And I do not care if it just takes me 

driving the bus I will make that happen. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. That is what I want. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to get the money and you are going 

to do it, okay? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Write me a check, sir, I will take care of it tomorrow. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, it just seems—— 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

23 

Ms. SAUNDERS. It makes sense. It makes perfect sense. You 

know, we spend so much money on getting people in the military. 

And then you turn around and say, ‘‘Well, thanks, here are a couple of medals.’’ I have medals on my wall and I am like, ‘‘Wow, that 

is great.’’ 

The CHAIRMAN. You can be in Baghdad yesterday—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. And taking your kids to soccer—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. The next day. And you are going to 

respond to them in the way that you have been doing for the 

last—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Twelve months, right? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. And they are spending tons and tons and tons of 

money on sign on bonuses, but what are they doing for them on 

the way out the door? And that is exactly the plan that I have. I 

would love for a military, for anybody to go into the military, and 

sign on, you know, sign their agreement. Okay, a three-year enlistment. At that 21⁄2 year mark, that last 6 months, or that last, 

whatever, 3 or 4 months, they have to go through a transitioning 

program where they can go into an internship or they can go into 

some sort of training program so that we give them the proper 

skills. We give them the proper education on the way out the door 

so that we set them up for success. We do not set them up for failure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. And it has got to take some time, as you 

said. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, I have been to TAP classes and everybody, including the instructor, is asleep. And, you know, it is not 

the most effective—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. It really is not. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have to keep the support system there with 

your soldiers and your family. Mr. Hall, you had a question. 

Mr. HALL. Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one 

and I am sorry for being late. But I will read all of your testimony, 

your written testimony. I wanted to ask Ms. Saunders relative to 

a hearing we are having later this week in the Subcommittee on 

Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and to your testimony 

about PTSD. Do you believe that service in Iraq in particular, or 

that in a combat zone in general, should be considered an automatic stressor for presumption of PTSD? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. One hundred percent, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. Ms. Perl. 

Ms. PERL. No position on that. 

Mr. HALL. And Mr. Driscoll. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. I think there should be a presumption until proven otherwise. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. It is just like anything else, sir. Regardless of if 

you are, in any traumatic event, if you see, if you are in a car accident or if you lose somebody in your family, you are going through 

very similar things. You are feeling some very similar feelings. You 

are having the same reactions. A lot of people do not know how to 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

24 

deal with death. When you see something that traumatic, or when 

you go through a traumatic event, again, it breaks the soul. Especially if you have to point a gun and shoot at women and children 

just to get out of a kill zone. Something happens there. And you 

are going to have residual effect. I do not care who you are. And 

if you do not, you are completely insane. 

Mr. HALL. I agree with you. And I am glad to hear your corroboration. I mean, just the fact that, I mean I, a protected, privileged 

Congressman slept one night in the Green Zone in October on a 

visit to Iraq in one of Saddam’s pool houses. What I understand 

last week, or a couple of days ago when they were taking so much 

incoming—— 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Yes. 

Mr. HALL [continuing]. Rocket and mortar fire they were telling 

people, ‘‘Sleep in your helmet and your body armor.’’ 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. HALL. And whether you are driving a truck from the airport 

to town, or whether you are flying low in a helicopter low over certain areas on the way out to Ramadi, Iraq, or whatever, you do not 

know from whence the attack might come. It is a situation where 

there is no front and no rear. And so for that reason alone I, you 

know, and I have heard this from so many veterans in my district 

who have come to our office for help. I am just trying to get one 

more, and I thank you for your answer, one more corroboration of 

that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank the panel and we look forward to 

working with you to end this scourge on our Nation. Thank you so 

much. 

Mr. DRISCOLL. Thank you. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. If panel two will step forward, we have representatives from different programs that seem to be working and 

we want to hear from them as to how and why. John Downing from 

Soldier On is with us; Charles Williams from the Maryland Center 

for Veterans Education and Training; Phil Landis from the Veterans Village of San Diego (VVSD); and William D’Arcy from the 

Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation. Mr. Downing, if you will start? Again, your written statements will be made 

a part of the record and if you would summarize that statement, 

your oral testimony, that would be great. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN F. DOWNING, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOLDIER ON (UNITED VETERANS OF 

AMERICA); COLONEL CHARLES WILLIAMS, USA (RET.), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARYLAND CENTER FOR VETERANS EDUCATION AND TRAINING, INC.; PHIL LANDIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VETERANS VILLAGE OF SAN DIEGO, CA; AND 

WILLIAM G. D’ARCY, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, CATHOLIC 

CHARITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CHICAGO, IL 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. DOWNING 

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you. Chairman Filner, Members of the 

Committee, on behalf of the hundreds of homeless veterans whom 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

25 

we serve every year at the United Veterans of America, I am honored by your invitation to be here today testifying on behalf of the 

homeless veterans of U.S. military service. I have the privilege of 

serving as President and CEO of the United Veterans of America, 

doing business as Soldier On. Based in Leeds, Massachusetts, with 

facilities serving homeless veterans in Pittsfield and Leeds, Soldier 

On serves upwards of 250 homeless veterans every day. We run at 

111 percent of capacity every day, 365 days a year. 

Our program is based on a continuum of care ranging from the 

treatment of trauma and mental health issues to substance abuse 

counseling, shelter, food and other necessities, job training and permanent housing. Our partners include the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the U.S. Department of Labor, HUD, and many State 

and local agencies. Shelter, treatment, and hope are the cornerstones of what we do every day. 

Soldier On hosts 145 men and women in transitional living on 

site at the VA Medical Center in Leeds, Massachusetts, a section 

of North Hampton, Massachusetts. We rent cottages from the VA 

Hospital. We use the cottages for housing for female veterans and 

frail and elderly male veterans. We pay HUD’s fair market rents 

to the VA for the privilege of housing these men and women, which 

means for a three bedroom, half of a cottage, I pay $750 a month 

to the local VA out of money given to me to serve homeless veterans. Sixty more vets live in transitional housing at our Berkshire 

veteran’s residence in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, which opened in 

September 2004. 

There are ten new studio apartments funded through HUD in 

that facility and they provide permanent housing for homeless veterans with disabilities at that site. The turnover in those apartments in the 3 years that we have operated is, we had one individual who, unfortunately, died in our care and another individual 

whose wife was put into assisted living and he became eligible for 

public housing. Those are the two openings that I have. 

So we know that permanent, affordable housing with services 

works for formerly homeless veterans. Soldier On serves veterans 

primarily from the northeast of the United States of America. A 

few were referred to us from across the country. The average age 

of someone in our population is 54, but the mean age is trending 

younger as we see more veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Approximately 88 percent of our vets 

suffer mental health and/or substance abuse disorders. Some 10 

percent are elderly at age 65 or older. Five percent of our veterans 

are women. More than 25 percent of our veterans have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. Twenty-eight percent 

are on parole or probation and 42 percent of our veterans are minority. I could go on but I invite you to take a look at our Web site 

at www.wesoldieron.org and to learn more about our program. I am 

supported by a dedicated staff, a tremendously committed board of 

directors, and I enjoy a strong, collaborative relationship with our 

VA Medical Center and the VA Headquarters here in Washington, 

D.C. 

I think it is significant that I can sit in front of you after doing 

this work for 6 years and sometimes in a very adversarial position 

and still consider Pete Dougherty a friend. So I want to make that 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

26 

clear. It really does work and the VA has worked hard to build relationships with our program and understand that we are constantly pushing the limits of what we think they should do to accomplish the task for the people we think should be served. 

Currently, we are in the pre development stage of a 39-unit limited equity cooperative to be built on our site in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The development will be owned and managed by formerly 

homeless veterans. Now, one of the things that makes our program 

unique is that our program is entirely run by formerly homeless 

veterans and the professional staff that works there, it is our job 

to serve them. So every facility, each building is managed by a 

team of formerly homeless vets that is self selected by the veterans 

in the living facility and they develop their own rules and own system. 

So our women’s program, Building 6, Building 26, the Pittsfield 

facility, all have different teams of veterans that run them, all have 

some different rules and it is our job to support those rules and figure out ways for those who are so consistently labeled failures in 

their lives to be successful at managing their lives and learning 

how to respond also to the lives of the people in their care. 

So to give you an example of how that really operates, every facility that we operate has its own budget. The vets manage that 

budget. We cut the checks where they tell us to cut them. Our job 

is to work with them to be successful. Any money that is given to 

us for gifts goes into gift funds that they operate. We execute the 

checks. They tell us how the gifts will go. 

They decide tonight, if somebody in one of our buildings relapses, 

we do not have automatic penalties. The team of veterans decides 

what they think after they listen to the veteran would be the best 

outcome for them. And then it is our substance abuse counselors, 

our psychologists, our team of people come in and we execute that 

with them. 

So that when you fail with us, you do not leave. Failure is never 

final. We do not believe that pushing people out of the community 

makes them better. We believe that it is our job to continuously engage you and figure out ways to serve you so you want to stay with 

us. So what happens to us is that veterans who used to trickle back 

and forth between the community ricochet from one place to another are now settled down in programs long term with us. What 

we found was that the ricocheting system, the merry-go-round of 

services that used to exist does not work and that what our people 

needed was just what Michelle Saunders said earlier here, when 

she testified on the first panel, that the community of veterans becomes the family most veterans identify with, feel most secure 

with, and want to be a part of the rest of their life. 

One of the issues facing all of us is this horrible issue of homelessness in America and homelessness of veterans, but we need to 

frame up the problem with an understanding of what is really 

going on. In a capitalistic society, okay, there are some social statistic analysis that we must do on income to understand who are 

the people we serve. 

Those individuals who live at the poverty level or below in our 

society appear four times, are more likely to appear in negative social statistics than people in the same group above the poverty 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

27 

level regardless of gender or social origin. Now we take that same 

group at the poverty level or below and we add one overwhelming 

factor, single-parent families, and we almost double that number 

again. So what we need to see is that the people who are in our 

care, okay, in my facility, last night, 64 percent of them were 

raised in single-parent families, and most of them from families 

that were marginal economically and this is by verbal memory of 

many of the individuals we work with. 

So what we found out was that when we got a homeless vet and 

541⁄2 years old, they came in our door with eleven open prescriptions. Eighty-eight percent were addicted. We are feeding them 

medicine on prescriptions. There is a clever idea, huh? How to keep 

you permanently homeless and then we ask them to come in and 

change, and what we found was we had to say not only do we want 

you to come in and change, but we will stand and be here for you. 

You will not have to leave again. You cannot fail here. We need to 

help you become successful. 

So when somebody chooses to leave us, our conversations with 

them is, how did we fail you? What could we do different? And so 

as a result of that process, what we became aware was we needed 

to have safe, affordable housing that was permanent that these 

folks could live in and succeed in. 

Last fall, the national alliance to end homelessness released a 

comprehensive report on the status of homeless Veterans. I know 

you all received that report and I really commend you to read it. 

You will read about poverty and unemployment among veterans. 

You will read about veterans with disabilities who are further burdened by severe housing costs especially among veterans who are 

renters and sadly you will read about veterans who fall into more 

than one high-risk category. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Downing, we need you to conclude your testimony. 

Mr. DOWNING. Okay. Yes, sir. I would just say that I think that 

the other thing that I would like to do in closing then is add that 

we need to do a couple of things that really will effect what we do 

for homeless veterans. We need to amend the Fair Housing Act to 

include veterans of the U.S. Military Service as a protective class. 

I mention this because if we are successful in creating permanent 

housing for veterans, we run the risk of violating fair housing laws 

by giving veterans priority. Again, a catch 22 which I am sure is 

unintentional and which I am sure can be fixed. Other technical 

fixes are within our grasp as well. 

For instance, the VA’s payment system is a nightmare. Good people in Congress working with good people of the VA passed legislation that changed the payment system last year but that legislation 

never made it to a final bill. If I could go out and raise money to 

improve service to homeless veterans, the VA is forced to reduce, 

as a result of the Office of Management and Budget circulars, it’s 

payment to us. So our per diem rate falls when I am more successful in capturing other funding. 

So I am asking you to really look at that. I am asking you to also 

realize that I believe we want to welcome home the veterans of 

both OEF and OIF but our veterans deserve a system of care that 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

28 

is anchored in safe, affordable, permanent housing with services. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. I am sorry to have to—— 

Mr. DOWNING. That is okay. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Downing appears on p. 85.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I mean we appreciate your passion and we need 

to hear it. Colonel Williams. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL CHARLES WILLIAMS, USA (RET.) 

Colonel WILLIAMS. Oh. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee, my name is Charles Williams, Colonel, U.S. Army retired, and I am the Executive Director of the Maryland Center of 

Veterans Education and Training, also known as MCVET. MCVET 

was established to provide homeless veterans and other veterans in 

need with comprehensive services that will enable them to rejoin 

their communities as productive citizens. 

We meet veterans where they are when they enter our program 

and through a smooth continuum of service, we reorder their lives. 

This also means partnering with Federal, State and local resources 

to provide the veterans with services they need to become productive. MCVET has about 15 years hands-on experience in dealing 

with homeless veterans with various issues such as drugs, alcohol, 

mental, physical health and, of course, under that come PTSD and 

TBI. MCVET owes its very existence to the Federal grants, to community-based organizations. 

We have uniquely married the housing services available from 

HUD, the medical and social services available from Veterans Affairs, and the job and training and education services available 

from the Department of Labor in order to move veterans into the 

societal main stream as supporting and contributing members to 

their families and their communities. Veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq face problems that can be overcome through 

the Veterans Affairs system. Many problems occur from an ineffective readjustment period after transitioning from the war zone. 

If the veteran is not connected to comprehensive services, then 

other problems take place, i.e., drugs, crime, and homelessness will 

surface. A unified service delivery system should be developed with 

Federal agencies that would address the major issues facing the returning veteran in a timely manner and I repeat timely. 

Over the years, MCVET has progressed to the point that it is 

considered a national model in reordering the lives of veterans with 

issues of homelessness. We have partnered with the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers who have placed medical staff at our facility 

and this staff includes but they are not limited to psychologists at 

the doctoral level and social workers. 

Additionally, a liaison person from the Grant Per Diem program 

is in our facility twice a week. These VA personnel assist in the admission process for veterans who are in immediate need of mental 

health services and are key in determining the level of care needed. 

Our students are able to access mental health services within 1 

week of entering our program; this is the speed at which these people enter treatment. 

Also, psychosocial assessments are conducted at the agency within the first week in an effort to identify the level of mental health 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

29 

services that should be given to each student. Without the assistance of the VA medical health profession, the admission process becomes time consuming with a distinct possibility of losing a veteran 

to the street. Veterans Affairs has adequate resources to treat mental health issues once the veteran is admitted. 

MCVET also has partnerships with Johns Hopkins, University of 

Maryland Healthcare System, the Greater Baltimore Healthcare 

System, and Mercy Hospital in providing necessary treatment for 

the homeless veteran population. The key to reduction and/or elimiNation of homelessness among veterans is grounded in the speed 

and the effectiveness of access to treatment. 

So in closing, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you and to share the MCVET story. Homeless veterans are likely to face greater challenges in the years ahead as 

scarce resources strain the delivery system that is already overburdened. I urge you in your deliberation to consider the plight of 

these young men and women who have been sent to defend the 

ideals of their country and many of them are returning home broken of body, mind and soul and this country needs to provide the 

resources so that these people too can share in the American 

dream, send their kids to school, and live where they choose to live. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Williams appears on p. 88.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Colonel. Mr. Landis, thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF PHIL LANDIS 

Mr. LANDIS. Chairman Filner, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to share a few of my views with you and 

a little something about the organization that I am so humbled to 

be a part of. My name is Phil Landis. I am the current Chief Executive Officer of Veterans Village at San Diego. I have been a board 

member with that organization for 11 years and as of September 

of last year I have had the truly unique and wonderful opportunity 

to head this organization. 

VVSD was formed 27 years ago by a small group of Vietnam 

combat vets who were struggling with their own issues and searching for ways in a desert, if you will, to develop means by which 

they can come to grips with their own demons and, hence, Vietnam 

Veterans of San Diego was born in that time. We have since 

changed our name to Veterans Village of San Diego because we 

truly are a village of all veterans. We currently have a veteran 

from World War I, formerly homeless, and he is 88 years old. We 

have 130 other homeless veterans who are currently residing with 

us at our early treatment facility. Of those 131, eight are women, 

six are OIF/OEF veterans, and one of those six is female. 

In listening to some of the testimony earlier, it struck me at how 

the issues that we are struggling with today are the same issues 

that I and my fellow veterans of the Vietnam conflict struggled 

with for so long. One of the primary and significant differences between now and 40 years ago is a plethora of services available and 

the will, politically and economically, to support the OIF/OEF veterans. For that matter, all veterans of the Global War on Terrorism 

era that we are involved in now. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

30 

I would like to talk a little bit about numbers. Veterans Village 

was the founder of Stand Down which is now replicated at some 

200 locations around the country. In the late ’90s, we saw the number attending Stand Down begin to dribble down. Starting about 3 

years ago, it is beginning to dribble up. 

Last year, we had almost 800 in attendance at our 3-day event. 

That is about 60 more than we had the previous year. The population has changed to younger. We have more families attending 

Stand Down. These are veteran families with children attending 

Stand Down. We had 74 children aged under 16 at Stand Down 

last year. One of the commonalities between generations of servicemembers seems to be true at this time as it has in the past. You 

know, PTSD as we call it today, in the Civil War, they called PTSD 

soldier’s heart and that is what gets broken in combat along with 

the soul and a lot of folks have difficulty with that and it is a long 

road home. 

One of the commonalities that all combat veterans—well, I would 

not say all. Many combat veterans have anger, addiction, disillusionment, despair, all of the catch words that lead to suicide, that 

lead to homelessness. I have been fortunate enough to sit in groups 

of our current group of homeless veterans, Iraq primarily. It is the 

same. It is the same message then that I hear from them that I 

heard in the groups that I was involved in when I was going 

through counseling for many, many years at our local Vet Center. 

My time is running short but quickly, what do we do? We have 

identified an outreach program which has recently been funded, 

which we call Warrior Traditions. Warrior Traditions will go into 

the communities with qualified facilitators and create atmospheres 

whereby these veterans can, amongst themselves, in an environment that is facilitated towards a helpful and progressive end 

begin to deal with some of these issues. 

So we are outreaching into the community. That is not our core 

mission but we find that it is significant to do that or they are 

going to fall through the cracks. The name of it is prevention and 

in closing, if I were to wish for anything, I would wish for more 

beds. I would wish for funding for more permanent housing. I 

would wish for funding for more transitional housing. 

If we had enough money, we would throw supportive services at 

it but the first element that we need is to get the folks off the 

street and get them into a bed, and then develop the services that 

go with that. Thank you for hearing my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Landis appears on p. 90.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. D’Arcy. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. D’ARCY 

Mr. D’ARCY. The rents that we collected paid for the property 

management but not the social services. Social services at St. Leo 

Residence are provided to chronically homeless and mentally ill 

veterans primarily from the Vietnam era. And Catholic Charities 

provides nine employees, more than originally planned, at a cost of 

$500,000. 

At the Auburn Gresham Clinic, the VA provided services to 1,185 

veterans in the first 9 months. And the Department of Labor asjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

31 

sisted 312 veterans with job searches and 45 of them obtained employment. 

So what did we learn? The clinic was built with a public and private partnership that was extensive. Catholic Charities engaged 

seven governmental agencies and six private partners. And we 

learned that these partnerships are necessary, they are quite complicated, and they require a considerable time commitment. 

The second thing we learned was about financing. Ten layers of 

funding were assembled and six of them were from government 

agencies. The VA committed the first funding and that opened the 

door for all the funders. 

The State of Illinois awarded $10 million in Federal tax credits 

and Catholic Charities procured more than $4 million in grants 

and donations to fill the funding gaps. 

We learned that a simpler financing method must be found and 

we request an opportunity to renegotiate the terms of our VA loan. 

Operating revenue came from housing vouchers that provided 

only 35 percent of the funding. Plus, low rents collected from veterans provided 65 percent. Such a small revenue budget cannot pay 

for both property management and social services. We learned that 

more housing vouchers and/or grants are needed or this project will 

fail. 

And regarding social service outcomes, 79 percent of the residents obtained employment. That was nearly 50 percent in the first 

year. And nearly all veterans at St. Leo Residence are receiving 

benefits. 

We learned that Catholic Charities had to increase its staff to 

work with this challenging population in order to achieve these 

positive outcomes. 

Last, community response has been favorable and we learned 

that being in a neighborhood near public transportation is very important because ongoing support from local groups is critical to 

helping veterans. 

In conclusion, we at Catholic Charities believe that our country 

needs more housing to address the problem of homelessness among 

veterans. The St. Leo Residence and the Auburn Gresham Clinic 

have made a real contribution because formerly homeless veterans 

are becoming viable contributors to our society again. 

Mr. Chairman, we are willing to work with any group you designate to review this pilot project in order to make the next project 

even more successful. I urge the Congress to promote this program, 

to simplify its implementation, and to provide financial support for 

continued operations and social services. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. D’Arcy appears on p. 92.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you all for what you are doing 

each and every day for our veterans. 

Mr. Rodriguez, do you have any comments? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me also just thank you for the services that you are providing out there. 

Based on the figures, even if we have a disagreement over them, 

if we have 11,000 so-called individuals out there, what is the duration of time that they spend in your facilities? I know that it is difjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

32 

ficult, but right now based on how much time we keep them, if we 

felt that we needed to transition them and allow that opportunity 

for them to get a job, say that it is a year, what is the cost that 

we are looking at overall, if that is the maximum number that are 

out there? What is the cost for any one of you right now for an individual at your place? 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Rodriguez, I was going to ask for the 

operating budget for each agency. I was just trying to figure 

out—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. DOWNING. Excuse me. My operating budget is approximately 

$4 million a year. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And that comes out to how much per veteran? 

Mr. DOWNING. It would probably average out around $80,000 a 

veteran. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are serving about 250? 

Mr. DOWNING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Per year? 

Mr. DOWNING. Per year, but that number would be a total. In a 

total year, that would be about 900 veterans. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Four million dollars. Okay. 

Colonel Williams. 

Colonel WILLIAMS. My budget is about $3.6 million a year, but 

that is not the full story because we get our people jobs. Our average salary runs about over $13 an hour now. 

Because of the money that we get from HUD, not from HUD, but 

from the Department of Labor, we send our people to colleges, universities, and tech schools. And some of the jobs that we have been 

able to secure for them is master fitness trainer, web designer, and 

that web designer is making more money than I make. So he can 

afford to pay his rent. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many people do you serve per year? 

Colonel WILLIAMS. We run about 240 people a day. In the report 

that we sent in earlier, it has those numbers in it. And I keep 

thinking that we are going to run out of people, but they keep coming. 

But one of the keys to this whole thing is that we put people in 

a position to fend for themselves. About 2 or 3 years ago, we decided that we were going to take a look at the number of people 

who left the program and what they were doing. We found out that 

over 500 had purchased their own home and some of them had 

moved down to South Carolina or in Georgia and had little, small 

mansions out there with ponds in the back. 

So these people are not throwaways. These people, once you give 

them the tools to get on their feet, they can make it. They are different from the other population of homeless veterans because at 

one time, these people had been successful in their lives. At one 

time, they had aspirations and because of their experience in war, 

they may have lost some of it. But if you put them back on track, 

they can become very, very self-sufficient and, you know, they can 

help other veterans on their way up. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

33 

And we do have that because we have people with their own 

businesses and they come back to the organization and they hire 

their fellow veterans and take them out to their businesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Landis, your annual budget? 

Mr. LANDIS. Yes, sir. Six point three million dollars. I was just 

thinking how to put a number to the veterans that we do serve if 

we include Stand Down. 

And we have a winter shelter that we have been providing for 

the City of San Diego for 8 years. This year alone, we had over 400 

documented different Social Security numbers that we worked 

with. 

We operate out of seven different locations. We have transitional 

housing facilities in some of those locations as well. I would say 

conservatively 1,500 to 1,700 veterans a year. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Mr. D’Arcy, you said it was $20 million to 

build the facility? 

Mr. D’ARCY. Right. But to operate—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Social services is what? 

Mr. D’ARCY. Was $500,000 cost. But, Mr. Chairman, our operating budget is $1.7 million, which comes out to $12,000 per veteran. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many people are in the—— 

Mr. D’ARCY. 141. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I am sorry, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. Thank you. 

Excuse me. I am trying to get a feel in terms of what might be 

needed in terms of serving. Mr. Landis. 

Mr. LANDIS. Yes, sir. If I may expand just a moment. The most 

critical component of what Veterans Village provides is our drug 

and alcohol treatment. That is our core mission. That is the most 

expensive component of treatment that we offer. It costs approximately $60 a day to treat the men and women that are in that facility. 

As you know, the Per Diem rates are $30 a day, which means 

we struggle to find the differential. And the differential is widening. It is not coming closer together. So we struggle with that as 

well. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So just to provide them housing, you are looking 

at what, $30 to $50 a day just for housing? 

Mr. LANDIS. Well, if I was providing transitional housing only, at 

$30 a day, sir, I would make a profit. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. 

Mr. LANDIS. No question. When you couple that with supportive 

services, the costs go up. When you add to that drug and alcohol 

treatment, especially if you are doing it in the way that we choose 

to do it, which is all encompassing and very holistic, it is very expensive. 

So we struggle. In fact, our treatment facility which we call the 

VRC, Veterans Rehabilitation Center, every year runs at a slight 

loss. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Do we have any program that is looking at the 

veteran coming out of the prison system that is picked up? I know 

it was mentioned. Go ahead. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

34 

Mr. LANDIS. Yes, sir. We have a large component of our men and 

women in a treatment facility that come straight from prison. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. 

Mr. LANDIS. We also are involved in a pilot program called Optional Sentencing. So a judge has an opportunity, if they choose to, 

to sentence somebody, if you will, to our treatment facility as opposed to putting them in prison. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. That is good. 

Mr. DOWNING. Twenty-eight percent of our people come out of 

prison on parole or probation. And we have a person who visits all 

the prisons in our region every week. I have an outreach person. 

That is all he does, visits all the shelters and all the prisons and 

we bring them in that way. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I gather most of, I am stereotyping, but I 

gather most of the offenses have been drug-related? 

Mr. DOWNING. Drug or violence. You know, a number of our veterans are also men that batter women, adjustment disorders under 

which post traumatic stress disorder falls. There is a number of behaviors that seem to be pretty consistent with that. 

Colonel WILLIAMS. Sir, we coordinate with the prison system of 

Maryland and believe it or not, the veterans in the prison system 

have fundraisers for us. And once they get out, they come into the 

program. 

But we do not have people sentenced to us because that means 

that we have to account for their behavior and we have to account 

for their presence. But once they turn them loose, in most cases in 

the court, if they know that they are with us or coming to us, they 

will, instead of imprison them, will send them to us. We have a 

good relationship with them. 

And we have also met with the Chief of Police in Baltimore and 

was trying to arrange a meeting between the psychologist and psychiatrist to tell their people about the type of people that they are 

going to see coming back from Iraq so that they do not get involved 

with shooting these people for their behavior. And we are going to 

continue that. 

And also in dealing with the other problems, health and that sort 

of thing, we partner with Johns Hopkins who come in. All our men 

that are over 40, they give them prostate screening. And we are 

working on a plan now to get our females their mammograms because we found out that these people not only have problems with 

drugs and alcohol, but they have medical problems because of their 

stay on the streets and that sort of thing. 

And it really takes the community to help a veteran heal, so we 

go to the community and all of the hospitals cooperate with us in 

what we are trying to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Brown-Waite. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask two questions and if each of you could answer. 

The first question is, how do you verify the veteran status of an 

individual who is participating in the programs that you run? And 

the second question would be, how do you define a successful outcome for the individuals that you are helping? 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

35 

And we can start on either end. 

Mr. DOWNING. Okay. First of all, DD–214, everybody has a DD– 

214. We get them and we work to get them. The St. Louis Center 

is very good. We get them back in 24 hours. 

And the VA hospital does what they call a ‘‘hink’’ and they can 

run that for us immediately. And most of the time, that will show 

somebody who has been in the system and is VA eligible. So we do 

that. 

And then we have a number of people, especially a lot of our returning folks, who come back with bad paper because they were 

discharged for less than honorable, especially after violent activity 

or drug activity. And so those folks, we bring in and they are eligible for Per Diem and then we immediately start a process of appealing their paperwork and work with the various service groups 

to get them eligible for full VA services. So we do that. 

Secondly, a successful outcome for us is somebody who stays with 

us that is sober and safe, okay, and has developed some responsibility for their life. 

If you ask me today, I could say this to you. About 23 percent 

of the people that come in my door today will be with me 2 years 

from now. I cannot tell you who they will be. I can tell you that. 

Okay? 

I mean, it is a very difficult process, but what we are looking for 

is stable behaviors, people who stay within the disciplines for their 

medical treatment, their psych treatment, and stay with the supportive services. 

The more services we provide, the busier we keep them, the more 

we stay in touch, the longer they stay. The average stay of a person 

in our program now is 17 months. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Let me follow-up on one of the comments—— 

Mr. DOWNING. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE [continuing]. That you made. If the individual 

coming out of the military has a less than honorable discharge—— 

Mr. DOWNING. Yeah. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE [continuing]. And you are simultaneously 

working to try to get that changed, are you offering them assistance during that period? 

Mr. DOWNING. Yes, ma’am. Oh, yeah. We say no to nobody, okay, 

even if we do not get reimbursed for them. We feel if you come in 

to us and you have had military service, even if you have a DD– 

214 with less than honorable, we are going to start to work with 

you. 

If at the end of that 3-month, 4-month period we find out that 

we cannot get it changed and it is not going to change, then we 

have to start to look for alternative long-term treatment facilities 

for you and we do that. Okay? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you. 

Colonel WILLIAMS. Ma’am, our mission is to provide services so 

that people can rejoin their communities as productive citizens. We 

have a very sophisticated system of accounting for the people. I can 

tell you where some of our people, the first 20 people that we took 

in 14 years ago, I can tell you what they are doing. 

We do know that 71 percent of the people who stayed with us 

longer than 30 days, because 30 days is key, they bind to the projbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

36 

gram. We are returning 71 percent of those people to their communities with jobs and we are also dealing with families. 

We did a random study in which we pulled 50 records from the 

years we have been open to find out what those people were doing. 

We found out of the 50, 41 of them were still in a recovery program 

with jobs. But more important than that, 21 of them had reunited 

with their families, who had been separated from their families, 

had reunited with their families. 

Now, we have programs to encourage family reunification because we believe that if we can reunite these people with their families and get that connection, chances of them returning to the 

street is minimum. 

Now, I know when I came back from Vietnam, one of the things 

that probably saved me was a family who would not let me be by 

myself to think about this, but kept me moving. And we believe 

that. 

We have days when we bring the family in, the mother, the children, and especially things like Christmas and picnics and that 

sort of thing to sort of force that family unit so that the people will 

not return back to the streets. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. And your verification process is that the individual you are dealing with is a veteran? 

Colonel WILLIAMS. Oh, yes. We check that out with the DD–214 

and at one point, we had people from the Federal building coming 

down. And as we interviewed people, we checked the status. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you. 

Mr. Landis. 

Mr. LANDIS. Yes, ma’am. We also have access through the VA 

Regional Office and the VA hospital to determine eligibility or veteran’s status within 1 day. 

We do see a lot of forms DD–214. However, our experience has 

led us to verify beyond that and that is what we do on a regular 

basis. So we know within 24 hours if the person we are dealing 

with is, in fact, a veteran. 

I mean, how do you determine success? Success if you are in our 

treatment program for drug and alcohol addiction is determined by 

the fact that you are clean and sober and you have a job and that 

you are an economic functioning part of society once again. 

The latest study that we had conducted determined that 6 

months after graduation from that program, we still had 72 percent 

of our alumni clean and sober, no nights in jail, and economically 

employed. 

Mr. D’ARCY. The way we verify is also with the DD–214, plus we 

are in contact with the VISN 12 office at Hines, Illinois. And then 

the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center official oversees the clinic, 

which is across the street. And so we use them. So we have, like 

Mr. Landis here, we have good access to the VA data. 

And how do we determine outcomes? Well, we were pleased that 

in the first year, we had 14 percent move on to permanent housing. 

The goal of our project is the veteran has to commit to seeking 

and obtaining and maintaining employment. They have to pay rent 

and they have to agree to live in a drug-free environment. 

So our case managers are working with people on a weekly basis. 

We only had seven move out in the first year because they did not 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

37 

want to comply with the program. So 23 moved on. They got better 

jobs. They got financially stable and they moved out to permanent 

housing. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you. 

And I thank the Chairman for indulging me a little extra time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

When you were telling me the budget figures, I was doing some 

calculations to see, if we had everybody in your program that we 

think are homeless, how much it would cost this Nation. 

And I do not know what estimates have come to you. I get, in 

the order of $3 to $4 billion a year. 

Now, offhand, that sounds like a little bit of money. That is 

about 2 weeks of the War in Iraq, maybe less. So I am going to 

arrange to stop the war 2 weeks earlier and we are going to fund 

all to end the homeless situation. 

So, I mean, everything is relative, you know. This country has 

the money to solve this issue. It is a question of priorities. And if 

we can borrow hundreds of billions of dollars for war, we can borrow a few billion to deal with this, which is a moral crisis for 

America. 

I would say 90 percent, 95 percent or 98.6 percent—you cannot 

help every single person, but you can provide the conditions for virtually everybody to achieve success in the way each of you defined 

it. 

So your every-day work will recommit us to making sure you continue and we put in the money that is necessary to solve this issue. 

When Pete Dougherty from the VA comes up, he is offering $4 

billion. I want you to solve this problem in a year. Okay? 

Thank you all again for what you do. 

And, we will now have the VA Director come forward. 

Pete, there are not a lot of people who come up from the VA 

where everybody says they love you—we heard at least one testimony. I did not ask the other three. I did not want to get you in 

trouble. But you are well known around the Nation. 

I took from this second panel that you have your finger in a 

whole lot of things that are successful. And I think that is a testament to you and what you are doing. So we appreciate you being 

here today. 

STATEMENT OF PETER H. DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAMS, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I probably should say that I learned all those good traits by 

being a staff member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee 

many years ago. 

It is my pleasure to be with you today. I appreciate the opportunity to come and to testify on behalf of the Department’s programs and services that are helping homeless veterans. 

VA, as you know, is the Nation’s largest single healthcare provider and we provide healthcare to more than 100,000 homeless 

veterans each year. We are making unprecedented strides to expand current and to create new partnerships in service with others. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

38 

We aggressively reach out and engage veterans in shelters, in 

soup kitchens, on streets, and under the bridges. We connect them 

with a complement of VA healthcare and benefits assistance. 

Our objective is to help these veterans receive coordinated care 

with VA benefits which in turn further enhances their opportunity 

to live independently and to gain gainful employment. Thousands 

of these veterans are returning to independent living each year. 

With your support, we have continued to make significant investments in provisions of services to homeless veterans. This year, we 

expect to spend over $2 billion in both veterans, homeless veterans’ 

specific programs and healthcare services for veterans who are 

homeless. 

VA under the Veterans Benefits Administration has expedited 

over 21,000 claims from homeless veterans and, therefore, given 

thousands of veterans an income support and other eligibilities 

they may not otherwise have. 

We believe the best strategy to prevent homelessness is early 

intervention. Veterans returning from the present conflict in Iraq 

and Afghanistan have 5 years of eligibility for healthcare. We believe this eligibility policy allows our clinical staff to identify additional health problems that may, if left untreated, contribute to future homelessness. 

During the past 3 years, 556 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been seen and served in residential treatment programs that we either run and operate or are run in partnership 

with us such as the panels that you have had here earlier today. 

Our best option is to reach these veterans early and to serve them 

early. 

Last year, we had over 9,000 people attend our community homeless assessment meetings across the country. We host those meetings at every VA medical center. They are called our challenge 

meetings. Those meetings help us to identify the met and unmet 

needs of homeless veterans. It also is one of the things that we use 

to get an estimate of the number of homeless veterans. Our 2007 

report estimated the number of homeless veterans is going down. 

It is down to 154,000. That is a reduction, but we do not claim any 

great success. We are confident that our continued efforts will 

achieve our goal of ending chronic homelessness among veterans. 

It has been mentioned here, and I want to give you an update 

about what is going on with HUD–VASH. Last December, this Congress appropriated funds to HUD that will create more than 10,000 

units of dedicated vouchers for permanent housing under the Housing Voucher Choice Program for homeless veterans and family 

members with a requirement that VA provide dedicated case managers to those veterans. 

We are currently working with our colleagues at HUD and expect 

that thousands of veterans will be able to move into that housing 

as early as this summer. We have already started the process to 

hire 290 case managers. 

The Administration’s proposed budget for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development also includes 75 million which is 

estimated to create nearly an additional 10,000 next year. If that 

occurs, obviously VA will need to hire additional case managers. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

39 

You have mentioned Stand Downs and obviously you and I have 

both been to Stand Downs. Since San Diego started the Stand 

Down concept, VA has participated in over 2,000 of those events. 

Last year, we recorded participation in 143 events. More than 

30,500 veterans and family members aided by over 18,000 volunteers participated. 

VA has provided funding to more than 500 organizations to support the more than 9,000 operational beds in place today and 

ramping up to about 14,000 transitional housing beds. We have 

funded 23 service centers and more than 200 vans for transportation. 

The Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) that is out and closes 

today, we expect will add several thousand additional Grant Per 

Diem beds. We expect to award funding by late summer. 

We have awarded technical assistance grants, homeless special 

needs funding. We have expanded our residential treatment programs, our domiciliary and other programs, and we have worked 

very diligently with the Multi-Family Housing Loan Guaranty Program. 

As was mentioned earlier, we have been participating with the 

Department of Labor on the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program. And although it was a pilot, we have testified previously that 

we wish the Congress would extend that program because we estimate that nearly 40 to 45 percent of all veterans we see in homeless programs have previously been incarcerated. 

We appreciate the assistance of the Congress that you have given 

us and aiding us in this noble endeavor. 

Mr. Chairman, that would conclude my statement as such and 

I would be more than happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dougherty appears on p. 95.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Brown-Waite. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you. 

Some of the previous witnesses this morning discussed the need 

for permanent supportive housing. Do you agree that we should 

have this particular type of housing, and are there any plans, 

ideas, or recommendations that the VA has about developing permanent supportive housing for homeless vets? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. This initiative really began at the end of the 

first President Bush Administration. It was an initiation by Secretary Kemp of HUD at the time and the Director of Mental Health 

Services for VA. 

The idea was that many veterans, particularly those who have 

physical disabling conditions, long-term chronic mental illness, and 

other problems, the best thing we could do to them is to give them 

that safe environment in which to live without worrying about 

when they had to get out or where they were going next. They 

could address the physical and mental healthcare needs that they 

have. 

Our colleagues at the Department of Housing and Urban Development tell us that their Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) performance requirement for that type of program is that 

people in that housing stay at about 74 percent. The veterans that 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

40 

we have had in that program, in that pilot that continues, about 

1,500 units today stay at a rate of about 94 percent. 

We have testified before and written reports on it before. We consider it one of the most successful programs that we have. 

In the new initiative, that is most helpful is that we will have 

an ability to target who will get this housing because you all put 

it in the law. That really is going to allow us to take not only that 

chronically homeless veteran, but also to give options and to provide services for veterans and their family members who need that 

kind of housing. We find many veterans do not come in and seek 

services from us if they still have a family. 

They are concerned about what is happening to my spouse or my 

child if I go into the VA healthcare system. This will give them a 

safe, stable place in which to stay. Many of the programs that we 

work with can work effectively as an outpatient program. 

It also will give us an opportunity to work with those veterans 

who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan who need some 

assistance as has been outlined as well. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. My last question relates to whether or not 

the VA participates in HUD’s Homeless Management and Information System and, if not, why not, and have you taken any steps to 

become involved in this program? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. We do in some ways. Obviously, as you know, 

we have great restrictions as to providing information about veterans and their healthcare services. We are working with HUD all 

the time on trying to give aggregate information as opposed to specific information. 

Most continuums work where if you and Mr. Filner had two different programs in the same city that you would have the ability 

to access the information about people in his program and he people in your program so that if you were providing some support 

services and he was providing some other support services, you 

would know whether people are coming and going. 

In VA’s case, we have a great deal of difficulty sharing that kind 

of level of information. One of the things we do appreciate is the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development has asked their 

continuums of care to collect data sources so we can help identify 

the number of veterans who are being seen. 

And what that does for us is—New York City is a good example. 

New York says if you are coming into the New York City system, 

what you have to do is if you identify yourself as a veteran, they 

give that information to the VA. And what that does for our folks 

is if we have 40 veterans, for example, who are living in a place, 

in a shelter, if you will, that gives us the opportunity to reach out 

to them, to give benefits assistance to them, and to get better 

placement. 

We are working with them, but, no, we are not fully engaged in 

the HMIS System. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Could there not be a waiver that the veteran 

signs? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Those are the kinds of things that we are working on, but waivers as we understand it, are only as good as the 

day I wrote the waiver. So if I gave you a waiver today, it might 

not be applicable tomorrow. And I can restrict what I may give in 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

41 

the waiver process as well. So I may want to share some information, but not others. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me give you some frank reaction to your testimony. The problem looks to me to be quite immense. 

I know what San Diego—I happened to be involved in the Veterans Village from the time I was on the City Council in San 

Diego. These guys have worked themselves, and in fact, the previous Director, almost to death year after year after year. They 

found money and they now have a few million dollars. They are 

serving 100, 200 veterans. I mean, they worked to the bone and 

they finally have millions of dollars. And, again, they are serving 

a few hundred. 

So to serve whatever the number is, and, I am not sure we have 

a handle on it, but let us say a couple hundred thousand veterans, 

you need billions of dollars. So we are not solving the problem. We 

are not ending the issue. 

And we know how much good you have done, but I wish one time 

somebody from the VA would come and testify and say here is 

what we need and here is what I would do with this much money. 

Let us help you do this job. 

You know, everybody is doing such a wonderful job and, yet, I 

go out every couple of weeks to downtown San Diego, to the ballpark, to some of the shelters, and I can find dozens of veterans in 

a few minutes whose story rends your heart. We need to get these 

folks in for some help. 

So I want to know what you need, what would you do, what can 

you not do? Is it just money? Is it local participation in a different 

way? Is it a commitment from all of your medical facilities? I mean, 

what do you need to do your job better? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Well, I think one of the things, Mr. Chairman—— 

The CHAIRMAN. What would you do? What would you do with 

more money? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY [continuing]. Is we have a Grant and Per Diem 

Program for homeless service. We have a figure of $130 million as 

the authorized level. The Appropriations Committee appropriated 

$130 million and we will spend $130 million on that program this 

year. 

I think that was a ceiling to make us reach higher and has now 

been hit. So what we need if we are going to continue to move forward with that program is to break the ceiling that now exists for 

us. 

We need to have either an increased level of authorization for appropriation or we need to simply have a floor to spend at least $130 

million so we can spend as much as we need after that. That is one 

thing very specifically you could do to be helpful. 

The other is that we do recognize both in the law, we referenced 

the fact about ending chronic homelessness. Now, we define chronic 

homelessness as a person who has been homeless for a year or 

more or who has had four or more times of homelessness over the 

past 3 years. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

42 

We are not as prepared and not as well versed in doing more for 

homeless prevention. I certainly think that having some specific 

authority to do more homeless prevention would help. 

You mentioned the fact that if somebody comes in, we are trying 

to work very closely that we do not turn anybody who comes into 

us out on to the street, that we want to make sure they have a 

good place to go until they can get placement if they need placement or will accept placement. 

But we are limited at this point in what we can do in that arena. 

Having more homeless prevention authority would be helpful to us 

as well. 

I think beyond that, Mr. Chairman, the HUD–VASH Program, 

will help answer the need for permanent housing. I believe the last 

challenge report we had from community sources said we need 

27,000 units of permanent housing in order to help meet the need 

as defined it for us. 

If we get this year’s amount and next year’s proposed amount, 

we will obviously go very significantly toward that goal. The 11,000 

number that was used was for transitional housing. With what we 

have added to that now, if you use that figure, we are probably still 

three or four thousand away from where we need to be. 

We have thousands of units that we have approved that have not 

become operational. But obviously additional transitional housing 

in places is a significant need for us as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. We are going to continue to discuss this 

issue. I appreciate all the witnesses here today. Some of the stories 

you have told help us and recommit us to this issue that is one 

that just breaks your heart, when you are talking to people. 

And as a Nation, we can do a better job. I mean, the richest Nation in the history of the world does not need to have homeless people in our society. 

I thank you all for what you are doing. 

And all these people spoke to grants that they get from you. How 

much is the grant program that they are generally referring to? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. How much is the grant program under Grant 

Per Diem? 

The CHAIRMAN. How much money are you giving out in these 

grants? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Last year, I think our budget figure; we spent $107 million in payments under the Grant and Per Diem Program. 

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, there are people all over the country who 

want to help, who have the ability to help, who have the creativity 

and the energy. And we have to let them do it. So I think we 

should significantly increase that amount of money. 

Thank you all. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman, 

Full Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Good morning and welcome to the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing on 

the effectiveness of VA’s homeless programs. 

Last month, VA announced a 21 percent decrease in the homeless veteran population from more than 195,000 to about 154,000. 

Research tells us that veterans are over represented in the homeless population. 

VA is the largest single provider of homeless services reaching about 25 percent of 

that population. 

VA operates a wide variety of homeless veterans programs designed to provide 

outreach, supportive services, health care as well as counseling and treatment for 

mental health and substance use disorders. They rely heavily on their partnerships 

with the community and faith based organizations to provide these services. 

According to Health Care for Homeless Veterans Programs: The Nineteenth Annual 

Report, March 31, 2006, VA’s homeless population demographics are: 

• 52 percent had a serious psychiatric problem defined as psychosis, mood disorder or PTSD. 

• 68 percent, or two-thirds, were dependent on alcohol and/or drugs. 

• 38 percent, or over one-third, were dually diagnosed with serious psychiatric 

and substance abuse problems. 

• 57 percent, or over half, suffered from a serious medical problem. 

• The number of homeless women veterans is rising. 

Prior to becoming homeless, a large number of veterans at risk have struggled 

with PTSD or have addictions acquired during, or worsened by, their military service. These conditions can interrupt their ability to keep a job, establish savings, and 

in some cases, maintain family harmony. 

Veterans’ family, social, and professional networks may have been broken due to 

extensive mobility while in service or lengthy periods away from their hometowns 

and their civilian jobs. These problems are directly traceable to their experience in 

military service or to their return to civilian society without having had appropriate 

transitional supports. 

VA reports that approximately 1,500 homeless veterans are from OEF/OIF. This 

is a growing population. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans 

to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. 

Concern has been expressed by many that such an early showing of OEF/OIF veterans in the homeless population does not bode well. It is also believed that the intense repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable. 

We must do a better job of focusing on preventing homelessness, as well as ending 

it. This Committee must ensure that the current programs VA has implemented to 

end homelessness continue to be effective as well as adaptable to the newest generation’s needs. 

The time to act is now. We cannot afford to let history repeat itself. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of South Dakota 

Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer, thank you for holding this hearing 

to examine the effectiveness of the Department of Veterans Affairs homelessness 

programs. 

Like all of my colleagues, I am troubled by the large number of veterans that are 

homeless. While I am thankful for the decline, during the past year, in the number 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

44 

of veterans homeless on a typical night, more must be done. For example, I believe 

we must also focus on efforts to help prevent veterans from becoming homeless. 

As you may know, I introduced the Services To Prevent Veterans Homelessness Act 

in May 2007 to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide financial assistance to nonprofit organizations and consumer cooperatives to provide and coordinate the provision of supportive services that addresses the needs of very low-income veterans occupying permanent housing. 

I would like to thank Health Subcommittee Chairman Michaud and Ranking 

Member Miller for including the Services to Prevent Veterans Homelessness Act in 

the Veterans’ Health Care Improvement Act, which passed the full House of Representatives in July 2007. I believe this legislation will go a long ways toward helping prevent more veterans from becoming homeless. 

Thank you again to all of our witnesses for being here. I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to examine the effectiveness of the Department 

of Veteran Affairs homeless programs and to support efforts to meet the housing 

assistance needs of our Nation’s low-income veterans. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Henry E. Brown, Jr., 

a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina 

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today, I look forward to hearing your 

testimony and I would like to also thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for 

holding this hearing. One of my greatest passions is correcting the problem of homelessness among veterans and I appreciate this opportunity to discuss this important 

topic. 

Though it is difficult to get an exact count, it is estimated that on any given night, 

over 150,000 veterans are homeless in this country. In my home State of South 

Carolina, we believe there are as many as 1400 homeless veterans. While that number has been going down in recent years, it is still far too high. 

We don’t always know why veterans become homeless, but we do know that veterans are overrepresented in the homeless population, studies suggest that 30–40% 

of all homeless are veterans. We also know that homeless veterans suffer from mental illness, substance abuse and other health problems at a higher rate than nonveterans. I am proud of the work we have been doing as a committee and as a Congress to combat this problem, but there is still a good deal of work to be done. We 

must continue to work with HUD to provide adequate housing and critical support 

services that address substance abuse problems many homeless veterans have. I 

hope that through discussions like this we can find the solutions to not only continue to reduce the number of current homeless veterans, but also prevent the soldiers serving in the current conflicts from becoming homeless. 

I thank you again for being here, I look forward to your testimony and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Donnelly, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana 

Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. The 

topic of homeless veterans is one that is truly a national tragedy and should be 

treated with the utmost urgency. While we have made great strides in recent years 

to reduce the number of homeless veterans, with a 21 percent drop just in the last 

year, we still have a long way to go. Having over 150,000 homeless veterans on any 

given night, and over 300,000 veterans experience homelessness at some point in 

2007 is just not acceptable, and we should not rest until that number comes down 

to zero. 

Additionally, it is clear that there is a systemic problem when military veterans 

comprise anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the total homeless population. Therefore, in addition to programs for supporting veterans once they show up at our shelters, we must take steps to ensure that our brave men and women are not put in 

a situation where they have to show up at these shelters in the first place. 

It is particularly disturbing that, according to VA statistics, there are already an 

estimated 1,500 OEF/OIF veterans showing up at homeless shelters. This is unprecedented and an alarming signal for future veteran homeless trends. It took about 

a decade for Vietnam veterans to start showing up among the homeless—we should 

not and cannot accept that, with all our 21st Century capabilities and resources, our 

returning veterans may be doing worse finding and staying in a home than returnjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

45 

ing veterans in the 1970s. We must get to the root of the problem and address it 

before these numbers grow any further. 

The VA has also identified veterans with PTSD as a large group of at-risk veterans. With this knowledge, we must work to ensure that we provide them with additional transitional resources and counseling to avoid their ending up among the 

homeless. 

I look forward to working with Chairman Filner and members of this committee 

to continue to make strides toward ending homelessness of veterans of any era and 

offering a greater array of assistance programs in helping them find jobs and permanent housing. Our brave men and women are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and as their hometown representatives, we owe them our 

greatest effort to help them get their lives back on track. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy J. Walz, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Buyer, members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to speak. And thank you to the witnesses who are here today. 

As a 24-year veteran of the Army National Guard and the highest ranking enlisted man in Congress, I know that taking care of our active duty forces and our 

veterans is one of the most important issues facing this country and this Congress 

today. Making sure we can work toward eliminating homelessness among our veterans, and preventing a new generation of homeless veterans from emerging, is incredibly important. While we have made advances, I am concerned that we are not 

doing enough on either front. 

It is unacceptable that in the United States today that there is a single homeless 

veteran. The number of veterans who are homeless appears to have dropped somewhat recently, and that would be a very good thing. VA reports that on any given 

day in 2007 there were about 154,000 homeless veterans, down from about 194,000 

in 2006 and down even more from earlier years. But veterans are still over-represented among the Nation’s homeless population. And there are troubling signs 

that veterans of our current conflicts may already be showing up homeless early. 

I am encouraged that some of the programs we have in place have been successful 

and efficient in serving homeless veterans and supporting providers of care to them. 

But at the same time I am concerned that some of those successful programs may 

not be getting the funding they deserve. The main question I have is how we can 

build on that success to reduce—ultimately to zero—the number of veterans who are 

homeless. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and to working with the members of this committee, the Congress and the VA to ensure that we succeed at eliminating homelessness among our veterans. 

f 

Prepared Statement of John Driscoll, Vice President for Operations and 

Programs, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans 

Chairman Filner, Ranking Member Mr. Buyer, and Distinguished Members of the 

Committee: 

The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) is honored to participate 

in this hearing to discuss the programs in place to help America’s homeless veterans, to consider how they may be improved, and to offer insights on what we believe is a historic opportunity to capitalize on our collective successes to focus on 

and develop strategies that will prevent homelessness among the next generation 

of America’s veterans. 

This Committee knows all too well that the cost of our freedom and prosperity 

necessarily includes tending to the wounds of the veterans who sacrifice some measure of their lives to preserve it. That we have been invited to offer testimony on 

these issues is, in itself, a testament to the leadership and devotion of this Committee to serve all veterans—including those who otherwise would have no hope of 

sharing in the peace and prosperity of the society they served to protect. 

We therefore begin our testimony by expressing our sincere gratitude for the commendable legacy this Committee has forged in the campaign to end and prevent 

homelessness among this Nation’s military veterans. For two decades you have engaged in a noble cause few others have even wanted to acknowledge. You have 

asked the tough questions, demanded accountability, and you have shouldered the 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

46 

burden before Congress and delivered on your promise—and for all that you stand 

first among those who made possible the successes we celebrate today. 

The homeless veteran assistance movement NCHV represents began in earnest in 

1990, but like a locomotive it took time to build the momentum that has turned the 

battle in our favor. In partnership with the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA), 

Labor, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—supported by the funding 

measures this Committee has championed—our community veteran service providers have helped reduce the number of homeless veterans on any given night in 

America by 38% in the last six years. 

This assessment is not based on the biases of advocates and service providers, but 

by the Federal agencies charged with identifying and addressing the needs of the 

Nation’s most vulnerable citizens. 

To its credit, the VA has presented to Congress an annual estimate of the number 

of homeless veterans every year since 1994. It is called the CHALENG project, 

which stands for Community Homelessness Assessment, and Local Education Networking Groups. In 2003 the VA CHALENG report estimate of the number of homeless veterans on any given day stood at more than 314,000; in 2006 that number 

had dropped to about 194,000. We have been advised the estimate in the soon-tobe published 2007 CHALENG Report shows a continued decline, to about 154,000. 

Part of that reduction can be attributed to better data collection and efforts to 

avoid multiple counts of homeless clients who receive assistance from more than one 

service provider in a given service area. But in testimony before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in the summer of 2005, VA officials affirmed that the 

number of homeless veterans was on the decline, and credited the agency’s partnership with community-based and faith-based organizations for making that downturn 

possible. 

Though estimates are not as reliable as comprehensive ‘‘point-in-time’’ counts, the 

positive trends noted in the CHALENG reports since 2003 are impressive. The number of contacts reporting data included in the assessments are increasing, while the 

number of identified and estimated homeless veterans is decreasing. 

Other Federal assessments of veteran homelessness that support our testimony 

are found in HUD’s 2007 ‘‘Annual Homelessness Assessment Report’’ (AHAR)— 

which reported that 18% of clients in HUD-funded homeless assistance programs 

are veterans—and the 2000 U.S. Census, which reported about 1.5 million veteran 

families are living below the Federal poverty level. Earlier this year, the National 

Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) published a report, based on information 

from these resources, that estimated approximately 46,000 veterans meet the criteria to be considered as ‘‘chronically homeless.’’ 

Homeless Veteran Assistance Programs 

There are only two non-government veteran-specific homeless assistance programs 

serving the men and women who represent nearly a quarter of the Nation’s homeless population. The over-representation of veterans among the homeless that is 

well documented and continues to this day is the result of several influences, most 

notably limited resources in communities with a heavy demand for assistance by 

single parents and families with dependent children, the elderly and the disabled. 

The Department of Labor Homeless Veterans Reintegration program (HVRP) and 

the VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem were created in the late 1980s to 

provide access to services for veterans who were unable to access local, federally 

funded, ‘‘mainstream’’ homeless assistance programs. 

These programs are largely responsible for the downturn in veteran homelessness 

reported during the last six years, and must be advanced as essential components 

in any national strategy to prevent future veteran homelessness. We will touch on 

each separately, and briefly comment on how each may be enhanced. 

Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program (GPD) 

Despite significant challenges and budgetary strains, the VA has quadrupled the 

capacity of community-based service providers to serve veterans in crisis since 2002, 

a noteworthy and commendable expansion that includes, at its very core, access to 

transitional housing, healthcare, mental health services and suicide prevention. 

GPD is the foundation of the VA and community partnership, and currently funds 

nearly 10,000 service beds in non-VA facilities in every state. Under this program 

veterans receive a multitude of services that include housing, access to healthcare 

and dental services, substance abuse and mental health supports, personal and family counseling, education and employment assistance, and access to legal aid. 

The purpose of the program is to provide the supportive services necessary to help 

homeless veterans achieve self sufficiency to the highest degree possible. Clients are 

eligible for this assistance for up to two years. Most veterans are able to move out 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

47 

of the program before the two-year threshold; some will need supportive housing 

long after they complete the eligibility period. Client progress and participant outcomes must be reported to the VA GPD office quarterly, and all programs are required to conduct financial and performance audits annually. 

In September 2007, despite the commendable growth and success of this program 

and its role in reducing the incidence of veteran homelessness, the GAO reported 

that the VA needs an additional 9,600 beds to adequately address the current need 

for assistance by the homeless veteran population. That finding was based on information provided by the VA, the GAO’s in-depth review of the GPD program, and 

interviews with service providers. The VA concurred with the GAO findings. 

Recommendations 

1. Increase the annual appropriation of the GPD program to $200 million—The projected $137 million in the president’s FY 2009 budget request will 

allow for expansion of the GPD program, but not nearly to the extent called for in 

the GAO report. While some VA officials may be concerned about the administrative 

capacity to handle such a large infusion of funds into the program, we believe the 

documented need to do so should drive the debate on this issue. 

In 2006, the VA created the position of GPD Liaisons at each medical center to 

provide additional administrative support for the GPD office and grantees. The VA 

published a comprehensive program guide to better instruct grantees on funding 

and grant compliance issues, and expects to provide more intense training of GPD 

Liaisons. This represents a considerable and continual investment in the administrative oversight of the program that should translate into increased capacity to 

serve veterans in crisis. 

Additional funding would increase the number of operational beds in the program, 

but under current law it could also enhance the level of other services that have 

been limited due to budget constraints. GPD funding for homeless veteran service 

centers—which has not been available in recent grant competitions—could be increased. These drop-in centers provide food, hygienic necessities, informal social 

supports and access to assistance that would otherwise be unavailable to men and 

women not yet ready to enter a residential program. They also could serve as the 

initial gateway for veterans in crisis who are threatened with homelessness or dealing with issues that may result in homelessness if not resolved. For OIF/OEF veterans in particular, this is a critical opportunity to prevent future veteran homelessness. Additional funding could also be used under current law to increase the number 

of special needs grants awarded under the GPD program. The program awards 

these grants to reflect the changing demographics of the homeless veteran population. One grant targets women veterans, including those with dependent children—the fasted growing segment of the homeless veteran population. Women now 

account for more than 14% of the forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there 

are only eight GPD programs receiving special needs grants for women in the country. 

Other focuses include the frail elderly, increasingly important to serve aging Vietnam-era veterans—still the largest subgroup of homeless veterans; veterans who are 

terminally ill; and veterans with chronic mental illness. These grants provide transitional housing and supports for veteran clients as organizations work to find longer 

term supportive housing options in their communities. 

2. Change the mechanism for determining ‘‘per diem’’ allowances—Under 

the GPD program, service providers are reimbursed for the expenses they incur for 

serving homeless veterans on a formula based on the rate of reimbursement provided to state veterans homes, and those rates are then reduced based on the 

amount of funding received from other Federal sources. The current ceiling is about 

$33.00 per veteran per day. 

This payment system is outdated for two reasons. The first is the difference in 

the cost of custodial care and the cost of comprehensive services that help individuals rebuild their lives. Whether provided on site or through contracts with partner 

agencies, the latter requires the intervention of highly trained professionals and intense case management. Revisions in the reimbursement formula should reflect the 

actual cost of services—based on each grantee’s demonstrated capacity to provide 

those that are deemed critical to the success of the GPD program and veteran clients—rather than a flat rate based on custodial care. 

The second reason is less obvious but equally important. Discounting the amount 

of an organization’s ‘‘per diem’’ rate due to funding from other Federal agencies contradicts the fundamental intent of the GPD program and undermines the ability of 

organizations to provide the wide range of services these veterans need. In order 

to successfully compete for GPD funding, applicants must demonstrate they can projbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

48 

vide a wide range of supportive services in addition to the transitional housing they 

offer. They should not be penalized for obtaining funds to enhance the services they 

are able to provide, regardless of the source of that funding. 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program 

HVRP is a grant program that awards funding to government agencies, private 

service agencies and community-based nonprofits that provide employment preparation and placement assistance to homeless veterans. It is the only Federal employment assistance program targeted to this special needs population. The grants are 

competitive, which means applicants must qualify for funding based on their proven 

record of success at helping clients with significant barriers to employment to enter 

the workforce and to remain employed. In September 2007 this program was judged 

by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as one of the most successful and 

efficient programs in the Department of Labor portfolio. 

HVRP is unique and so highly successful because it doesn’t fund employment 

services per se, rather it rewards organizations that guarantee job placement. Administered by the Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS), the program 

is responsible for placing a range of 14,000 to 16,000 veterans with considerable 

challenges into gainful employment each year at a cost of about $1,500 per client. 

Those numbers meet or exceed the results produced by most other Department of 

Labor programs. 

Recommendation—The HVRP program is authorized at $50 million through FY 

2009, yet the annual appropriation has been less than half that amount. For FY 

2009, the proposed funding for the program is $25.6 million. We would ask this 

Committee to prevail upon appropriators—to the extent possible—to fully fund this 

program. We believe the proven success and efficiency of HVRP warrants this consideration, and that DoL–VETS has the administrative capacity, will and desire to 

expand the program. We also urge the Committee to ensure reauthorization of the 

program FY 2009. Employment is the key to transition from homelessness to self 

sufficiency—this program is critical to the campaign to end and prevent veteran 

homelessness. 

Addressing Prevention of Veteran Homelessness 

The reduction in the number of homeless veterans on the streets of America each 

night proves that the partnership of Federal agencies and community organizations—with the leadership and oversight of Congress—has succeeded in building an 

intervention network that is effective and efficient. That network must continue its 

work for the foreseeable future, but its impact is commendable and offers hope that 

we can, indeed, triumph in the campaign to end veteran homelessness. 

However, the lessons we have learned and the knowledge we have gained during 

the last two decades must also guide our Nation’s leaders and policy makers in their 

efforts to prevent future homelessness among veterans who are still at risk due to 

health and economic pressures, and the newest generation of combat veterans returning from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. 

Again, NCHV bases its recommendations in this regard to the published findings 

of the Federal agencies already mentioned. 

The lack of affordable permanent housing is cited as the No. 1 unmet need of 

America’s veterans, according to the VA CHALENG report. We commend the work 

of HUD and VA to make up to 10,000 HUD–VA supportive housing (HUD–VASH) 

vouchers available to veterans with chronic health and disability challenges in FY 

2008, and possibly another increase in equal measure in FY 2009. This is a historic 

and heroic achievement, and again we commend this committee for its leadership 

on this issue. 

The affordable housing crisis, however, extends far beyond the realm of the VA 

system and its community partners. Once veterans successfully complete their GPD 

programs, many formerly homeless veterans still cannot afford fair market rents, 

nor will most of them qualify for mortgages even with the VA home loan guarantee. 

They are, essentially, still at risk of homelessness. With another 1.5 million veteran 

families living below the Federal poverty level (2000 U.S. Census), this is an issue 

that requires immediate attention and proactive engagement. 

NCHV believes the issue of affordable permanent housing for veterans must be 

addressed on two levels—those veterans who need supportive services beyond the 

two-year eligibility for GPD; and those who are cost-burdened by fair market rents 

in their communities. 

Veterans who graduate from GPD programs often need supportive services while 

they continue to build toward economic stability and social reintegration into mainstream society. Those who will need permanent supportive housing—the chronically 

mentally ill, those with functional disabilities, families impacted by poverty—may 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

49 

be served by the HUD–VASH program. But the majority of GPD graduates need access to affordable housing with some level of follow-up services for up to two to three 

years to ensure their success. 

Many community-based organizations are already providing that kind of ‘‘bridge 

housing,’’ but resources for this purpose are scarce. NCHV supports two initiatives 

that would address this issue. 

The first is a measure to provide grants to government and community agencies 

to provide services to low-income veterans in permanent housing. Funds would be 

used to provide continuing case management, counseling, job training, transportation and child care needs. This is the intent of House bill H.R. 2874, the ‘‘Veterans Health Care Improvement Act.’’ 

The second measure would make funds available to government agencies, community organizations and developers to increase the availability of affordable housing 

units for low-income veterans and their families. The ‘‘Homes for Heroes Act’’— 

introduced in both the House (H.R. 3329) and Senate (S. 1084)—addresses this issue 

and NCHV has worked with staff in both houses in recognition and support of Congressional action on this historic veteran homelessness prevention initiative. 

With respect to implementing a homelessness preventive strategy targeted to veterans returning from OIF/OEF, NCHV believes the first line of engagement is a 

strong partnership between the VA and community health centers in areas 

underserved by the Veterans Health Administration. While current practice allows 

a veteran to access services at non-VA facilities, the process is often frustrating and 

problematic, particularly for a veteran in crisis. Protocols should be developed to 

allow VA and community clinics to process a veteran’s request for assistance directly 

and immediately without requiring the patient to first go to a VA medical facility. 

Beyond that, we believe that VA Readjustment Counseling Centers, known as VA 

Centers, must serve as the clearinghouse for information that steers combat veterans in crisis to appropriate assistance in their communities, not just to VA services. Housing assistance referrals, financial counseling, access to legal aid, family 

counseling, identifying educational and employment opportunities—all of these are 

critical in any campaign to prevent homelessness. We know that is the goal of VA 

Centers, but some serve better than others. This is where the battle to prevent 

homelessness among OIF/OEF veterans will be won, and we encourage the VA and 

Congress to ensure adequate funding and training to guarantee their success. 

In Summation: 

The homeless veteran assistance movement is now 20 years old, but most of the 

historic achievements of the broad coalition now engaged in the campaign to end 

veteran homelessness have occurred in just the last six years. The partnership between the VA, Department of Labor, and the community-based organizations we 

represent has exceeded the most ambitious expectations of our founders, many of 

whom are still serving military veterans in crisis. 

With the leadership of this Committee, we have developed a national network of 

programs and service providers that saves lives and offers hope to hundreds of thousands of veterans each year. We know what works, and you have provided us with 

the means to guide these deserving men and women to a future of promise and opportunity. 

NCHV believes it is now time to take the next step in the campaign to end veteran homelessness. Developing a strategy that addresses the health and economic 

challenges of OIF/OEF veterans—before they are threatened with homelessness— 

should be a national priority. Never before in U.S. history has this Nation, during 

a time of war, concerned itself with preventing veteran homelessness. For all our 

collective accomplishments, this may yet be our finest moment. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

50 

COMMUNITY HOMELESSNESS ASSESSMENT, LOCAL EDUCATION 

AND NETWORKING GROUP (CHALENG) FOR VETERANS 

THE FOURTEENTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC 

LAW 105–114, SERVICES FOR HOMELESS VETERANS ASSESSMENT 

AND COORDINATION 

February 28, 2008 

John H. Kuhn, LCSW, MPH, National CHALENG Coordinator, VA New Jersey 

Health Care System, Lyons, NJ 

John Nakashima, Ph.D., Program Analyst, Community Care, West Los Angeles 

Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The CHALENG for Veterans project continues to be successful because of the 

work done by each of the CHALENG points of contact (POCs) who are listed in Appendix 8. The dedication of VA staffs and their community counterparts are often 

the difference between life and death for the homeless veterans found on our city 

streets and country back roads. Their tireless efforts to improve the lives of our veterans often go unrecognized and unappreciated. To each of these marvelous, caring, 

gentle, and hardworking persons, we say THANK YOU! 

We would like to thank Paul Smits, the Associate Chief Consultant, Homeless and 

Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, for his assistance in the preparation of this report, and his leadership in addressing the health care needs of 

homeless veterans. We thank Peter Dougherty, Director of Homeless Programs Office for VA, for his endless dedication to the care of our Nation’s homeless veterans. 

Paul and Pete’s support, feedback and guidance to Project CHALENG are immeasurable. 

We would like to also thank Dr. Robert Rosenheck, Director of the Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC) at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West 

Haven, Connecticut, who provides valuable consultation to the CHALENG process. 

Aiki Atkinson, Research Assistant, scanned in and proofed over 9,000 CHALENG 

Participant Surveys for this report. Janice Gibson, Homeless Veteran Analyst, located at the VA Medical Center, Perry Point, Maryland, provided final document 

preparation for printing. Chelsea Watson, Program Specialist from VA’s Homeless 

Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, provided technical assistance in the creation and maintenance of the CHALENG Web site which posts the most recent 

CHALENG report. Rhonda Simmons, Administrative Assistant for Project 

CHALENG, provided immeasurable support to the coordinator and to the entire 

CHALENG process. Thanks to all these people who make this process work so well. 

Finally, a special thanks to Dr. Jim McGuire who since 1997 was the lead 

CHALENG evaluator and researcher. Jim was instrumental in developing the current methodology and format for the annual CHALENG report. He set a high standard for us all. 

John Kuhn 

John Nakashima 

February 28, 2008 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

51 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 52 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 53 

Results from the Annual CHALENG Survey ......................................................... 54 

CHALENG Survey Respondents ............................................................................. 54 

Table 1. CHALENG Community Provider Respondent Function, FY 2007 ........ 55 

Table 2. VA Providers (staff), FY 2007 ................................................................... 55 

Table 3. Years of Community Provider Involvement in CHALENG, FY 2007 .... 55 

Table 4. Consumer (Homeless Veteran) Status ...................................................... 56 

Needs of Homeless Veterans .................................................................................... 56 

Table 5. Met and Unmet Needs of Homeless Veterans (All individuals who 

completed 2007, 2006 CHALENG Participant Surveys) ................................... 56 

Table 6. Top Ten Highest Unmet Needs Identified by Homeless Veterans, 

FY 2005–FY 2007 ................................................................................................. 60 

Table 7. Top Ten Highest Unmet Needs Identified by VA and Community 

Providers, FY 2005–FY 2007 ............................................................................... 60 

Table 8. Top Ten Highest Met Needs Identified by Homeless Veterans, FY 

2005–FY 2007 ....................................................................................................... 60 

Table 9. Top Ten Highest Met Needs Identified by VA and Community Providers, FY 2005–FY 2007 .................................................................................... 61 

Site Estimates of Numbers of Homeless Veterans and Housing Capacity ........... 62 

Table 10. Bed Capacity and Bed Need Assessment ............................................... 64 

Table 11. Community Providers Respondent Ratings of Partnership Integration in CHALENG Participant Survey, FY 2006 and FY 2007 ........................ 65 

Table 12. Community Provider Respondent Ratings of Partnership Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 65 

Table 13: Percentage of Point of Contacts (POCs) Indicating Interagency Collaborative Agreements with Select Program Types ............................................ 66 

Table 14. New Interagency Collaborative Agreements and Outreach Sites for 

FY 2007 ................................................................................................................. 67 

Table 15: Subject of New Interagency Collaborative Agreements Between VA 

and Community Providers, FY 2007 ................................................................... 68 

Table 16. Number of Veterans Served Through New Interagency Collaborative 

Agreements, FY 2007 ............................................................................................ 69 

POC Action Plans .................................................................................................... 70 

Figure 1. Top Needs Selected for POCs to Address for FY 2007 .......................... 70 

Figure 2. Outcomes for Top Ten FY 2007 Action Plan Topics with Percentages 

of POC Sites that were Successful ....................................................................... 70 

Figure 3. Needs Selected For FY 2008 Plans ......................................................... 72 

Update on CHALENG Activities ............................................................................. 72 

Summary .................................................................................................................. 73 

Appendices [will be retained in the Committee files.] 

Appendix 1: 2007 CHALENG Needs Score by VA Facility—Provider (VA 

and Community) Assessment 

Appendix 2: 2007 CHALENG Needs Score by VA Facility—Consumer (Homeless Veteran) Assessment 

Appendix 3: 2007 CHALENG Needs Score by Network 

Appendix 4: 2007 CHALENG Integration/Implementation Scores by VA Facility—Community Providers Assessment 

Appendix 5: FY 2007 Estimated Number of Homeless Veterans and Information Sources by VISN and VA—POC Site Assessment 

Appendix 6: VA Community Initiatives: Status of FY 2007 Action Plans 

Addressing Homeless Veterans Needs 

Appendix 7: Agencies Recognized for Assisting in Implementing FY 2007 

Action Plans 

Appendix 8: Points of Contact by VISN 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

52 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Community Homelessness Assessment, Local 

Education and Networking Groups for Veterans (CHALENG) Report 

Executive Summary 

Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has collaborated with local 

communities across the United States in Project CHALENG for Veterans. The vision 

of CHALENG is to bring together consumers, providers, advocates, local officials 

and other concerned citizens to identify the needs of homeless veterans and then 

work to meet those needs through planning and cooperative action. 

As in previous years, data collected during the FY 2007 CHALENG process are 

from questionnaires completed by VA staff, community providers, and homeless veterans. However, this year’s CHALENG introduced a consumer specific survey. This 

effort is designed to empower consumers as active participants in the design and 

delivery of homeless services. Their involvement is consistent with the VA’s recovery 

oriented approach to the delivery of mental health services. Judging by the level of 

participation in this year’s CHALENG process, this change has been greeted enthusiastically. The following are highlights of the FY 2007 CHALENG report: 

• Participation was excellent. 

• There were 9,132 respondents to the FY 2007 Participant Survey, a 99 percent increase from the previous year, which had a total of 4,578 participants. • Over half (55 percent) of the 2007 participants (n=5,046) were homeless or 

formerly homeless veterans. Consumer involvement went from 927 participants in 2006 to 5,046 participants in 2007, a fourfold increase. 

• Need remains high. 

• It is estimated that on any given night there are approximately 154,000 

homeless veterans. This is based on point-in-time estimates reported by the 

CHALENG points of contact (POCs). POCs are usually local VA homeless program coordinators from around the country. • The number of accessible beds increased between FY 2006 and FY 2007 from 

72,196 to 73,430 emergency beds; 40,599 to 47,891 transitional beds; and 

31,724 to 35,941 permanent beds (these beds are often not veteran specific 

and are also open to the general homeless population). The estimated number 

of additional beds required to meet existing needs decreased for emergency 

and transitional housing, but increased for permanent housing. 

• VA/Community partnerships continue to yield outcomes. 

• 87 percent of POC sites that had a nearby Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) Continuum of Care planning group participated in it. 

• 543 new interagency collaborative agreements between VA and community 

agencies were developed in FY 2007. Veterans received dental care, eye care, 

and mental health/substance abuse treatment as a result of these agreements. 

• 377 new outreach sites were served in FY 2007. 

• 98 POC sites (71 percent of all sites) reported seeing a total of 1,038 homeless 

veteran families. This was a 5-percent increase over the previous year of 989 

families served. 

• Preliminary data from the VA Northeast Program Evaluation Center from FY 

2005 through FY 2007 suggests that the overall rate of homelessness among 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING


43046A.001
53 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) veterans is 1.8 percent (unpublished data, NEPEC). Since OEF/OIF veterans 

represent about three percent of the overall veterans’ population, they appear 

to be underrepresented in the homeless veteran population. However, as 

CHALENG POCs have prioritized services to this group, they indicate that 

more outreach, housing, and services are needed to help homeless veterans 

who recently served in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

• POCs reported on their successes with their FY 2007 action plans. Several 

local housing projects are increasing capacity for homeless veterans. 

• CHALENG POC action plans for FY 2008 addressed priority needs such as 

permanent, transitional, and emergency housing, job finding, transportation, 

job training, re-entry services for incarcerated veterans, VA disability/pension, 

psychiatric services, and dental care. 

• Dental care, which was cited by homeless veterans as one of the top 3 unmet 

needs for the past 4 years, dropped to 12th place. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Homeless Veterans Dental Program (HVDP), begun in 2006, 

has had a major impact. In FY 2007, it is estimated that HVDP provided 

treatment to 7,666 eligible veterans at 129 CHALENG sites. 

Introduction 

In 1993, VA launched Project CHALENG for Veterans. CHALENG is a program 

designed to enhance the continuum of services for homeless veterans provided by 

the local VA medical center and regional office and their surrounding community 

service agencies. The guiding principle behind Project CHALENG is that no single 

agency can provide the full spectrum of services required to help homeless veterans 

reach their potential as productive, self-sufficient citizens. Project CHALENG fosters 

coordinated services by bringing VA together with community agencies and other 

Federal, state, and local government programs to raise awareness of homeless veterans’ needs and to plan to meet those needs. This helps improve homeless veterans’ 

access to all types of services and eliminate duplication of efforts. 

The legislation guiding this initiative is contained in Public Laws 102–405, 103– 

446 and 105–114. The specific legislative requirements relating to Project 

CHALENG are that local VA medical center and regional office directors: 

• assess the needs of homeless veterans living in the area, 

• make assessments in coordiNation with representatives from state and local 

governments, appropriate Federal departments and agencies and non-governmental community organizations that serve the homeless population, 

• identify the needs of homeless veterans with a focus on healthcare, education, 

training, employment, shelter, counseling, and outreach, 

• assess the extent to which homeless veterans’ needs are being met, 

• develop a list of all homeless services in the local area, 

• encourage the development of coordinated services, 

• take action to meet the needs of homeless veterans, 

• inform homeless veterans of non-VA resources that are available in the community to meet their needs. 

At the local level, VA medical centers and regional offices designate CHALENG 

POCs who are responsible for the above requirements. These CHALENG POCs, usually local VA homeless program coordinators, work with local agencies throughout 

the year to coordinate services for homeless veterans. 

CHALENG was designed to be an ongoing assessment process that described the 

needs of homeless veterans and identifies the barriers they face to successful community re-entry. In the current report, data was compiled from 9,132 respondents 

including, 5,046 survey responses that were completed by homeless or formerly 

homeless veterans. The CHALENG process is the only ongoing comprehensive national effort to poll VA staff, community providers and consumers about the needs 

of homeless veterans. The results have assisted VA to identify specific interventions 

needed to effectively assist homeless veterans. In recent years, there have been several new VA initiatives based in part on input from CHALENG, including: 

• The Homeless Veterans Dental Program (HVDP) that has greatly expanded access to care and ending dental services as a top 10 unmet need among homeless 

veterans. 

• The Healthcare for Re-Entry Veterans Program (HCRV), that is designed to 

help transition former veteran inmates back into the community. 

• A demonstration project to help homeless veterans obtain eyeglasses. 

• Continued expansion of the VA Grant and Per Diem transitional housing program. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

54 

• A major expansion of the HUD VA Supported Housing program (HUD–VASH), 

which will make thousands of new permanent housing vouchers and case management services available to homeless veterans. 

The annual CHALENG report is an important source of information on homeless 

veterans for policymakers. Copies are routinely distributed to Members of the House 

and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees and Appropriation Committees. The report 

is also used by VA Central Office to respond to media inquiries about homeless veterans. The report helps to keep homeless veteran issues present in the minds of 

Federal officials and the general public. 

Finally, the CHALENG process has helped build thousands of relationships with 

community agencies, veterans groups, law enforcement agencies, and Federal, state, 

and local government. Local annual CHALENG meetings, where attendees complete 

the Participant Survey, represent important opportunities for VA, and public and 

private agency representatives to meet, network, and eventually develop meaningful 

partnerships to better serve homeless veterans. 

Results from the Annual CHALENG Survey 

This Fourteenth Annual Progress Report on Public Law 105–114 (Project 

CHALENG) is based on data collected from two surveys: 

1. The CHALENG POC Survey: 

This survey, distributed to POCs only, is a self-administered questionnaire requesting information on the needs of homeless veterans in the local service area, 

development of new partnerships with local agencies, and progress in creating/securing new housing and treatment for homeless veterans. 

2. The CHALENG Participant Survey: 

This survey is distributed by each POC at his or her local CHALENG meeting 

to: various Federal, state, county, city, non-profit and for-profit agency representatives that serve the homeless in the POC’s local service area; local VA medical center, Vet Center, VA regional office staffs; and to homeless and formerly homeless 

veterans. The self-administered survey requests information on the needs of homeless veterans in the local service area, and rates VA and community provider collaboration. There are two versions of the CHALENG Participant Survey: one for VA 

staff and community providers, officials, and volunteers, and a new homeless veteran version for 2007. The homeless veteran version is tailored for homeless veterans and includes only those questions pertinent to consumers and omits those 

questions appropriate only for providers. 

CHALENG Survey Respondents 

CHALENG Point of Contact Survey Respondents 

Point of Contact survey questionnaires were mailed to all designated CHALENG 

POCs. Out of 138 POC sites, 138 (100 percent) were returned. 

CHALENG Participant Survey Respondents 

There were 9,132 respondents for the 2007 Participant Survey, nearly double (a 

99 percent increase) the 4,578 respondents in 2006. Of the 9,132 respondents, 1,331 

were VA providers (staff) and 3,409 were community providers/advocates (agency 

staff, local officials, interested individuals), and 4,392 respondents indicated no 

agency affiliation (many of these respondents were homeless veterans). Twenty-one 

percent of community providers who represented an agency said their agency was 

‘‘faith-based.’’ 

There were 4,666 Participant Survey respondents who identified themselves as 

homeless veterans (51 percent of all participants) and 380 participants identified 

themselves as formerly homeless veterans (4 percent of the total sample). Collectively, consumers (homeless and formerly homeless veterans) represented 55 percent 

of all Participant Survey respondents. Consumer involvement went from 927 participants in 2006 to 5,046 participants in 2007, an increase of 447 percent. 

Community provider respondents were asked to designate their organizational titles in the survey (see Table 1). As in prior years, survey respondents represented 

a range of service functions from top-level executives and policymakers to line-level 

service providers. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

55 

Table 1—CHALENG Community Provider Respondent Function, FY 2007 

Community Participants 

(n=3,409) 

Local service agency top managers (Executive Directors, Chief 

Executive Officers) 17% 

Mid-level managers, supervisors and advocates (program coordinators, veteran service officers) 34% 

Clinicians and outreach workers (social workers, case managers, nurses) 30% 

Elected government officials or their representatives 1% 

Board Members 2% 

Other (financial officers, attorneys, office staff, planning staff, 

etc.) 16% 

VA representation in the Participant Survey was mainly through VA Medical 

Centers (see Table 2 below). 

Table 2—VA Providers (staff), FY 2007 

VA Agency VA Staff 

(n=1,331) 

VA Medical Center/Healthcare System staff 75% 

VA Regional Office staff 4% 

Vet Center staff 8% 

VA Outpatient Clinic staff 12% 

VA Other (National Cemetery Administration, Central Office 

and VISN staff) 1% 

Community provider respondents were asked how long they had been personally 

involved in CHALENG (see Table 3). Over one-third (35 percent) of the participants 

had been involved with CHALENG for at least 2 years or more. This suggests the 

maintenance of long-time relationships between VA and community providers. 

Table 3—Years of Community Provider Involvement in CHALENG, FY 2007 

Involved in CHALENG . . . Community Participants 

(n=3,409) 

Since first local CHALENG meeting (12 years ago) 5% 

Two to eleven years ago 30% 

One year ago 10% 

First time today 55% 

Homeless veterans who participated in CHALENG came from many different 

stages in their recovery process (see Table 4 below). Over one-fifth (21 percent) were 

literally homeless (many of these veterans were contacted in initial outreach and 

Stand Down events). Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) were in a transitional housing program such as the VA Domiciliary or a VA Grant and Per Diem program. 

Seven percent were maintaining themselves in permanent housing (e.g., apartment, 

single room occupancy) in the community. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

56 

Table 4—Consumer (Homeless Veteran) Status 

Where Homeless Veteran CHALENG Participant is Living Homeless Veterans 

(n=4,666)* 

Literally Homeless (on streets, in shelter, care) 21% 

In VA Domiciliary 26% 

In VA Grant and Per Diem or other Transitional housing program 46% 

In Permanent Housing (including Section 8 Housing) 7% 

*753 of the homeless veteran participants did not indicate a residence 

Many homeless veteran CHALENG participants have been chronically homeless. 

Over half of the veterans (53 percent) had experienced homelessness at some time 

in their life for over a 1-year period. Over one-third (38 percent) had suffered four 

episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years. 

Needs of Homeless Veterans 

Rankings of Needs by All Participant Survey Respondents 

Participant Survey respondents were asked to rate how well pre-identified homeless veteran service needs were met in their community, using a five-point scale 

ranging from ‘‘Not Met’’ (1) to ‘‘Met’’ (5). Table 5 shows the results for the entire 

sample of respondents for 2007 (n=9,132) as well as the previous year. 

Table 5—Met and Unmet Needs of Homeless Veterans (All individuals who 

completed 2007, 2006 CHALENG Participant Surveys) 

Need of homeless veterans Average Score* 

2007 (n=9,132) 

Average Score* 

2006 (n=4,578) 

2006 

Rank 

1. TB testing (highest ‘‘met’’ need score) 3.97 3.68 3 

2. Medical services 3.93 3.76 1 

3. Food 3.89 3.73 2 

4. Treatment for substance abuse 3.79 3.50 8 

5. Hepatitis C testing 3.76 3.60 4 

6. Help with medication 3.71 3.44 9 

7. Personal hygiene (shower, haircut, etc.) 3.68 3.42 11 

8. AIDS/HIV testing/counseling 3.67 3.50 7 

9. Clothing 3.64 3.59 5 

10. TB treatment 3.61 3.54 6 

11. Detoxification from substances 3.60 3.32 14 

12. Services for emotional or psychiatric 

problems 3.59 3.43 10 

13. Spiritual 3.53 3.37 13 

14. Emergency (immediate) shelter 3.48 3.25 16 

15. Help getting needed documents or I.D. 3.43 3.28 15 

16. Treatment for dual diagnosis 3.39 3.25 18 

17. Transitional living facility or halfway 

house 3.31 3.02 25 

18. Help with transportation 3.24 3.01 26 

19. Help with finding a job or getting employment 3.22 3.20 19 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

57 

Table 5—Met and Unmet Needs of Homeless Veterans (All individuals who 

completed 2007, 2006 CHALENG Participant Surveys)—Continued 

Need of homeless veterans Average Score* 

2007 (n=9,132) 

Average Score* 

2006 (n=4,578) 

2006 

Rank 

20. Eye care 3.18 2.93 30 

21. VA disability/pension 3.16 3.38 12 

22. Women’s healthcare 3.14 3.25 17 

23. Glasses 3.12 2.92 31 

24. Education 3.10 3.05 24 

25. Drop-in center or day program 3.06 2.98 29 

26. Help managing money 3.03 2.86 32 

27. Job training 3.03 3.09 20 

28. Family counseling 3.01 2.98 28 

29. Elder healthcare 2.99 3.07 21 

30. Discharge upgrade 2.97 3.01 27 

31. SSI/SSD process 2.93 3.07 22 

32. Dental care 2.84 2.64 36 

33. Welfare payments 2.81 3.05 23 

34. Legal assistance 2.80 2.78 34 

35. Guardianship (financial) 2.77 2.83 33 

36. Re-entry services for incarcerated veterans 2.76 2.71 35 

37. Long-term, permanent housing 2.57 2.46 38 

38. Child care (highest ‘‘unmet’’ need score) 2.48 2.47 37 

*Need is met = score of 5 

*Need is unmet = score of 1 

For FY 2007, Table 5 indicates that child care, long-term, permanent housing, reentry services for incarcerated veterans, guardianship (financial), legal assistance, 

welfare payments, dental care, Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability (SSI/SSD) process, discharge upgrade, and elder healthcare were the ten 

highest unmet needs for homeless veterans as determined by all participants combined. It is important to note that there are significant differences between survey 

responses from homeless veterans and other participants. These differences are discussed on page 11, ‘‘Consumer versus Provider Views on Homeless Veteran Needs.’’ 

Child care has been one of the highest unmet needs for several years. While large 

numbers of veterans do not need child care, when the need for child care is present, 

it is a particularly compelling and difficult-to-meet need and thus has consistently 

ranked high among unmet needs identified through CHALENG. Also, even though 

most homeless veterans are noncustodial parents, they remain deeply concerned 

about their children’s care. In many cases, these veterans struggle with the knowledge that their absence has contributed to their children living in single-parent 

households, under the care of extended family, or being placed in foster care. As VA 

cannot directly serve a veteran’s children, arranging family services is necessarily 

split between multiple agencies. Coordinating such care may prove difficult. However, with the recent expansion of the cooperative program between VA and HUD, 

thousands of Section 8 vouchers will soon be made available to veterans and their 

immediate families. CHALENG will track the impact of this program not only for 

its effect on permanent housing as an unmet need, but also for its potential impact 

on child care concerns. 

The need for long-term, permanent housing still remains high. This is not surprising, since developing this type of housing is expensive and time consuming, although local communities have been successful in creating permanent beds for 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

58 

homeless veterans. (Please see the 11th annual CHALENG report section ‘‘Special 

Focus: Addressing Long-term, Permanent Housing Need in 2004 Action Plan’’ for 

more discussion.) 

Guardianship (Financial), SSI/SSD) process, discharge upgrade, and welfare payments represent a cluster of needs. Those needs, if addressed adequately, can make 

a homeless veteran more economically viable and able to transition out of homelessness. Recent literature supports the need for more and better management of financial resources. In 2006, the national average rent of studio/efficiency apartments of 

$633 (O’Hara et al., 2006) was beyond the means of a disabled person whose primary source of income was SSI or a VA pension. Income assistance either through 

entitlements, subsidized housing, or vocational training will continue to play an important part in keeping veterans out of homelessness. 

Legal issues can often play a role in a veteran’s finances. Credit problems and 

obligations stemming from debts, fines, and child support can prove especially burdensome, particularly for those recently released from prison. The typical incarcerated parent owes $20,000 in child support when released from prison, with payment 

schedules averaging $225 to $300 per month (Turetsky, 2007). Minimum wage 

workers have little hope of making these payments while supporting themselves in 

independent community living. Unresolved debts can result in liens against bank accounts, denial of credit, inability to secure a lease, failure in background checks 

commonly a part of job applications, forfeiture of driver’s licenses, and ultimately 

re-arrest. In order to generate income without having funds garnished, these workers may enter the underground economy where income is often generated by involvement in illegal activities. Hence, legal assistance is one key to helping veterans 

meet their obligations to society, while still having the means to avoid relapsing to 

homelessness. 

Re-entry services for incarcerated veterans was a needs category introduced in the 

FY 2005 report and has made it to the top ten unmet needs list the past 3 years. 

Providing pre-release planning and after-release services for incarcerated veterans 

is receiving increasing attention throughout the VA system. In FY 2007, VA 

launched its Healthcare for Re-entry Veterans (HCRV) Program. VA has designated 

a national HCRV Coordinator and has funded a Re-entry Specialist for each Veteran 

Integrated Services Network (VISN). The HCRV Coordinator and the Re-entry Specialists will establish working relationships with correctional institutions, to provide 

outreach services and follow-up linkages to VA and non-VA social, medical, and psychiatric services to veterans within 6 months of release to the community. In FY 

2008, an additional 17 Re-entry Specialists have been funded to expand this effort. 

Dental care was the seventh highest unmet need, as identified by all survey participants, for homeless veterans this year. This marks a continued decline as it had 

been ranked second in 2004 and third in the previous 2 years. (NOTE: Homeless 

veterans surveyed no longer rate dental care as a top ten unmet need). VA medical 

centers have reported that more dental care services have been provided for homeless veterans. The HVDP offers medically necessary treatment to homeless veterans 

who have been in a VA-approved transitional housing or residential program for at 

least 60 consecutive days, and has had a significant impact. For FY 2007, 93 percent 

of CHALENG sites (129) indicated the HVDP was operational at their local VA medical center (some sites do not have qualifying VA transitional housing or residential 

programs). These CHALENG sites reported a total of 10,507 veterans who needed 

dental care and were eligible for care because they had fulfilled residential treatment requirements. Of these 10,507 individuals, 7,666 received care (73 percent of 

total) either through VA Dental Services or a community provider. 

For the first time, elder healthcare made the top ten list of highest unmet needs 

for homeless veterans. This may reflect the aging of the homeless veteran population. In FY 2007, 5 percent of all veterans accepted in VA homeless programs nationwide were 65 or older (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2007). Currently, 

the average age of homeless veterans who receive VA services is 51 and this mean 

age has increased slowly over the past few years. 

Highest Met Needs 

Turning to highest met needs as rated by the provider sample, many of the top 

ten categories were health services-related: Tuberculosis (TB) testing, medical services, substance abuse treatment, Hepatitis C testing, help with medication, HIV/ 

AIDS testing/counseling and TB treatment. Most of these services are routinely offered by VA medical centers. Food, personal hygiene services, and clothing are basic 

needs addressed at virtually all homeless shelters and programs. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

59 

Consumer versus Provider Views on Homeless Veteran Needs 

Past CHALENG reports routinely compared need rankings of VA staff and community partners (i.e., local agency staff, public officials, volunteers, and community 

leaders). Due to the unprecedented number of homeless veterans involved in this 

year’s CHALENG survey, however, it was believed it would be more meaningful to 

focus on comparing the need rankings of consumers (current and former homeless 

veterans) and providers (i.e., VA and community participants). 

In Tables 6 and 7, the ten highest unmet needs of homeless veterans as ranked 

by homeless and formerly homeless veterans are compared to the rankings by VA 

and community providers. 

For 2007, there are differences between homeless and formerly homeless veterans 

identification of highest unmet needs compared to service provider participants. Providers rank dental care as the third highest unmet need, homeless veterans—who 

for years identified dental care as a top ten unmet need—now rank it at #12 (not 

shown in the table). This suggests that rankings by providers may sometimes be 

‘‘trailing indicators,’’ reflecting beliefs that are no longer experienced by consumers. 

Unlike other respondents, homeless and formerly homeless veterans placed welfare payment, SSI/SSDI process, VA disability/pension and discharge upgrade in the 

top ten list of highest unmet needs. Thematically, this suggests the personal desire 

of veterans to secure financial resources in transitioning off the streets. Also, homeless and formerly homeless veterans placed elder healthcare in the list of top ten 

unmet needs, which may reflect a growing awareness of about the impact of the 

aging process. 

Homeless and formerly homeless veterans agreed with the CHALENG community 

participants that the following were among the top unmet needs: permanent housing, re-entry services for incarcerated veterans, and financial guardianship. 

A Multi-year Overview of Needs 

Reviewing Tables 6 and 7, there is some concurrence between the views of homeless and formerly homeless veterans and other CHALENG participants across years. 

Long-term permanent housing, legal assistance, and child care rank among the top 

ten unmet needs for all participants from FY 2005–2007. 

It is noteworthy that homeless and formerly homeless veterans differ from providers in naming financial and legal needs as a major concern. They rate these 

needs more highly than the providers surveyed during the 2007 CHALENG process. 

Further, many of these needs have risen in rank on the consumer’s list of top ten 

unmet needs between FY 2006 and FY 2007. Consumers rank five financial and 

legal issues in the top ten: welfare payments (the number two unmet need), financial guardianship at four (up from five in 2006), SSI/SSDI at five (up from seven), 

legal assistance at seven (up from eight), and VA disability/pension at the eighth 

ranked need (not on the top ten unmet need list for FY 2005 or FY 2006). 

Broadly, it suggests that consumers believe that having more personal resources 

is important in leaving homelessness. By contrast, providers are more likely to rank 

services such as eye care, glasses and help managing money among the top unmet 

needs. These results reflect an interesting difference in perspective between consumers and providers. 

In terms of highest met needs, homeless and formerly homeless veterans and 

other participants placed medical services, TB testing, Hepatitis C testing, substance abuse treatment, and food in the top ten list in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 

2007 (see Tables 8 and 9). As mentioned previously, such medical and basic need 

services are usually addressed by VA or community providers. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

60 

3-Year Comparison—Consumer and Provider (VA and Community) 

Assessment of Homeless Veteran UNMET Needs 

Table 6—Top Ten Highest Unmet Needs Identified by Homeless Veterans, 

FY 2005–FY 2007 

2005 2006 2007 

1. Child care 

2. Dental care 

3. Welfare payments 

4. Legal assistance 

5. Long-term, permanent 

housing 

6. Re-entry services for incarcerated veterans 

7. Guardianship (financial) 

8. Discharge upgrade 

9. SSI/SSD process 

10. Job Training 

1. Child care 

2. Welfare payments 

3. Dental care 

4. Long-term, permanent 

housing 

5. Guardianship (financial) 

6. Re-entry services for 

incarcerated veterans 

7. SSI/SSD process 

8. Legal assistance 

9. Discharge upgrade 

10. Family counseling 

1. Child care 

2. Welfare payments 

3. Long-term, permanent 

housing 

4. Guardianship (financial) 

5. SSI/SSD process 

6. Re-entry services for 

incarcerated veterans 

7. Legal assistance 

8. VA Disability/Pension 

9. Discharge upgrade 

10. Elder healthcare 

Table 7—Top Ten Highest Unmet Needs Identified by VA and Community 

Providers, FY 2005–FY 2007 

2005 2006 2007 

1. Long-term, permanent 

housing 

2. Child care 

3. Dental care 

4. Re-entry services for incarcerated veterans 

5. Legal assistance 

6. Help managing money 

7. Glasses 

8. Eye care 

9. Guardianship (financial) 

10. Transportation 

1. Long-term, permanent 

housing 

2. Child care 

3. Dental care 

4. Re-entry services for 

incarcerated veterans 

5. Legal assistance 

6. Help managing money 

7. Guardianship (financial) 

8. Glasses 

9. Eye care 

10. Transitional living 

facility or halfway house 

1. Long-term, permanent 

housing 

2. Child care 

3. Dental care 

4. Re-entry services for 

incarcerated veterans 

5. Legal assistance 

6. Help managing money 

7. Guardianship (financial) 

8. Glasses 

9. Eye care 

10. Transitional living 

facility or halfway house 

3–Year Comparison—Consumer and Provider (VA and Community) 

Assessment of Homeless Veteran MET Needs 

Table 8—Top Ten Highest Met Needs Identified by Homeless Veterans, FY 

2005–FY 2007 

2005 2006 2007 

1. Medical services 

2. Substance abuse treatment 

3. TB testing 

4. Food 

5. Help with medication 

6. Hepatitis C testing 

7. Detoxification 

8. Personal hygiene 

9. Services for emotional or 

psychiatric problems 

10. TB treatment 

1. Medical services 

2. TB testing 

3. Substance abuse 

treatment 

4. Food 

5. Help with medication 

6. Hepatitis C testing 

7. Personal hygiene 

8. Detoxification 

9. Services for emotional or 

psychiatric problems 

10. AIDS/HIV testing/ 

counseling 

1. TB testing 

2. Substance abuse 

treatment 

3. Medical Services 

4. Food 

5. Help with medication 

6. Personal hygiene 

7. Hepatitis C testing 

8. Detoxification 

9. AIDS/HIV testing/ 

counseling 

10. Services for emotional or 

psychiatric problems 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

61 

Table 9—Top Ten Highest Met Needs Identified by VA and Community 

Providers, FY 2005–FY 2007 

2005 2006 2007 

1. Food 

2. Medical services 

3. TB testing 

4. Clothing 

5. Hepatitis C testing 

6. TB treatment 

7. VA disability/pension 

8. AIDS/HIV testing/counseling 

9. Substance abuse treatment 

10. Services for emotional or 

psychiatric problems 

1. Medical services 

2. Food 

3. TB testing 

4. Clothing 

5. Hepatitis C testing 

6. TB treatment 

7. AIDS/HIV testing/ 

counseling 

8. VA disability/pension 

9. Substance abuse 

treatment 

10. Services for emotional or 

psychiatric problems 

1. Medical services 

2. Food 

3. TB testing 

4. Clothing 

5. Hepatitis C testing 

6. TB treatment 

7. AIDS/HIV testing/ 

counseling 

8. VA disability/pension 

9. Substance abuse 

treatment 

10. Help with medication 

Homeless Veterans with Families 

CHALENG sites continue to report increases in the number of homeless veterans 

with families (i.e., dependent children) being served at their programs. Ninety-eight 

POC sites (71 percent of all sites) reported a total of 1,038 homeless veteran families 

seen. This was a 5-percent increase over the previous year’s 989 homeless veteran 

families. 

Homeless veterans with dependents present a challenge to VA homeless programs. Many VA housing programs are veteran-specific. VA homeless workers must 

often find other community housing resources to place the entire family or the dependent children separately. Access to family housing through the distribution of 

the thousands of new Section 8 vouchers that will be made available through the 

HUD–VASH, will offer an important new resource allowing VA staff to assist the 

veteran and his family. 

Homeless Veterans Returning from Afghanistan and Iraq 

For the first time, CHALENG asked POCs about the coordiNation and provision 

of services to homeless veterans who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). Ninety-five percent (95%) of the POCs said 

they have coordinated the care of OEF/OIF homeless veterans with their local VA 

medical center Transition Patient Advocate. The Transition Patient Advocate is usually a social worker case manager assigned to work with recently returning veterans. 

Eighty-five percent of sites said they could provide same-day housing (emergency 

or transitional) to homeless OEF/OIF veterans. The most common reasons for those 

sites not able to provide same-day housing included: insufficient emergency or transitional housing available, long wait lists (33 percent of sites that could not provide 

same-day housing), or no housing available on site (also 33 percent). 

CHALENG POCs were asked how VA could improve services for OEF/OIF homeless veterans. The most mentioned themes included: outreach, housing, and services. 

The following lists specific suggestions: 

Outreach: Greater use of the Internet to inform returning veterans about VA services; outreach to National Guard, reserve units, armories and Vet Centers; general 

community outreach (including American Indian reservations); more welcome home 

events; hiring of OEF/OIF veterans to serve as peer outreach workers; and use of 

outreach workers to follow-up with OEF/OIF veterans to help ensure they come to 

their initial VA appointments and get ‘‘plugged into’’ the system. 

Housing: Specific housing programs targeting OEF/OIF veterans were frequently 

suggested. Such programs would be less restrictive, more short-term, and emphasize 

quicker reintegration into the community through mental health outpatient counseling, vocational rehabilitation and job-finding assistance. Some sites have noted 

that many OEF/OIF homeless veterans cannot relate to current housing programs 

targeting chronically homeless and mentally ill veterans in their fifties and sixties. 

It is expected that the influx of thousands of veteran specific permanent housing 

units made available through the HUD–VASH program will have an impact on this 

need. 

Services: More case management, mental health, and employment services; more 

programs targeting women and veterans with families; more rapid eligibility determination; and greater coordiNation between homeless programs and the local VA 

medical center OEF/OIF specialist. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

62 

Site Estimates of Numbers of Homeless Veterans and Housing Capacity 

Introduction: Challenges to Estimating the Number of Homeless Veterans in America 

Counting the number of homeless people, specifically the number of homeless veterans is a difficult task. There have been few systematic, national efforts to count 

the homeless. Prior to 2005, the most highly regarded effort took place in 1996, the 

National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC). At that 

time, the NSHAPC estimated that 23 percent of the homeless population was composed of veterans (Burt, 1999). 

In 2005, HUD began organizing comprehensive, national counts of homeless persons. This major endeavor requires local Continuums of Care, to conduct point-intime counts of homeless persons. Continuums of Care are local bodies composed of 

agencies addressing homelessness. These point-in-time counts not only tally the 

number of homeless persons, but also seek to determine a homeless person’s veteran 

status. HUD’s point-in-time count now occurs every 2 years and is the only nationwide process to estimate homeless individuals in the U.S. This process began because HUD is required by the McKinney-Vento Act to produce ‘‘statistically reliable, 

unduplicated counts or estimates of homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered 

locations at a 1-day point in time (HUD, 2008).’’ 

In conducting the point-in-time, Continuums of Care must rely heavily on local 

organizations and volunteers. It has been observed that the precision of local counts 

varies. In 2005, over half of the point-in-time counts of unsheltered homeless individuals did not collect information on veteran status (HUD, 2007). Also, some 

CHALENG POCs reported that their local point-in-time count missed certain places 

or areas (e.g., transitional housing programs, encampments) that homeless veterans 

are known to reside. 

Another challenge is the transience of homeless persons. Even over a short period 

of time, significant changes in the homeless population can occur due to seasonal 

variation and natural disasters. As the most recent Annual Homeless Assessment 

Report from HUD acknowledged: ‘‘There is no evidence that the size of the homeless 

population has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. However, given the 

limitations of the Annual Homeless Assessment Report as well as the limitations 

of earlier studies, it is not possible to make a definitive conclusion on the change 

of the homeless population’’ (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

2007). 

CHALENG FY 2007 Homeless Veteran Estimate and Sources 

Despite procedural problems in counting homeless people, it is believed that a 

good-faith effort is made through the CHALENG process to estimate homeless veterans annually. Such estimates are important to guide the allocation of existing resources and services for veterans. HUD’s notable work in developing a more accurate count of the assessment of homeless veterans has allowed the VA to improve 

its CHALENG estimate. 

For this CHALENG report, each POC was asked to estimate the number of homeless veterans in her or his service area. For the 2007 CHALENG survey, instructions emphasized that POCs were to provide a point-in-time estimate. A point-intime estimate asks for how many homeless veterans are in the service area during 

a given day of the year. A point-in-time estimate is different from estimating how 

many homeless veterans are in a service area during the year. For example, a POC 

may say there are 200 homeless veterans in her service area on any given day 

(point-in-time), but there are 400 homeless veterans total who are in the service 

area sometime during the year. 

This year, for the first time, CHALENG POCs were asked to provide a point-intime estimate of the homeless veterans in their service area on any day during the 

last week of January 2007. This time period was selected so CHALENG estimates 

would coincide with the homeless point-in-time counts executed by HUD Continuums of Care nationwide. It is believed that CHALENG should make every effort 

to base their estimates on the local point-in-time count, as it is the only nationwide 

homeless count conducted on an ongoing basis. For the first time, all CHALENG 

point-in-time estimates were compared to local HUD point-in-time estimates from 

2005, the most recent data readily available. If there was a major difference between the estimates, the CHALENG POC provided an explaNation of why there 

were differences, such as the local HUD point-in-time not canvassing areas with 

known concentrations of homeless veterans, or utilization of data from a local, nonHUD homeless count. 

Findings 

The 2007 CHALENG Report estimates that on any given night, approximately 

154,000 veterans are homeless* (see NOTE below). This figure is a decrease of 21 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

63 

percent from the estimate 195,827 given in the 2006 CHALENG report. Individual 

site estimates are presented in Appendix Table 5. 

*NOTE: The CHALENG estimate includes approximately 8,000 veterans currently residing in VA supported transitional housing. VA, 

as does HUD, counts residents of transitional housing in the estimates of homelessness. In addition, approximately 2,000 homeless 

veterans included in the count are currently receiving treatment in 

VA residential care programs. The vast majority of all of these veterans are placed in housing when discharged from these VA residential services. 

The reduction in the reported numbers of homeless veterans may be a result of 

improved methodology. As described above, CHALENG homeless veteran estimates 

were compared to local HUD point-in-time estimates. As a result, many sites adjusted their homeless estimates to be more consistent with the local HUD point-intime count. When adjusted upward to account for gaps in its unsheltered count, the 

2005 HUD point-in-time still only indicates that on any given night approximately 

15 percent of the homeless population or 112,000 people are veterans. 

However, some VA sites were able to successfully document why their estimates 

were not the same as the HUD point-in-time count. For example, after consultation 

with community providers, some sites reported that their local HUD point-in-time 

count missed particular areas or transitional residences where homeless veterans 

are known to congregate. Some sites had data from local non-HUD homeless counts 

which they felt were more accurate. Homeless veteran estimates by CHALENG 

POCs included the following non-HUD sources: U.S. Census data (10 percent); VA 

low-income population estimates (7 percent); local homeless census studies (state, 

county, local university, etc.) (42 percent); VA client data (36 percent); estimates 

from local homeless community coalition/providers (59 percent); and VA staff impressions (52 percent). (Note: of the sites that used staff impressions in their estimate, 94 percent used at least one additional source.) Seventy-one percent of POCs 

used more than one source. 

In summary, it is believed the HUD point-in-time data has resulted in a revised 

CHALENG count that is more aligned with the most extensive homeless estimate 

methodology currently available, while allowing for adjustments of local estimates 

based on VA staffs’ first-hand knowledge of their service areas. 

Other Possible Factors Related to a Drop in Veteran Homelessness 

In addition to changing methods of estimation noted, two significant factors have 

likely contributed to a continuing decline in the estimate of homeless veterans: 

1. VA Program Interventions 

Reductions in veteran homelessness may be due in part to the effectiveness of 

VA’s programs that serve homeless veterans. In the past decade, major VA homeless 

initiatives on outreach, treatment, residential services and vocational rehabilitation 

have served tens of thousands of veterans. For example, VA’s Grant & Per Diem 

program, which had just begun in the mid-nineties when the NSHAPC estimated 

that veterans composed 23 percent of the homeless population, has over 8,500 operational beds today. In the past year alone, 15,000 veterans were provided Grant and 

Per Diem homeless residential services and an additional 5,000 plus veterans were 

treated in specialized VA homeless domiciliary residential care programs. 

These programs have demonstrated remarkable success at placing and keeping 

veterans in community housing. A recent study of VA discharges determined that 

79 percent of those leaving Grant and Per Diem and homeless domiciliary programs 

remained housed 1 year after discharge (McGuire, Kasprow, & Rosenheck, 2007). 

2. Changing Demographics 

The overall population of veterans continues to decline as World War II and Korean war-era veterans age. In 1990, there were 27.5 million veterans, a total that 

has decreased to 23.5 million today. Similarly, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of poor veterans, decreasing from 3 million in 1990 to 1.8 million 

in 2000. Since most homeless veterans are poor, it is believed there has been a corresponding drop in the number of homeless veterans as well. 

Homeless Veteran Estimate Summary 

It is not possible to determine the relative impact of these causes (VA program 

interventions, changing demographics, or methodological refinement) upon the reported number of homeless veterans. Despite recent changes in methodology, when 

comparing current HUD and VA surveys to the 1996 NSHAPC data, it does appear 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

64 

that a significant, long term reduction in the numbers of homeless veterans has occurred. 

Bed Accessibility and Need 

To aid in determining the need for housing for homeless veterans, POCs were 

asked to include an estimate of the number of beds, emergency, transitional, and 

permanent beds that are accessible to homeless veterans in their local area. It did 

not ask whether the beds are veteran-specific. POCs were also asked to report the 

number of beds needed beyond the present capacity to meet the local needs of homeless veterans. (Asking only about bed capacity, how many beds that can be accessed, 

would provide an incomplete picture of bed need for homeless veterans. For example, there may be several homeless beds in a community, i.e., capacity, but if they 

are always full and there is a lengthy waiting list, extra beds would still be needed 

to meet homeless veteran demand.) 

Table 10—Bed Capacity (these beds are often not veteran specific and are 

also open to the general homeless population) and Bed Need Assessment 

Type of Bed Available in 

FY 2007 

Available in 

FY 2006 

Needed Beyond 

Present Capacity 

(est.) FY 2007 

Needed Beyond 

Present Capacity 

(est.) FY 2006 

Emergency 73,430 72,196 8,712 14,753 

Transitional 47,891 40,599 10,328 11,067 

Permanent 35,941 31,724 25,662 24,364 

Comparing the data from FY 2006 and FY 2007, it appears that existing bed capacity has increased for all three housing types. This increased capacity may impact 

on the drop in estimated need for emergency and transitional housing. 

Estimated need for permanent housing, however, increased slightly. This may reflect the maturation of VA homeless programs nationwide. As more veterans transition out of emergency and transitional housing programs, which emphasize stabilization and rehabilitation, there is a growing need to place them into permanent 

housing. The need for permanent housing is being addressed through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 which provided funding for HUD to expand the 

HUD–VASH Program. Section 8 vouchers available through HUD–VASH will be 

utilized to provide housing and supportive services for homeless veterans. The Consolidated Appropriations Act also directed VA to provide sufficient funding for case 

managers to accommodate the increase in vouchers for this program. This initiative 

has the potential to reduce permanent housing demand in future CHALENG reports. 

Assessment of VA and Community Partnering 

As stated in the introduction, the CHALENG mandate is to bring VA and community service providers together in partnership to encourage the development of coordinated services for homeless veterans. For this year’s report, we examined three 

indicators of VA and community partnership. These are: (1) partnership integration 

and implementation measures; (2) VA involvement in community homeless coalitions; and (3) interagency collaborative agreements. 

Partnership Integration and Implementation Measures 

Since FY 2000, CHALENG has used two sets of questions to ascertain the level 

of VA/community partnering as perceived by community (non-VA) providers: (A) Integration measures, and (B) Implementation measures. The questions were adapted 

from the nationwide Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports 

study of service system integration for homeless clients with severe mental illness 

(Randolph et al., 1997). 

For this year’s CHALENG report, the Integration measures consisted of two questions asking community providers from the Participant Survey to rate the following: 

1. VA Accessibility: accessibility of VA services to homeless veterans. 

2. VA Coordination: the ability of VA to coordinate clinical services for homeless 

veterans with the community provider respondent’s agency. 

A five-point scale was used for each item (1=not accessible, not committed, etc., 

to 5=highly accessible, highly committed, etc.). 

Implementation measures consisted of 12 items pertaining to concrete activities 

associated with VA and community partnering. Community provider respondents 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

65 

were asked to rate the level of implementation of the following strategies between 

their agency and VA: 

1. Regular Meetings: Formal, regular meetings of VA and the community participant’s agency to exchange information and plan. 

2. Service Co-location: Provision of services by VA and the community participant’s agency in one location. 

3. Cross-training: Training of VA and the community participant agency’s staff 

on each others’ objectives, procedures, and services. 

4. Interagency Agreements: Agreements between VA and the community participant’s agency regarding collaboration, referrals, client information sharing, 

and/or coordinating services. 

5. Client Tracking: Computer tracking system enabling VA and the community 

participant’s agency to share client information. 

6. Joint Funding: Combined/layering funding between VA and the community 

participant’s agency to create new resources or services. 

7. Standard Forms: Standardized forms that clients fill out once to apply for 

services at the local VA and the community participant’s agency. 

8. Joint Service Teams: Service teams comprised of staff from both VA and the 

community participant’s agency to assist clients with multiple needs. 

9. Combined Programs: Combined programs from VA and the community participant’s agency under one administrative structure. 

10. Flexible Funding: Flexible funding to promote service integration between VA 

and the community participant’s agency: for example, funds to pay for emergency services not usually available to clients. 

11. Special Waivers: Waiving requirements for funding, eligibility, or service delivery to reduce service barriers, promote access, and/or avoid service duplication. 

12. System Coordinator: Creation of a specific staff position focusing on improving 

system integration between VA and the community participant’s agency. 

All implementation items used the same four-point scale: 1=none (no steps taken 

to initiate implementation of the strategy), 2=low (in planning and/or initial minor 

steps taken), 3=moderate (significant steps taken but full implementation not 

achieved), and 4=high (strategy fully implemented). 

Table 11 shows the results of the integration ratings by community providers 

(mean scores of aggregated sites). We compared the aggregated integration scores 

of each VA facility for FY 2006 versus FY 2007. Using paired t-tests, we found no 

statistically significant difference in the integration scores between FY 2006 and FY 

2007. 

Table 11—Community Providers Respondent Ratings of Partnership 

Integration in CHALENG Participant Survey, FY 2006 and FY 2007 

Integration Items 

Community 

Respondents FY 2006 

(134 sites) 

Community 

Respondents FY 2007 

(134 sites) 

VA Accessibility (1=not accessible . . . 

5=highly accessible) 3.64 3.57 

VA Service CoordiNation (1=not able to 

coordinate . . . 5=highly able) 3.63 3.58 

Implementation scores for FY 2006 and FY 2007 were also reviewed. Again, data 

were aggregated by site and paired t-tests were conducted (see Table 12). There was 

one significant difference (p<.01): the implementation score for cross-training decreased from 2006 to 2007. 

Table 12—Community Provider Respondent Ratings of Partnership 

Implementation in the CHALENG Participant Survey, FY 2006 and FY 2007 

Implementation Items a

Community 

Respondents FY 2006 

(133 sites) 

Community 

Respondents FY 2007 

(133 sites) 

Regular Meetings 2.57 2.56 

Service Co-location 1.95 1.89 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

66 

Table 12—Community Provider Respondent Ratings of Partnership Implementation in the CHALENG Participant Survey, FY 2006 and FY 2007— 

Continued 

Implementation Items a

Community 

Respondents FY 2006 

(133 sites) 

Community 

Respondents FY 2007 

(133 sites) 

Cross-training 1.97 1.86** 

Interagency Agreements 2.30 2.26 

Client Tracking 1.65 1.59 

Joint Funding 1.66 1.67 

Standard Forms 1.79 1.75 

Joint Service Teams 2.19 2.15 

Combined Programs 1.97 1.94 

Flexible Funding 1.64 1.61 

Special Waivers 1.67 1.62 

System Coordinator 1.88 1.83 

a 1=none, 2=low, 3=moderate, 4=high ** p<.01 

There was no change in the two integration items which measure community provider perception of VA’s accessibility to homeless veterans and VA’s ability to coordinate homeless services with community partners. 

Overall, there has been no increase in community rating of the 12 partnership implementation activities. Generally, there has usually been an increase in one or 

more activity scores. This suggests that VA and community progress in implementing partnership activities may have leveled off. (Note: It was reported in last 

year’s CHALENG report that there were no significant changes between 2005 and 

2006. It will be interesting to see if this leveling off in partnering is seen in next 

year’s CHALENG report as well.) 

VA Involvement in Local Homeless Coalitions 

Involvement in local homeless coalitions has been identified as a useful way for 

VA staff to network with local homeless service providers and develop partnerships. 

Ninety-six percent of the POC Surveys indicated participation in a local homeless 

coalition. 

As noted previously, the HUD sponsors local planning groups called Continuums 

of Care to help address the needs of the homeless. VA homeless programs are encouraged to participate in their local Continuum of Care. In FY 2007, 88 percent 

of POC sites that had a nearby HUD Continuum of Care planning group (111 of 

127) participated in the local Continuum of Care planning efforts. 

Interagency Collaborative Agreements 

Existing Interagency Collaborations Agreements: CHALENG POCs reported on VA 

efforts to serve homeless veterans through arrangements with local community 

agencies. CHALENG POCs were asked to identify whether they currently had interagency collaborative agreements with: correctional facilities; psychiatric and substance abuse inpatient programs; nursing homes and faith-based organizations. 

Table 13 shows the prevalence of current interagency collaborative agreements. 

Table 13—Percentage of POCs (n=138) Indicating Interagency Collaborative 

Agreements With Select Program Types 

Formal 2007 Informal 2007 Formal or 

Informal* 2007 

Correctional Facilities (jails, prisons, courts) 13% 59% 67% 

Psychiatric/substance abuse inpatient (hospitals, wards) 17% 60% 75% 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

67 

Table 13—Percentage of POCs (n=138) Indicating Interagency Collaborative 

Agreements With Select Program Types—Continued 

Formal 2007 Informal 2007 Formal or 

Informal* 2007 

Nursing homes 28% 19% 45% 

Faith-based organizations 62% 56% 88% 

*Note: Some sites had both a formal and informal agreement with a program type. 

Eighty-eight percent of POC respondents indicated their VA medical care facility 

had an interagency collaborative agreement with a faith-based organization. This is 

not surprising given the fact that many faith-based organizations have a long history of serving the poor and homeless. Seventy-five percent of sites reported ties 

with a psychiatric and/or substance abuse inpatient program, an indication of the 

link between mental illness and homelessness and the need to coordinate services 

between mental health and homeless agencies. 

Two-thirds (67 percent) of POCs had relationships with a local correctional facility. Incarcerated veterans are at high-risk for homelessness upon leaving jail or 

prison. Several VA homeless programs provide information to homeless veterans in 

local jails and prisons to help them arrange transitional housing and substance 

abuse or mental health treatment after their release. With the recent implementation of the HCRV program, including the hiring of a national HCRV Coordinator 

and HCRV specialists for every VISN, the percentage of medical centers which have 

agreements with correctional facilities should increase in the coming years. 

Forty-five percent of POCs had arrangements with a nursing home, usually 

through VA nursing home contracts. This reflects the aging of the homeless population and the need for facilities to address the multiple medical needs of older 

homeless veterans and chronically ill homeless veterans. 

New Interagency Collaborative Agreements and Outreach Efforts: VA staff continue to establish new interagency collaborative agreements and to identify and 

serve new outreach sites. Table 14 displays figures for new agreements (formal and 

informal arrangements) and outreach sites, broken down by VISN. Compared to 

2006, there were increases in the number of agreements and outreach sites in 2007. 

Table 14—New Interagency Collaborative Agreements and Outreach Sites 

for FY 2007 

VISN Formal 

Agreements 

Informal 

Agreements 

Agreements 

(total) 

Number of New 

Homeless Outreach Sites 

1 11 31 42 8 

2 5 13 18 8 

3 6 24 30 28 

4 7 19 26 33 

5 4 10 14 24 

6 3 21 24 19 

7 1 14 15 27 

8 2 26 28 16 

9 1 18 19 16 

10 5 14 19 15 

11 5 6 11 2 

12 1 10 11 9 

15 5 10 15 12 

16 10 17 27 18 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

68 

Table 14—New Interagency Collaborative Agreements and Outreach Sites 

for FY 2007—Continued 

VISN Formal 

Agreements 

Informal 

Agreements 

Agreements 

(total) 

Number of New 

Homeless Outreach Sites 

17 4 12 16 14 

18 2 20 22 17 

19 4 9 13 6 

20 54 58 112 21 

21 3 15 18 15 

22 6 17 23 42 

23 8 32 40 27 

Totals, All VISNs 

(FY 2007): 147 396 543 377 

Totals, All VISNs 

(FY 2006): 81 352 433 343 

Nature of New Interagency Collaborative Agreements: 113 out of 138 reporting 

POC sites (82 percent) had at least one new agreement with a community agency. 

The most frequent topic of the new agreements was transitional housing (see Table 

15 below). Nearly half (49 percent) of the POC sites which reported a new agreement indicated that securing transitional housing for veterans was a focus. The 

other two of the top three topics of interagency collaborative agreements were emergency (immediate) shelter (27 percent) and re-entry services for incarcerated veterans (24 percent). 

Table 15—Subject of New Interagency Collaborative Agreements Between 

VA and Community Providers, FY 2007 

Need 

Percentage of POCs With New 

Collaborative Agreement who 

Indicated Need Was Addressed 

in Agreement* 

Transitional living facility or halfway house 49% 

Emergency (immediate) shelter 27% 

Re-entry services for incarcerated veterans 24% 

Services for emotional or psychiatric problems 22% 

Food 21% 

Long-term, permanent housing 21% 

Help with finding a job or getting employment 21% 

Job training 20% 

Help with transportation 20% 

Clothing 19% 

Dental care 18% 

Help managing money 15% 

Help getting needed documents or identification 13% 

Treatment for substance abuse 11% 

Glasses 11% 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

69 

Table 15—Subject of New Interagency Collaborative Agreements Between 

VA and Community Providers, FY 2007—Continued 

Need 

Percentage of POCs With New 

Collaborative Agreement who 

Indicated Need Was Addressed 

in Agreement* 

Personal hygiene (shower, haircut, etc.) 9% 

Detoxification from substances 9% 

Medical services 9% 

Eye care 8% 

VA disability or pension 8% 

Treatment for dual diagnoses 7% 

Help with medication 7% 

SSI/SSD process 7% 

Legal assistance 7% 

Spiritual 7% 

AIDS/HIV testing/counseling 6% 

Family counseling 3% 

Women’s healthcare 3% 

Welfare payments 3% 

Drop-in center or day program 2% 

TB testing 2% 

Guardianship (financial) 2% 

Education 2% 

Discharge upgrade 2% 

Child care 1% 

Elder healthcare 1% 

TB treatment 0% 

Hepatitis C testing 0% 

*Multiple needs addressed in the new interagency collaborative agreements may be identified by POCs 

Veterans Served Due to New Collaborative Agreements: CHALENG POCs were 

asked to report how many veterans received key services (mental health and/or substance abuse treatment, dental care, and eye care) as a result of new collaborative 

agreements in FY 2007 (see Table 16). 

Table 16—Number of Veterans Served Through New Interagency 

Collaborative Agreements, FY 2007 

Service 

Number of Veterans Served as 

result of New Interagency Collaborative Agreement 

Mental Health/Substance Abuse Treatment 344 

Dental Care 1,131 

Eye Care 500 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

70 

POC Action Plans 

POC Success in Executing FY 2007 Action Plans 

As part of the CHALENG survey in FY 2007, POCs were asked to select the three 

highest priority needs in their areas and to indicate how they would address these 

needs in FY 2007. The most frequently selected needs included: permanent, transitional, and emergency housing; dental care; job finding; transportation; re-entry 

services for incarcerated veterans; substance abuse treatment; job training and psychiatric services. 

Figure 1—Top Needs Selected for Points of Contact to Address 

For this CHALENG report, POCs were asked to indicate their success in implementing their plans to meet the top three needs that were identified. (See Appendix 

Table 6 for all POC progress reports.) For the purposes of this report, success was 

defined as achieving tangible outcomes such as securing additional transitional 

housing beds, negotiating a reduced or free bus fare for homeless veterans, or receiving grant funding for a project. Success did not include the beginning of processes such as starting initial planning or submitting a grant for funding. 

Figure 2 shows the percentage of sites that were successful in obtaining an outcome for the ten most frequently selected needs to address in FY 2007. 

Figure 2—Outcomes for Top Ten Action Plan Topics with Percentages of 

POC Sites that were Successful 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING


43046A.002 43046A.003
71 

Listed below are some examples of how POCs achieved success in addressing their 

priorities for FY 2007. This summary does not reflect the total level of CHALENG 

partnership activity in addressing these needs—only the activity from the sites that 

identified the need as one of its top three. 

• Long-term, permanent housing: Community agencies opened new permanent 

housing (20 sites); VA used HUD Section 8/Shelter Plus Care vouchers (20 

sites). 

• Transitional housing: Community agencies opened VA Grant and Per Diemfunded beds or received VA Grant and Per Diem funding (39 sites); VA accessed 

non VA-funded transitional housing (two sites); new VA Domiciliary opened 

(one site). 

• Emergency housing: Shelter opened/expanded (ten sites), new agreements made 

with existing shelters (six sites), local motel used as temporary shelter (one 

site), new shelter database or directory facilitated better placement (two sites). 

• Dental care: VA provided services under VHA Directive 2002–080 (eight sites); 

local dental providers offered care (some being paid with special VA dental 

funding) (21 sites). 

• Job finding: VA Compensated Work Therapy/Supported Employment programs 

started or expanded (11 sites); local Department of Labor Homeless Veterans 

Reintegration Program utilized (two sites); VA partnered with local private and 

public agencies for job finding (15 sites). 

• Transportation: VA or local transit authority offered new lines and services to 

accommodate veterans (nine sites); bus passes and tokens distributed (four 

sites); local agency purchased a van or hired a driver (two sites); veterans reassigned to a VA clinic closer to their residence (one site). 

• Job training: New VA employment program begun or vocational rehabilitation 

staff hired (five sites); job training provided through local community agencies 

(five sites). 

• Substance abuse treatment: Added VA substance abuse staff (six sites); new VA 

Grant and Per Diem program serving dually diagnosis patients (one site); community agencies offered substance abuse treatment (three sites). 

• Re-entry services for incarcerated veterans: New outreach worker/discharge 

planner hired (nine sites); local task force of VA and community agencies coordinated services for formerly incarcerated veterans (five sites). 

• Psychiatric services: New programs started and new staff hired (two sites); existing VA mental health services restructured to improve treatment access and 

care (three sites); veterans referred to local community mental health program 

(two sites). 

Most commonly, POC sites that did not achieve success with their FY 2007 plans 

mentioned lack of funding (grant proposals denied, loss/reduction of existing program funding) as a factor. 

The least successful action plan topic was emergency housing or immediate shelter. Only 36 percent of all sites reported success in addressing this FY 2007 action 

topic. Many sites indicated they were in the early planning and development stages 

of creating shelters. Also, unlike transitional and permanent housing development, 

there has been difficulty in locating funding sources for the development of additional emergency shelters. For example, the VA Grant and Per Diem program has 

funded and maintained several transitional housing programs throughout the country; similarly HUD, through its Section 8 and Shelter Plus Care programs, has created permanent housing resources in many local communities. 

Similarly, some of the more successfully met needs were tied to specific funding 

and initiatives. Many sites mentioned the implementation of VHA Directive 2002– 

080 in addressing dental needs. VA Compensated Work Therapy and Supported Employment programs and Department of Labor Homeless Veteran Reintegration Programs addressed job training and job finding needs. New VISN HCRV program specialists provided a boost for local efforts to serve recently released incarcerated veterans. 

Important CHALENG Partners 

CHALENG POCs were asked to identify community partners who helped them 

address their past year’s action plan. Appendix 7 highlights and acknowledges the 

accomplishments of these partners in FY 2007. 

POC Action Plans for FY 2008 

The 2007 POC survey requested that POCs outline their action plans for addressing top unmet needs of local homeless veterans in FY 2008. These unmet needs included: permanent, transitional, and emergency housing; dental care; job finding; 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

72 

transportation; psychiatric services; job training; re-entry services for incarcerated 

veterans, and VA disability and pension. 

Figure 3—Needs Selected For Plans 

In the CHALENG Participant Survey, respondents were asked to name the top 

three greatest unmet needs in their communities that they would like to address 

in FY 2008. Importantly, nine of the ten needs they wished to work on the most 

were on the top ten list for VA POC action plans for FY 2008. 

The CHALENG 2008 top ten list of needs to address is consistent with recent 

thought on addressing homelessness. A variety of reports have attempted to define 

the program elements necessary to end homelessness. Although these descriptions 

tend to be more general and may lack detailed input from consumers, they offer a 

framework for planning a comprehensive intervention. One important effort was 

made by The Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness (1992), 

which identified five critical service components essential to resolving homelessness: 

housing; employment; psychiatric and substance abuse treatment; medical care; and 

social support. Related, the 2008 CHALENG action plan top ten list includes housing, employment and psychiatric care. As noted earlier, CHALENG participants rate 

medical care as a high met need for homeless veterans. VA currently provides a 

broad range of medical services for these veterans. 

While acknowledged as an important component of recovery, social support has 

never been officially listed by CHALENG as a specific, pre-identified need to be 

ranked. Related to the report from The Federal Task Force on Homelessness, a recent Canadian survey (Russell, Hubley, & Palepu, 2005) of homeless persons concluded that in addition to access to basic necessities, relationships, self-respect, the 

respect of others, and having choices all influenced the quality of life of homeless 

persons. It is not known whether such quality of life indicators impact directly upon 

homelessness, but they are certainly clinically relevant to those veterans we treat. 

Social support will be measured in the 2008 CHALENG survey. 

Update on CHALENG Activities 

Individualized CHALENG reports by POC site are now available on the Internet 

in draft form. Each report includes: an estimate of homeless veterans in the service 

area; an estimate of homeless veterans who are chronically homeless; bed counts; 

FY 2008 action plan, and need and integration/implementation rankings. The Web 

site address is: http://www.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=17. 

Also on the site is the 14th Annual Progress Report on Public Law 105–114 in 

its entirety. The current report and site profiles are useful for sites that are undergoing Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) accreditation 

or have community partners that are applying for VA Grant and Per Diem funding. 

CARF requires programs to provide feedback from external stakeholders such as 

community partners and clients. As part of their VA Grant and Per Diem application, community agencies must document the local needs of homeless veterans in 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING


43046A.004
73 

their area. Much information from stakeholders and their perception of homeless 

veterans needs is available in the annual CHALENG report. 

Summary 

Trends In Veteran Homelessness 

Over the short-term, the combiNation of demographic changes decreasing the 

overall veteran population and the increase of VA resources for the homeless should 

continue to reduce homelessness among veterans. At some point, changes already 

apparent in the active military force structure will likely be mirrored in the profile 

of homeless veterans. Although only 4 percent of all homeless veterans are women, 

this proportion will likely increase as currently 15 percent of all U.S. troops are 

women. The extensive use of the National Guards and Reserve units in Iraq and 

Afghanistan means that in addition to the typical influx of new, younger veterans 

expected from any conflict, a greater proportion of ‘‘new’’ veterans will be older and 

have families. VA will face significant challenges in addressing the needs of these 

veterans if they become homeless, unless it can meaningfully address their homelessness in the context of the family unit. The continued prominence of child care 

as an unmet need highlights the potential impact of this concern. Recognizing this 

need, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 provided funding for HUD to expand the HUD/VASH Program. Section 8 vouchers available through HUD/VASH 

will be utilized to provide housing and supportive services for homeless veterans 

and their families. 

VA’s success in reducing homelessness brings new demands. Although housing is 

obviously a critical step in ending homelessness, it is not a sufficient intervention 

to restore health and quality to life. Through CHALENG, VA continues to assess 

the needs of homeless veterans so that we may identify areas where the overall 

quality of life for these veterans may be improved. We believe this approach is not 

only the humane one, but the one most likely to result in long term solutions to 

homelessness. VA will continue to work to establish a continuum of care that meets 

the full spectrum of economic, vocational, legal, social, and spiritual needs identified 

by veterans and providers in this report. 

Final Thoughts 

The annual CHALENG Survey documents the needs of homeless veterans identified by veterans, community agencies and VA staff. CHALENG also records how VA 

and community agencies work together to plan and meet those needs. 

Constructively, housing capacity increased between FY 2006 and FY 2007 with 

emergency and transitional bed need decreasing. POC actions plan updates have 

documented many success stories in developing housing, particularly through the 

use of VA Grant and Per Diem funding for transitional housing and HUD Section 

8/Shelter Plus Care funding for permanent housing. 

There is also evidence that non-housing initiatives have been successful. About 

7,600 veterans received dental care through the HVDP in FY 2007. Ninety-two percent of sites that selected re-entry services for incarcerated veterans as a priority 

need in FY 2007 reported some success coordinating care with new VISN HCRV 

Program liaisons, prisons, and other community agencies. 

The estimated need for affordable permanent housing continues to increase even 

as capacity increased. Although growth in partnership activities as indicated by the 

report’s 12 implementation measures remained flat, that may mask increasing collaborative activities through the expansion of existing partnerships. This will be a 

focus for assessment in future CHALENG reports. Significant new national initiatives, particularly the major expansion of the HUD–VASH program, are expected to 

make a marked difference in the coming year. 

In summary, there has been significant accomplishment in serving homeless veterans with our community partners, although the information obtained through 

CHALENG indicates that much work still remains. CHALENG will continue to examine the progress of VA and the community toward that goal. 

References 

Burt, M., Aron, L., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E. and Iwen, B. (1999). Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. National Survey of Homeless Assistance 

Providers and Clients. Urban Institute. 

Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness. (1992). Outcasts 

on Main Street: A report of the Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness. 

McGuire J., Kasprow W., and Rosenheck R. (2007). Housing, Mental Health, and 

Employment Outcomes For Homeless Veterans—A Follow-up Evaluation of Three 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

74 

1Martha R. Burt, Laudan Y. Aron, et al., Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve: 

Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients, Technical Report, 

December 1999, available at [http://www.huduser.org/publications/homeless/homeless_tech.html]. 2Martha R. Burt and Barbara E. Cohen, America’s Homeless: Numbers, Characteristics, and 

Programs that Serve Them (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, July 1989). 3See Robert Rosenheck, Linda Frisman, and An-Me Chung, ‘‘The Proportion of Veterans 

Among Homeless Men,’’ American Journal of Public Health 84, no. 3 (March 1994): 466; Gail 

Gamache, Robert Rosenheck, and Richard Tessler, ‘‘The Proportion of Veterans Among Homeless Men: A Decade Later,’’ Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 36, no. 10 (October 

2001): 481. 

VA–Funded Transitional Residential Treatment Programs. VA Northeast Program 

Evaluation Center. 

O’Hara, A., Cooper, E., Zovistoski, A., and Buttrick, J. (2006). Priced Out in 2006. 

The Technical Assistance Collaborative. Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, 

Housing Task Force. 

Randolph, F., Blasinsky, M., Leginski, W., Parker, L., and Goldman H. (1997). 

Creating integrated service systems for homeless persons with mental illness: The 

ACCESS Program. Psychiatric Services, 48(3):369–373. 

Russell L., Hubley, A., and Palepu, A. (2005). What is Important to Quality of Life 

of Homeless or Hard-to-House Canadian Adults and Street Youth? A Multi-Site 

Study. Canadian Institutes for Health Research; Conference presentation, Toronto, 

Canada. 

Turetsky, V. (2007). Staying in Jobs and out of the Underground: Child Support 

Policies that Encourage Legitimate Work. Policy brief by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008). A Guide to Counting 

Sheltered Homeless People. January 15, 2008. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development (2007). The Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. 

February 2007. 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2007). Healthcare for Homeless Veterans 

Programs, Quarterly Report. November 8, 2007. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Libby Perl, Analyst in Housing, 

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 

Chairman Filner, Ranking Member Buyer, and members of the Committee, my 

name is Libby Perl and I am an analyst at the Congressional Research Service 

(CRS). Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As requested, in my testimony I will provide a summary of research regarding homeless veterans, a brief 

overview of Federal programs that assist homeless veterans, and funding levels for 

those programs. 

Research Regarding Homeless Veterans 

Research that has captured information about the entire national homeless population, including veteran status, is rare. While the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) is engaged in ongoing efforts to collect information about 

homeless individuals, the most extensive information about homeless veterans specifically comes from earlier studies. Possibly the most comprehensive national data 

collection effort regarding persons experiencing homelessness took place in 1996 as 

part of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients 

(NSHAPC), when researchers interviewed thousands of homeless assistance providers and homeless individuals across the country.1 Prior to the NSHAPC, in 1987, 

researchers from the Urban Institute surveyed nearly 2,000 homeless individuals 

and clients in large cities nationwide as part of a national study.2 The data from 

these two surveys serve as the basis for more in depth research regarding homeless 

veterans. No matter the data source, however, research has found that veterans 

make up a greater percentage of the homeless population than their percentage in 

the general population. 

Research from the 1980s and 1990s. Two studies—one published in 1994 using 

data from the 1987 Urban Institute survey (as well as data from surveys in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Chicago), and the other published in 2001 using data from the 

1996 NSHAPC—found that male veterans were overrepresented in the homeless 

population. In addition, researchers in both studies determined that the likelihood 

of homelessness depended on the ages of veterans.3 During both periods of time, the 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

75 

4 ‘‘The Proportion of Homeless Veterans Among Men,’’ p. 467. 

5 Ibid 

6 ‘‘The Proportion of Homeless Veterans Among Men: A Decade Later,’’ p. 483. 

7Gail Gamache, Robert Rosenheck, and Richard Tessler, ‘‘Overrepresentation of Women Veterans Among Homeless Women,’’ American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 7 (July 2003): 1133. 8 Ibid, p. 1134. 

9 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, February 2007, p. 31, available at [http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ 

ahar.pdf]. 10 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Second Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, March 2008, p. 23, available at [http://www.hudhre.info/documents/ 

2ndHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf]. 11For more information about HUD’s efforts to collect information about homeless individuals, 

see CRS Report RL33956, Counting Homeless Persons: Homeless Management Information Systems. 

odds of a veteran being homeless were highest for veterans who had enlisted after 

the military transitioned to an all-volunteer force (AVF) in 1973. 

In the earlier study, researchers found that 41% of adult homeless men were veterans, compared to just under 34% of adult males in the general population. Overall, male veterans were 1.4 times as likely to be homeless as nonveterans.4 Notably, 

though, those veterans who served after the Vietnam War were four times more 

likely to be homeless than nonveterans in the same age group.5 Vietnam era veterans, who are often thought to be the most overrepresented group of homeless veterans, were barely more likely to be homeless than nonveterans (1.01 times). 

In the second study, researchers found that nearly 33% of adult homeless men 

were veterans, compared to 28% of males in the general population. Once again, the 

likelihood of homelessness differed among age groups. Overall, male veterans were 

1.25 times more likely to be homeless than nonveterans.6 However, the same postVietnam birth cohort as that in the 1994 study was most at risk of homelessness; 

those in the cohort were over three times as likely to be homeless as nonveterans 

in their birth cohort. Younger veterans, those age 20–34 in 1996, were two times 

as likely to be homeless as nonveterans. And Vietnam era veterans were approximately 1.4 times as likely to be homeless as their nonveteran counterparts. 

Like male veterans, women veterans are more likely to be homeless than women 

who are not veterans. A study published in 2003 examined two data sources, one 

a survey of mentally ill homeless women, and the other the NSHAPC, and found 

that 4.4% and 3.1% of those homeless persons surveyed were female veterans, respectively (compared to approximately 1.3% of the general population who are 

women veterans).7 Although the likelihood of homelessness was different for each 

of the two surveyed populations, the study estimated that female veterans were between two and four times as likely to be homeless as their nonveteran counterparts.8 Unlike male veterans, all birth cohorts were more likely to be homeless than 

nonveterans. However, with the exception of women veterans age 35–55 (representing the post-Vietnam era), who were between approximately 3.5 and 4.0 times 

as likely to be homeless as nonveterans, cohort data were not consistent between 

the two surveys. 

HUD’s Annual Homeless Assessment Reports. HUD is engaged in an ongoing 

effort to establish database systems at the local level to collect information about 

persons experiencing homelessness. Using these data, HUD has released two Annual Homeless Assessment Reports (AHARs), one in 2007 using data from 2005, and 

one in 2008, using data from 2006. While both AHARs provide information about 

homeless veteran status, there are limitations. Both report the number of sheltered 

homeless individuals, so persons living on the street are not captured, and in both 

reports, data regarding veteran status are incomplete. The first AHAR estimated 

that 18.7% of the adult homeless population was made up of veterans, compared to 

12.6% of the general population.9 Of the records used, however, 35% were missing 

information on veteran status. The second AHAR estimated that 14.3% of the homeless adult population were veterans compared to 11.2% of the general population.10

In this case, 20% of records were missing information on veteran status.11

Federal Programs Targeted to Homeless Veterans 

The majority of the Federal programs that target services specifically to homeless 

veterans are part of the Department of Veterans Affairs. One program, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, is a Department of Labor (DoL) program. In 

addition, HUD collaborates with the VA to provide permanent supportive housing 

for homeless veterans through the HUD–VA Supported Housing, or HUD–VASH 

program. HUD also provides services to homeless veterans through its Homeless Assistance Grants, though these funds are not targeted to veterans. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

76 

12The first announcement of voucher availability was announced in the Federal Register. See 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‘‘Invitation for FY1992 Section 8 Rental 

Voucher Set-Aside for Homeless Veterans with Severe Psychiatric or Substance Abuse Disorders,’’ Federal Register vol. 57, no. 55, p. 9955, March 20, 1992. 13Wesley J. Kasprow, Robert A. Rosenheck, Diane DiLello, Leslie Cavallaro, and Nicole 

Harelik, Healthcare for Homeless Veterans Programs: Twentieth Annual Report, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Northeast Program Evaluation Center, March 31, 2007, pp. 272–273. 14 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(19). 15Testimony of Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, FY2009 Appropriations, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., February 13, 2008. 16See Budget of the U.S. Government FY2009—Appendix, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, p. 541, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/appendix/ 

hud.pdf]. 17 Robert Rosenheck, Wesley Kasprow, Linda Frisman, and Wen Liu-Mares, ‘‘Cost-effectiveness of Supported Housing for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness,’’ Archives of General Psychiatry 60 (September 2003): 940. An-Lin Cheng, Haiqun Lin, Wesley Kasprow, and Robert 

Rosenheck, ‘‘Impact of Supported Housing on Clinical Outcomes,’’ Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 195, no. 1 (January 2007): 83. 18 ‘‘Cost-effectiveness of Supported Housing for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness,’’ p. 945. 19 ‘‘Impact of Supported Housing on Clinical Outcomes,’’ p. 85. 20 Ibid 21Shortly after the HCHV program was enacted in P.L. 100–6, Congress passed another law 

(P.L. 100–322) that repealed the authority in P.L. 100–6 and established the HCHV program 

as a pilot program. The program was then made permanent in the Veterans Benefits Act 1997 

(P.L. 105–114). The HCHV program is now codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 2031–2034. 

HUD–VASH. Beginning in 1992, through a collaboration between HUD and the 

VA, funding for approximately 1,753 Section 8 vouchers was made available for use 

by homeless veterans with severe psychiatric or substance abuse disorders.12 Section 8 vouchers are subsidies used by families to rent apartments in the private 

rental market. Through the program, called HUD–VA Supported Housing (HUD– 

VASH), local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) administer the Section 8 vouchers 

while local VA medical centers provide case management and clinical services to 

participating veterans. HUD distributed the vouchers to PHAs through three competitions, in 1992, 1993, and 1994. Prior to issuing the vouchers, HUD and the VA 

had identified medical centers with Domiciliary Care and Healthcare for Homeless 

Veterans programs that were best suited to providing services. HUD does not separately track these vouchers. However, the VA keeps statistics on veterans with 

vouchers who receive treatment through the VA. In FY2006, 1,238 veterans with 

HUD–VASH vouchers received treatment during the year, with 1,028 veterans still 

receiving treatment at the end of that year.13

In 2001, Congress codified the HUD–VASH program (P.L. 107–95) and authorized 

the creation of an additional 500 vouchers for each year from FY2003 through 

FY2006.14 A bill enacted at the end of the 109th Congress (P.L. 109–461) also provided the authorization for additional HUD–VASH vouchers. However, not until 

FY2008 did Congress provide funding for additional vouchers: the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110–161) included $75 million for Section 8 vouchers for 

homeless veterans. HUD has estimated that this will fund between 9,800 additional 

vouchers.15 The Administration has also requested an additional $75 million for 

HUD–VASH vouchers in FY2009.16

Research has found that permanent supportive housing, like that provided 

through the HUD–VASH program, improves outcomes for formerly homeless individuals. HUD–VASH specifically has been found to result in both improved housing 

and improved substance abuse outcomes among veterans who received the vouchers 

over those who did not.17 Veterans who received vouchers experienced fewer days 

of homelessness and more days housed than veterans who received intensive case 

management assistance or standard care through VA homeless programs alone.18

Analysis also found that veterans with HUD–VASH vouchers had fewer days of alcohol use, fewer days on which they drank to intoxication, and fewer days of drug 

use.19 HUD–VASH veterans were also found to have spent fewer days in institutions.20

Health Care for Homeless Veterans. The first Federal program to specifically 

address the needs of homeless veterans, Health Care for Homeless Veterans 

(HCHV) was created as part of an emergency appropriations act for FY1987 (P.L. 

100–6) in which Congress allocated $5 million to the VA to provide medical and psychiatric care in community-based facilities to homeless veterans suffering from mental illness.21 Through the HCHV program, VA medical center staff conduct outreach 

to homeless veterans, provide care and treatment for medical, psychiatric, and subjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

77 

22 38 U.S.C. § 2031, § 2034. 23 Healthcare for Homeless Veterans Programs: Twentieth Annual Report, p. 25. 24Sandra G. Resnick, Robert Rosenheck, Sharon Medak, and Linda Corwel, Eighteenth 

Progress Report on the Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans Program, FY2006, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Northeast Program Evaluation Center, March 2007, p. 1. 25 Ibid, p. 9. 26 Ibid, p. 10. 27The Compensated Work Therapy program was authorized in P.L. 87–574 as ‘‘Therapeutic 

and Rehabilitative Activities.’’ It was substantially amended in P.L. 94–581, and is codified at 

38 U.S.C. § 1718. 28 VA Fact Sheet, ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans,’’ September 2006, available at [http:// 

www1.va.gov/opa/fact/docs/hmlssfs.doc] (hereafter ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans’’). 29The VA’s authority to operate therapeutic housing is codified at 38 U.S.C. § 2032. 30 ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans.’’ 31 Healthcare for Homeless Veterans Programs: Twentieth Annual Report, p. 154. 32 38 U.S.C. § 2011(c). 

stance abuse disorders, and refer veterans to other needed supportive services.22 In 

some cases, veterans may stay in residential treatment facilities while receiving 

treatment. According to the most recent data available from the VA, in FY2006, the 

HCHV program treated approximately 60,857 veterans.23 Of those, 82% had either 

a serious psychiatric or substance abuse problem. 

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans. The Domiciliary Care Program for 

homeless veterans was implemented to reduce the use of more expensive inpatient 

treatment, improve health status, and reduce the likelihood of homelessness 

through employment and other assistance. The DCHV program operates at 38 VA 

medical centers and has 1,991 beds available.24 In FY2006, the number of veterans 

completing treatment was 5,282.25 Of those admitted to DCHV programs, 92.7% 

were diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder, more than half (56.7%) were diagnosed with serious mental illness, and 52.5% had both diagnoses.26 The average 

length of stay for veterans in FY2006 was 104.4 days, in which they received medical, psychiatric and substance abuse treatment, as well as vocational rehabilitation. 

Compensated Work Therapy/Therapeutic Residence Program. Through the 

Compensated Work Therapy Program, the VA enters into contracts with private 

companies or nonprofit organizations which then provide disabled veterans with 

work opportunities.27 Veterans must be paid wages commensurate with those wages 

in the community for similar work, and through the experience the goal is that participants improve their chances of living independently and reaching self sufficiency. 

The CWT program also provides work skills training, employment support services, 

and job development and placement services. The VA estimates that approximately 

14,000 veterans participate in the CWT program each year.28 In addition, a transitional housing component provides housing to participants in the CWT program who 

have mental illnesses or chronic substance abuse disorders and who are homeless 

or at risk of homelessness.29 As of September 2006, the VA operated 66 transitional 

housing facilities with 520 beds.30

Grant and Per Diem Program. Initially called the Comprehensive Service Programs, the Grant and Per Diem program was introduced as a pilot program in 1992 

through the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Services Act (P.L. 102–590). The 

law establishing the Grant and Per Diem program, which was made permanent in 

the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Services Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–95), authorizes the VA to make grants to public entities or private nonprofit organizations to 

provide services and transitional housing to homeless veterans. According to the 

most recent data available from the VA, in FY2006 the Grant and Per Diem program funded more than 300 service providers. These providers had a total of 8,200 

beds available and served more than 15,000 homeless veterans.31 The Grant and 

Per Diem program is permanently authorized at $130 million (P.L. 109–461). 

The program has two parts: grant and per diem. Eligible grant recipients may 

apply for funding for one or both parts. The grants portion provides capital grants 

to purchase, rehabilitate, or convert facilities so that they are suitable for use as 

either service centers or transitional housing facilities. The capital grants will fund 

up to 65% of the costs of acquisition, expansion or remodeling of facilities.32 Grants 

may also be used to procure vans for outreach and transportation of homeless veterans. The per diem portion of the program reimburses grant recipients for the costs 

of providing housing and supportive services to homeless veterans using the domiciliary care per diem rate. The per diem rate increases periodically; the FY2007 rate 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

78 

33 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Geriatrics and Extended Care, Description of the State Veterans Home Program, available at [http://www1.va.gov/geriatricsshg/docs/ 

FY07STATEVETHOMEPROGRAMHistory.doc]. 34 38 CFR § 61.1. 35 38 U.S.C. §§ 2051–2054. 36 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee 

Program: Program Manual, April 6, 2007, p. 9, available at [http://www1.va.gov/homeless/docs/ 

Loan_Guarantee_Program_Manual_4–6-07.pdf]. 37 38 U.S.C. § 2052(b). 38Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program: Program Manual, p. 10. 39The program was most recently authorized in the Veterans Healthcare, Capital Asset, and 

Business Improvement Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–170). The program is codified at 38 U.S.C. § 2041. 40 ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans.’’ 41 Veterans Employment and Training Service Program Year 2007 Solicitation for Grant Applications, Federal Register vol. 72, no. 71, April 13, 2007, p. 18682. 42 Ibid, p. 18679. 

was $31.30 per day.33 The supportive services that grantees may provide include 

outreach activities, food and nutrition services, healthcare, mental health services, 

substance abuse counseling, case management, child care, assistance in obtaining 

housing, employment counseling, job training and placement services, and transportation assistance.34

Grant and Per Diem for Homeless Veterans with Special Needs. In 2001, 

Congress created a demonstration program to target grant and per diem funds to 

specific groups of veterans (P.L. 107–95). These groups include women, women with 

children, frail elderly individuals, those veterans with terminal illnesses, and those 

with chronic mental illnesses. The program was initially authorized at $5 million 

per year for FY2003 through FY2005. P.L. 109–461, enacted on December 22, 2006, 

reauthorized the program for FY2007 through FY2011 at $7 million per year. 

Loan Guarantee for Multifamily Transitional Housing Program. The Veterans Programs Enhancement Act 1998 (P.L. 105–368) created a program in which 

the VA guarantees loans to eligible organizations so that they may construct, rehabilitate or acquire property to provide multifamily transitional housing for homeless 

veterans.35 Eligible project sponsors may be any legal entity that has experience in 

providing multifamily housing.36 The law requires sponsors to provide supportive 

services, ensure that residents seek to obtain and maintain employment, enact 

guidelines to require sobriety as a condition of residency, and charge veterans a reasonable fee.37 Supportive services that project sponsors provide include outreach; 

food and nutritional counseling; healthcare, mental health services, and substance 

abuse counseling; child care; assistance in obtaining permanent housing; education, 

job training, and employment assistance; assistance in obtaining various types of 

benefits; and transportation.38 Not more than 15 loans with an aggregate total of 

up to $100 million may be guaranteed under this program. 

Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Veterans. The Acquired Property 

Sales for Homeless Veterans program is operated through the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). The program was originally enacted as part of the Veterans 

Home Loan Guarantee and Property Rehabilitation Act 1987 (P.L. 100–198); it is 

authorized through December 31, 2008.39 Through the program, the VA is able to 

dispose of properties that it has acquired through foreclosures on its loans so that 

they can be used for the benefit of homeless veterans. Specifically, the VA can sell, 

lease, lease with the option to buy, or donate, properties to nonprofit organizations 

and state government agencies that will use the property only as homeless shelters 

primarily for veterans and their families. The VA estimates that over 200 properties 

have been sold through the program.40

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. Established in 1987 as part of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100–77), the HVRP is authorized through FY2011 as part of the Veterans Benefits, Healthcare, and Information 

Technology Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–461) and is administered through the Department 

of Labor (DoL). The program has two goals. The first is to assist veterans in achieving meaningful employment, and the second is to assist in the development of a 

service delivery system to address the problems facing homeless veterans. Eligible 

grantee organizations are state and local Workforce Investment Boards, local public 

agencies, and both for- and non-profit organizations.41 Grantees receive funding for 

one year, with the possibility for two additional years of funding contingent on performance and fund availability.42

HVRP grantee organizations provide services that include outreach, assistance in 

drafting a resume and preparing for interviews, job search assistance, subsidized 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

79 

43Presentation of Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and 

Training, U.S. Department of Labor, to the VA Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, January 31, 2008. 44 38 U.S.C. § 2023. 45Presentation of Charles S. Ciccolella. 46 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY2007, Summary of Competition 

Awards Report, available at [http://www.hudhre.info/documents/2007_NationalHomeless 

AwardsSummary.pdf]. 47 Alvin S. Mares and Robert A. Rosenheck, Evaluation of the Collaborative Initiative to Help 

End Chronic Homelessness, Northeast Program Evaluation Center, February 26, 2007, Table 4, 

available at [http://www.hudhre.info/documents/CICH_ClientOutcomesReport.pdf]. 

trial employment, job training, and follow-up assistance after placement. Recipients 

of HVRP grants also provide supportive services not directly related to employment 

such as transportation, provision of or assistance in finding housing, and referral 

for mental health treatment or substance abuse counseling. In program year (PY) 

2006, HVRP grantees served a total of 13,346 homeless veterans, of whom 8,713, 

or 65%, were placed in employment.43

Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program Demonstration Grants. The 

Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–95) instituted 

a demonstration program to provide job training and placement services to veterans 

leaving prison.44 Authorization for the incarcerated veterans transition program expired on January 24, 2006 and no additional funding has been provided. The DoL 

reported that grant recipients enrolled 2,191 veterans in the program from FY2004 

to FY2006 and that of these enrollees, 1,104 (54%) entered employment.45

Funding for Targeted Federal Programs 

In FY2008, total funding for targeted Federal programs for homeless veterans is 

estimated to be about $317 million. In FY2007, approximately $282 million was obligated or appropriated for these programs. (See Table 1.) This total does not include 

the HUD funds used for HUD–VASH vouchers. The costs of Section 8 vouchers vary 

based on the size of a unit rented and fair market rents across the country. The 

average cost of a Section 8 voucher in 2007 was between $6,000 and $7,000, however, the amount needed for a HUD–VASH voucher could be different. In addition, 

the estimate does not include VA funds for treatment of homeless veterans, including inpatient medical, surgical, psychiatric, and long term care. 

HUD Homeless Assistance Grants 

Though the HUD Homeless Assistance Grants do not specifically target homeless 

veterans, homeless veterans benefit from the grants. The Homeless Assistance 

Grants account was established in 1987 as part of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100–77). The grants, administered by HUD, fund housing 

and services for homeless persons. There are four Homeless Assistance Grants: the 

Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program, Supportive Housing Program (SHP), the 

Shelter Plus Care (S+C) program, and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance for Single-Room Occupancy Dwellings (SRO) program. 

In FY2007, approximately $1.3 billion was awarded to homeless services providers 

through the Homeless Assistance Grants. A total of 5,911 projects received funding.46 Of the grantees, HUD estimates that 149 were veteran specific projects, 

meaning that 70% or more of those served are veterans. These veteran specific organizations received approximately $135 million. Veterans may also be served by 

projects where veterans make up less than 70% of clients. 

In addition, since 2003, HUD has participated with the VA and the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Collaborative Initiative to Help End 

Chronic Homelessness, coordinated through the Interagency Council on Homelessness. Through the initiative, HUD funds permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals while the VA and HHS fund supportive services. The initiative has provided housing for 1,242 individuals; according to an evaluation of the 

initiative, 30% of program participants who took part in the evaluation surveys were 

veterans.47

For more information about the programs described in this report, please see CRS 

Report. RL34024, Veterans and Homelessness. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to speak here today, and I look forward to your questions. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

Table 1—Funding for Selected Homeless Veterans Programs FY1988–FY2008 (dollars in thousands) 

Fiscal 

Year 

Obligations (VA Programs) Budget Authority 

(DoL Program) Tota

for 

P

Healthcare 

for Homeless 

Veteransa

Domiciliary 

Care for 

Homeless 

Veterans 

Compensated 

Work Therapy/ 

Therapeutic 

Residence 

Grant and Per 

Diem Program 

HUD–VA 

Supported 

Housing 

Loan Guarantee 

for Multifamily 

Transitional 

Housing 

Homeless Veterans 

Reintegration 

Program 

1988 $12,932 $15,000b NA NA NA NA $1,915 $1989 13,252 10,367 NA NA NA NA 1,877 1990 15,000 15,000 NA NA NA NA 1,920 1991 15,461c 15,750 —c NA NA NA 2,018 1992 16,500c 16,500 —c NA 2,300 NA 1,366 1993 22,150 22,300 400 NA 2,000 NA 5,055 1994 24,513 27,140 3,051 8,000 3,235 NA 5,055 1995 38,585d 38,948 3,387 —d 4,270 NA 107e 1996 38,433d 41,117 3,886 —d 4,829 NA 0 1997 38,063d 37,214 3,628 —d 4,958 NA 0 1998 36,407 38,489 8,612 5,886 5,084 NA 3,000 1999 32,421 39,955 4,092 20,000 5,223 NA 3,000 2000 38,381 34,434 8,068 19,640 5,137 661 9,636 2001 58,602 34,576 8,144 31,100 5,219 366 17,500 2002 54,135 45,443 8,028 22,431 4,729 528 18,250 2003 45,188 49,213 8,371 43,388 4,603 594 18,131 2004 42,905 51,829 10,240 62,965 3,375 605 18,888 2005 40,357 57,555 10,004 62,180 3,243 574 20,832 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2006 56,998 63,592 19,529 63,621 5,297 507 21,780 2007 71,925 77,633 21,514 81,187 7,487 613 21,809 2008 f 74,802 80,738 22,375 107,180 7,786 660 23,620 

Sources: Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Justifications, FY1989–FY2009, VA Office of Homeless Veterans Programs, Department of Labor Budget Justifications FY

and the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act P.L. 110–161. a Healthcare for Homeless Veterans was originally called the Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill veterans program. In 1992, the VA began to use the title ‘‘Healthcare for 

erans.’’ b Congress appropriated funds for the DCHV program for both FY1987 and FY1988 (P.L. 100–71), however, the VA obligated the entire amount in FY1988. See VA Budge

FY1989, Volume 2, Medical Benefits, p. 6–10. cFor FY1991 and FY1992, funds from the Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill veterans program as well as substance abuse enhancement funds were used for the Com

Therapy/Therapeutic Residence program. dFor FY1995 through FY1997, Grant and Per Diem funds were obligated with funds for the Healthcare for Homeless Veterans program. VA budget documents do not pro

breakdown of Grant and Per Diem Obligations. e Congress appropriated $5.011 million for HVRP in P.L. 103–333. However, a subsequent rescission in P.L. 104–19 reduced the amount. fThe obligation amounts for FY2008 are estimates. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
f 

82 

Prepared Statement of Michelle Saunders, Arlington, VA (Veteran) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for allowing 

me the opportunity to testify on behalf of myself and my fellow veterans both current and future. My name is Michelle Saunders and I am a wounded veteran from 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. I went through my transition from the military to the civilian sector in May of 2006. Prior to my getting injured on May 1st, 2004, I was 

motivated, proud, extremely physically fit and ready to wear the uniform for at least 

another 20 years of my life, I was a career soldier. After hearing the words ‘‘your 

military career has come to a halt’’ I went through some serious hardships that I 

never imagined going through, as most veterans do today. 

The military had taught me some of the most valuable tools and how to apply 

them in order to be a successful leader; I thought for sure I was going to be ok in 

my transition because of all the ‘‘promises’’ that had been made by veteran service 

providers and folk who already transitioned and had jobs. The day I left the gates 

of Walter Reed, I never imagined in a million years that I would ever look back. 

The reality was and still is, it’s by far the worst relationship I had to walk away 

from. Aside from being angry, broken and in complete emotional turmoil, I fell into 

serious financial hardship and a serious state of depression to the point where I 

held a loaded gun to my head on many lonely nights. The only thing that stopped 

me was my lack of selfishness and what it would do to my family. I have always 

been a person of pride and strength, I felt like I was completely stripped of every 

shred down to the core. I had literally lost my own self worth. 

After many months of trying so desperately to find a job and barely escaping 

homelessness, by the grace of god I was fortunate enough to be at the right place 

at the right time. I was offered a job at the military severely injured center as an 

employment coordinator for the Department of Labor, it seemed a bit ironic since 

I had just gone through the trials and tribulations of finding a job. I was interviewed on a Tuesday afternoon, that night I was asked to attend a wounded summit 

conference that following Thursday in Alabama. I was so excited just to know I had 

a job that I forgotten about the fact I had no money to make travel arrangements. 

I thought to myself how incredibly embarrassing it would be to ask for a cash advance just to cover my travel expenses on my first day of work. I had literally exhausted all of my resources and had no time. I hung my head and called my new 

boss at ten pm and explained my situation, he soon became my angel as he told 

me to breathe and took care of everything. 

Finally, I arrived in Alabama at 3 am and I was able to sleep for three hrs before 

having to get up for the conference, the conference I knew nothing about. Little did 

I know that I was going to be asked to speak in front of many of our senior military 

and government leadership. I was asked to speak about my experiences of being 

wounded and the struggles I faced in the after math. I remember having severe anxiety about speaking and exposing my living hell, let alone in front of such a large 

crowd however; the scariest part was having to speak next to, two other wounded 

veterans—veterans with visible disabilities, veterans with amputations. 

That feeling of losing self worth had started to surface again because for so long, 

I didn’t feel worthy or injured enough to be standing next to them. Sure I had been 

in a combat zone accompanied by multiple mortar attacks, serious fire fights, loss 

of good friends and sustained serious back injuries, but I had all my limbs and some 

sense of sanity. At that moment I realized that if I were to run out of that room, 

I would never have an opportunity to release all of what I was harboring. This was 

clearly a major pivotal point in my life. 

I decided to speak last, so I was clear in my thoughts, as I had no idea what to 

expect. After listening to the two amputees ahead of me I realized at that moment, 

that I was different, I was in a totally different category—the category that clearly 

over shadows our visible wounded heroes. People fail to realize that a visible wounded hero has someone by their bedside twenty-four hrs a day seven days a week. 

Where as the ‘‘invisible’’ wounded heroes are overlooked on a daily basis. These 

thoughts were circling my head over and over but in a good way, good because I 

was in a position to finally embrace the hard ‘‘stuff’’ and help those who can’t voice 

the pain that is eating them alive, so I thought anyway . . . 

I felt liberated after I walked off that stage, I felt as though my voice finally penetrated the core of the systemic issues that so many of us veterans share day to day. 

I had Viet Nam and other era veterans coming up to me in tears, just to say ‘‘thank 

you, you have said all the things that we could not say, or find the words to say’’ 

When I left the conference, I was so eager to get in the trenches and start figuring 

the best strategic approach on how to stop the bleeding, but little did I know it was 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

83 

like trying to put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. I soon started to see the 

blackness of bureaucracy from the inside as opposed to being the victim on the outside. I started to see how a ‘‘success’’ was measured by a number, how a problem 

would disappear when it was time to report to the higher chain of command, how 

the ‘‘collaborating’’ agencies would point fingers at each other of all the pitfalls and 

the hiccups, but would leverage each other for the ‘‘successes’’. After reading that, 

one may ask or presume I am bitter. The answer is, I am not bitter, I am disappointed and I am embarrassed. I am disappointed because I stand next to people 

every day who are in the positions to make effective change, who make six plus figure salaries a year and are able to go home at night and provide for their families 

just to start over the next day. I am embarrassed because I can’t financially afford 

to bite the hand that feeds me. For me, it’s a little different, I go home at night 

and I am in pain because I know that my brothers and sisters who once stood by 

my side at arms and always covered me, are gasping for air because they’re worried 

about where the next pocket of money is coming from, their VA appeal claims, their 

lack of credentials, because of what their families may think of their, once proud 

American soldier. These are the parts of the transition that holds the needed healing of the broken soul, how do you heal when you can’t stop firing squad? 

We are still repeating history in a sense that during the 1970s and 1980s, our 

streets were crawling with Vietnam War veterans with the same issues. The only 

difference today is our veterans are not being ignored by society and the government 

is being held accountable. For the first time Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are being recognized as issues and they are abnormal conditions caused by combat trauma and combat stress. We live in a society 

that does not accept murder as something ‘‘normal’’. We live in a society that is spiritual and compassionate by nature regardless of religious beliefs. When these horrific acts are witnessed or are performed by an American soldier in a time of war, 

it breaks the spirit in a way that can’t be defined. However, we are expected to act 

‘‘normal’’ when we arrive back to our home soil. In addition our peers are forced 

to look at us different and weak because of the mentality of our senior military leadership, we are ‘‘STRONG’’ warriors that aren’t supposed to feel, yet we must follow 

the rules of the Geneva Convention because our morals and beliefs as a Nation dictate. Yes there are services in place for those who ‘‘need it’’ but there is a silent 

voice that is extremely loud that puts those who ‘‘need it’’ in a corner. Fortunately, 

the American population as a whole is finally pushing back because they understand what our eyes see across the water is not ‘‘normal’’ however; there is still an 

uncomfortable stigma that is associated with this. Society as a whole wants to help, 

but that help must happen away from their children and their neighborhoods. We 

are making a difference however, the flood gates have been opened and an enormous amount of water has fractured the backbone of our infrastructure. It is up to 

those who can speak for the ones who can not. WE MUST INFORM, EDUCATE 

AND PROMOTE AWARENESS. The blind eye approach is NOT working; it is 

MUCH bigger than us, so we must take a different approach. 

The million dollar question is ‘‘how do we fix it?’’ First, we must understand our 

veterans are fighting two wars, one across the water and one here on the home 

front. The concept and words ‘‘Support our Troops’’ seems to be everywhere you look 

today, from yellow ribbons to American flags to the ‘‘support the troops’’ bumper 

stickers, but do we really know what the reality of ‘‘support’’ means. We will never 

know how to properly support the veteran population as long as the ‘‘right’’ questions are not being asked and we will continue to have those veterans who will ‘‘fall’’ 

through the cracks and become a statistic in the homeless veteran population. 

I will attempt to illustrate where the flood gates are broken, the following line 

items are currently staring us in the eye of the systemic core: 

Inability for the services to admit that ‘‘PTSD’’ is an issue: Until the senior 

leadership of the military comes forward and recognizes that combat trauma is not 

normal then we as a society will continue to see it as a stigma and continue to work 

in a vacuum. 

• How do we heal if we can’t sleep? 

• How do we heal if we are hyper vigilant in every facet of our days? 

• How do we heal if we have social withdrawal because we feel so disconnected? 

• How do we heal when our own leaders keep us at an arms distance and call 

this disorder a ‘‘personality disorder’’—in turn ending in an even bigger stigma? 

Lack of accountability and collaboration of agencies: We are finding that 

more and more agencies and service components are wanting to ‘‘take care of their 

own’’ however, what the services/service providers are missing is that there must 

be case management across all lines, that is the only approach when dealing with 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

84 

physical and psychological wounds. No matter what a person’s situation, there is a 

history and it must be captured. In the case of the VA, the military must make that 

‘‘warm’’ hand off. In the case of the Department of Labor, the VA must determine 

someone employment ready, there are many steps that must take place before a 

subject matter expert can consider someone ‘‘employment ready’’ We also must stop 

counting numbers as a measurement of success. Just because a veteran request 

services doesn’t mean they’re a success because they were entered into a data base. 

There is way too much anecdotal information that is being reported as successes in 

order to continue the fluff that is delivered to congress in the exchange of funding. 

This is clear reason why congress and our administration are being bastardized on 

a daily basis not only here in our own country but across the world, this is why 

we as a Nation are so divided and we’re repeating history yet again. 

Program Qualifications: All programs must have a certain criteria in place in 

order to provide and deliver services, of course for their continuity. However, when 

the criteria’s are different across the board even though the mission is the same, 

it can seriously complicate matters. Examples: 

• Who is the authorizing authority to determine someone ‘‘seriously injured’’ • If someone is not able to work because of serious PTSD why should he or she 

have to prove time and time again their condition, if it is clearly stated in their 

VA disability record? • Why do almost all current providers only work with OIF/OEF, when we have 

other veterans from other eras that desperately need services? • Why do veterans have to be homeless before they receive a grant? We should 

not be taking the re-active approach; we should be taking the pro-active approach. That is why we as a government spend so much money on R&D to better the future; we are a much smarter society to allow these pitfalls. • We MUST understand that the entire family is fractured when a service member is injured physically and or psychologically and we MUST treat and provide 

services to the whole family 

Identification Issues: When a service member is injured down range and medically evacuated, the service member still carries their original unit identification 

code (UIC). This particular issue is creating long-term identification issues. Because 

of this standard operating procedure it creates problems for the following reasons: 

• Once the service member has arrived at the medical treatment facility there is 

a determiNation made whether or not that service member will be attached to 

a wounded transition brigade (WTB) or they will be assigned. • Attached and assigned are two different categories. This means that if a wounded service member is attached, then he or she will then carry two UIC codes 

until he or she has been assigned due to long-term care needs or identified for 

separation. • Those who have been augmented from other Active, Reserve and National 

Guard units fall between the cracks almost automatically because these individuals were never considered permanent party in the first place and once they 

are considered ‘‘broken’’ they’re no longer wanted on the roster, so the unit in 

combat can fill that billet immediately. 

• Service members who are put into a temporary retired disabled category 

(TRDL) are sent to a civilian based health care organization (CBCHO). Once in 

this category a lot of service members are being put out of the service and not 

followed up through the VA or the military therefore resulting in ‘‘falling 

through the cracks.’’ This particular population often times are forgotten and 

are unaware of their benefits and services available to them. 

Recommendation: Once a service member is injured, he or she should 

automatically be assigned a second identifier that will allow the outgoing 

unit and the potential incoming unit to keep one hundred percent accountability. Recovery coordinators must be assigned immediately to maintain 

continuity. (On a personal note it took Walter Reed six months to realize I was even there. In addition my unit informed me that if I 

wanted to go back to Hawaii I could and they would arrange with 

or without the facilitation of Walter Reed, not a bad deal if you just 

want to run away because you just can’t deal mentally.) 

Veterans struggle to find employment: Currently the average age of our veterans today are between the ages 19–25. It is the reality that of being in such a 

young age group which often masks the very accomplishments and career progression that also reflects the approximate time and grade of a service member anywhere between the ranks of private through sergeant. In the eyes of the military 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

85 

a sergeant has the ability to lead, manage and supervise approximately 6–8 people 

under multitudes of stress however, in the corporate world this is something foreign. 

There are many challenges in the way of disabled veterans finding gainful employment, to include the competition of young college graduates chomping at the bit for 

sinking their teeth into the best corporate positions possible. With today’s competitive society, power is knowledge and often equates to increased earning potential. 

Realistically without these tools/credentials our veterans are automatically at a disadvantage the minute they leave the gates of the military installations. Being a Nation at war, with back to back deployments our military do not have the option to 

go to school. After being discharged, many are relegated to lower paying jobs simply 

to make ends meet and will not have the time to utilize and maximize their educational benefits due to the stress of keeping food on the table and a roof over their 

families’ heads. Coupled with a disability and a competitive labor market many of 

our heroes are falling into homelessness. We as a Nation need not only protect our 

veteran population but we need to equip them with the proper tools and an environment to ensure they’re ready for the 21st century workforce. 

Traumatic Service member’s Group Life Insurance (TSGLI): This one time 

payout of $25k up to $100k is causing SERIOUS debt for our wounded coming back. 

Regardless of the financial counseling, a person who has never received this kind 

of money is going to spend it the way they want to, in addition the financial decisions being made while under heavy narcotics and other medications are creating 

serious financial hardships. A large number of our younger service members are 

over 30k in debt due to the misuse of funds. 

Recommendation: If the payment is made through the VA insurance provider, 

then perhaps have the money added to the veterans already disability pay. In the 

event that a wounded service member while still on active duty falls under financial 

hardship, then they should be able to file for a cash advance to cover the vital expenses at that current time. This should also apply to veterans that are already receiving disability compensation. Keep in mind most of our newly discharged veterans are between the ages 19–25 years of age. 

We as a country are protected by the gate keepers who wear the uniform for the 

purpose of keeping peace of such a great nation. We as a country can not and must 

not fail those who didn’t fail us. We can do no less, we owe them that, we owe them 

a future. 

f 

Prepared Statement of John F. Downing, 

President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Soldier On (United Veterans of America) 

Chairman Filner, Representative Buyer, and Members of the Committee: on behalf of the hundreds of homeless veterans served every year by United Veterans of 

America, I am honored by your invitation to be here today testifying on the subject 

of homelessness among veterans of U.S. military service. 

I have the privilege of serving as President and CEO of United Veterans of America, Inc., doing business as Soldier On. Based in Leeds, Massachusetts, with facilities serving homeless veterans in Pittsfield and Leeds, Soldier On serves upward 

of 250 veterans every day. Our program is based on a continuum of care, ranging 

from the treatment of trauma and mental health issues to substance abuse counseling, shelter, food and other necessities, job training, and permanent housing. Our 

partners include the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Department of 

Labor, HUD, and many state and local agencies. Shelter, treatment, and hope are 

our cornerstones. 

Soldier On hosts one hundred and forty-five men and women in transitional living 

on site at the VA Medical Center campus in the Leeds section of Northampton, Massachusetts. Soldier On rents from the VA a few of the old staff ‘‘cottages’’ where we 

have created appropriate housing for women veterans and for frail, elderly male veterans. We pay HUD’s fair market rent to the VA for the privilege of housing these 

men and women. Sixty more vets live in transitional housing at our Berkshire Veterans Residence in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, which opened in September, 2004. Ten 

new studio apartments, funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, provide permanent housing for homeless veterans with a disability at 

the Pittsfield site. 

Soldier On serves veterans primarily from the northeast United States. A few are 

referred to us from across the country. The average age of our population is 54, but 

the mean age is trending younger as we see more veterans of Operation Enduring 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

86 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Approximately eighty-eight percent of our 

vets suffer mental health and/or substance abuse issues. Some ten percent are elderly, at age 65 or older. Five percent of our vets are women. More than twenty-five 

percent of our vets have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); 

twenty-eight percent are on parole or probation; forty-two percent of Soldier On’s 

vets are minority. 

I could go on, but I would invite you to take a look at our Web site at 

www.wesoldieron.org to learn more about our program. I am supported by a dedicated staff and a committed board of directors, and I enjoy a strong, collaborative 

relationship with our VA Medical Center and with VA Headquarters here in Washington. 

Currently we are in the pre-development stage of a 39 unit limited equity cooperative, to be built on our site in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The development will be 

owned cooperatively and managed by formerly homeless veterans. These apartments 

will meet the highest standards of ‘‘green’’ building, incorporating energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, and alternative fuels. This housing will be sustainable in perpetuity for low income veterans. Additionally, with reasonable support from the Federal government, we can dedicate a portion of each veteran’s rent to an Individual 

Development Account (IDA), thus enabling formerly homeless veterans to realize the 

American dream of homeownership and building wealth through equity. This 

changes the end of the story for homeless veterans of U.S. military service. 

I mentioned changing the end of the story for homeless veterans, and I’d like to 

go back to that. Typically, the veterans in our care, both men and women, cycle from 

the streets to shelter, back to the old neighborhood and, ultimately, back to shelter. 

Along the way, these men and women lose everything. It’s hard to imagine but, typically, every contact with family and community has been lost. Jobs, houses, family 

ties, self-respect, sobriety, mental health, personal hygiene—all gone. Dignity—gone. 

At Soldier On our vets come to see each other as their community. Only by creating 

permanent, affordable housing for veterans can we change that pattern. By creating 

permanent, affordable housing opportunities, whether it’s rental, cooperative, or 

homeownership, and by bringing comprehensive support services to the veterans in 

this housing, we can change the end of that story once and for all. In the long run, 

permanent supportive housing is less expensive than shelter. And, finally, our veterans deserve better than what we’re doing today. 

Why is all this necessary? How is it that nearly one hundred fifty thousand veterans of U.S. military service are homeless on any given night? How is it that so 

many men and women who have worn the uniform can end up on the streets of 

America’s cities and towns? Lately, we have seen somewhat of a downturn in those 

numbers, which leads us to believe that our efforts have been successful to some 

degree. But, sometime soon, we hope, the GIs serving bravely today in Iraq and Afghanistan will return home, and we know that the rate of homelessness among veterans will increase. What are we doing to get ready for our returning GIs? Soldier 

On’s 39 units in Pittsfield, Massachusetts will be occupied fully the day we cut the 

ribbon. What is our plan? 

Last fall the National Alliance to End Homelessness released a comprehensive report on the status of homeless veterans. I know you’ve all received that report, and 

I commend it to you. You will read about poverty and unemployment among veterans. You will read about veterans with disabilities who are further burdened by 

severe housing costs, especially among veterans who are renters. And, sadly, you 

will read about veterans who fall into more than one of these high risk categories. 

Factor in such variables as substance abuse, mental illness, and arrest or incarceration history, and the picture is bleak, indeed. But the situation is not hopeless. 

Just as we, as a country, have been able to marshal resources to take the battle 

to terrorists abroad, so can we mobilize to meet the needs of those who, in the words 

of Lincoln, ‘‘shall have born the battle.’’ Last week The Boston Globe reported the 

story of a disabled OIF veteran whose wife has had to quit her job a number of 

times as they have moved around to be near a VA Medical Center. She is saving 

the system a lot of money by taking care of her husband at home, but the family 

is suffering. The child has been moved from school to school, the wife—a flight attendant—has devoted herself to her husband, whose brain injury makes him difficult to live with, and the family now is impoverished. What kind of future do they 

have? Don’t that veteran and his family deserve our help? What’s wrong with us? 

Must they become homeless before we help them? 

The answer to the homelessness issue is not complicated. This congress, in this 

year’s budget, funded the HUD VASH rental assistance program. In your wisdom, 

you eliminated much of HUD’s red tape, thus providing developers of housing for 

veterans with more project-based rental subsidies. In the coming years we will need 

more HUD VASH subsidies, and many of them will be used as project-based subjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

87 

sidies as we develop new units. HUD VASH should be allowed to be used as Homeownership Section 8 subsidies, as well as for limited equity cooperative developments, such as the project we are developing in Pittsfield. The beauty of HUD 

VASH is, of course, that VA case managers accompany the subsidy, improving the 

veteran’s chances of a successful tenancy. 

But we’ll need more help. In general, to the best of my knowledge, the Federal 

government has no program that supports exclusively the creation of permanent, affordable housing for veterans. I realize that this is a policy decision for the consideration of the entire Congress and the Administration. If we truly are to be successful, 

we must embark on a production program to create new units of safe, decent, affordable housing for veterans—not only for individual veterans, but for veterans with 

families as well. Recently, Soldier On has developed a partnership with the AFL– 

CIO Housing Investment Trust, which is based here in Washington, D.C. The Housing Investment Trust is eager to work with us to develop housing for veterans; beginning in Massachusetts, and working with MassHousing, our state’s housing finance agency, we will create homeownership opportunities for veterans, as well as 

more limited equity cooperative apartments. And, although the Housing Investment 

Trust has considerable human and financial resources to invest, we will need an equity partner in that enterprise. The most appropriate equity partner is the very Nation that our veterans have served. Fortunately, a precedent exists that provides a 

model for that equity partnership. Now, Federal earmarks get a bad rap, and some 

of that might be deserved. But our representative in this body, Congressman John 

Olver of the First Massachusetts Congressional District, has secured for us two direct Federal appropriations, without which our project in Pittsfield would not be feasible. We would ask that Congress create programs that provide long-term, soft deferred loans, along the lines of the Federal HOME program that would work as equity and reduce the debt load of these projects—a HUD-VA-HOME program, if you 

will. The simple fact is that, by providing homeownership opportunities, case management, and affordable rental housing, we could eliminate most of the VA’s shelter 

programs. And we know that an investment in permanent housing, whether homeownership or rental, is a better investment than spending money year after year 

on shelter programs. We need housing first. 

Back home, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under both Governor Romney 

and Governor Patrick, is stepping up to the plate with state money and a willingness to support the project with Federal resources, such as project-based Section 8 

subsidies, VASH subsidies, and HOME funds. At this point, however, Federal participation has been limited to a relatively small direct appropriation from HUD, procured through the good offices of Congressmen John Olver and Richard Neal. For 

Soldier On to complete this project with a reasonable, minimal debt load, the Federal government must be more of a partner with us. 

The beauty of the project we’re building in Pittsfield is that it is replicable. With 

a little help from the banks and state and Federal government, this type of housing 

can be adapted for any part of the country. We are working now with the VA Medical Center in Leeds, Massachusetts to create another limited equity cooperative on 

the grounds of the Medical Center. Across the country, VA Medical Center campuses 

typically enjoy lots of unused green space. A project like ours could be built on the 

grounds of any VA Medical Center. Working with the VA, non-profit developers 

could lease the land at a nominal rate, while taking the entire responsibility for 

building and operating the permanent housing on that land. No additional expense 

would accrue to the VA, and the VA Medical Center would have a new out-patient 

population on its doorstep. But the best reason for doing this is that it serves veterans. And that’s what we’re talking about today—serving veterans. 

I would add, parenthetically, that, although not the purview of this committee, 

I would ask Congress to amend the Fair Housing Act to include veterans of U.S. 

military service as a protected class. I mention this because, if we are successful 

in creating permanent housing for veterans, we run the real risk of violating Fair 

Housing laws by giving veterans priority—again, a Catch-22 situation which I’m 

sure is unintentional, and which I’m sure can be fixed. Other technical fixes are 

within our grasp as well. For instance, the VA’s payment system is a nightmare. 

Good people in this Congress, working with good people at the VA, passed legislation to change the payment system last year, but that legislation never made it to 

a final bill. If I go out and raise money to improve service to homeless veterans, 

the VA is forced to reduce as result of OMB Circulars its payments to us. We would 

like to see the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs be allowed to create 

a system of payments for approved providers of services that allows reasonable 

funding to insure appropriate care and services are provided. The Secretary should 

be allowed to consider the higher costs of doing business in certain geographical 

areas. If I can get donations to cover the high cost of heating our buildings in westjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

88 

ern Massachusetts, the Secretary of the VA should not be forced to penalize me for 

that initiative. Services for homeless veterans within a community are most effective when a recipient can augment payments from the VA with funds from any 

source, including Federal, state, local, and private sources. 

Soon, we hope, we will be welcoming home the veterans of Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Each Veteran deserves a system of care that 

is anchored in safe, affordable permanent housing that he or she can own. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Colonel Charles Williams, USA (Ret.), 

Executive Director, Maryland Center for Veterans 

Education and Training, Inc. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Charles Williams and 

I am the Executive Director of the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and 

Training, Inc., commonly referred to as MCVET. 

MCVET was established approximately 15 years ago with a mission to provide 

homeless veterans, and other veterans in need, with comprehensive services that 

will enable them to rejoin their communities as productive citizens. MCVET operates a militarily structured facility where veterans are reintroduced to the military 

type of discipline that they were accustomed to through their service. The services 

offered during a veteran’s stay in our facility are designed to remove barriers to recovery. These barriers include but are not limited to, debts, courts, child support, 

discharge upgrades and physical/mental health issues. 

The reawakening of the routine military discipline enhances MCVET’s ability to 

stabilize and reorder the lives of these veterans. Each student attends substance 

abuse classes and alcoholics/narcotics anonymous meetings, and works in conjunction with a case manager in the development of an Individual Service Strategy plan 

which is a long-range plan used as a tool in remaining drug and alcohol free. 

Services include: 

• Outreach 

• Day drop-in, emergency, transitional and permanent housing 

• Substance abuse counseling 

• Assistance with physical and mental health issues, including post traumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) 

• Education 

• Job training and placement 

• Aftercare 

MCVET owes its very existence to the Federal Grants to community 

based 501(c)(3) organizations. We have uniquely married the housing services available from HUD, the medical and social service support available 

from Veterans Affairs, and the job training/education services available 

from the Department of Labor in order to move homeless veterans into the 

societal mainstream as self-supporting and contributing members to their 

families and their communities. 

Veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq face problems that can be overcome through the Veterans Affairs system. Many problems occur from an ineffective 

readjustment period after transitioning from war zones. If the veteran is not connected to comprehensive services, then other problems, e.g., drugs, crime and homelessness, will surface. 

A unified service delivery system should be developed with HUD, VA and DOL 

participating in an effort to create a one stop application process. This process would 

be designed to eliminate the barriers which have been put in place that severely 

limit and discourage the veterans’ efforts at accessing services in a timely manner. 

In discharging soldiers from active duty, there should be a ‘‘handoff’’ system 

whereby their final physical, specifically their psychosocial and mental health 

issues, are documented and forwarded to their nearest VA medical center in their 

home areas. This should eliminate duplication of efforts and accelerate the time that 

treatment can begin. 

MCVET is uniquely positioned because of the presence of Veterans Affairs’ staff 

who are stationed at the agency. The staff includes but is not limited to psychologists and psychiatrists at the doctoral level and social workers. Additionally, a liaison from the Grant and Per Diem program is in the office during the week. 

These VA personnel assist in the admissions process for veterans who are in immediate need of mental health services and are key in determining the level of care 

needed. Our students are able to access mental health services within one week of 

entering our program. Also, psychosocial assessments are conducted at the agency 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

89 

within the first week in an effort to identify for MCVET staff the level of mental 

health services that should be given to each student. Without the assistance of VA 

mental health professionals, the admissions process becomes time consuming with 

a distinct possibility of losing the veteran to the streets. Veterans Affairs has adequate resources to treat mental health issues once the veteran is admitted. We can 

recommend that Veterans Affairs develop the ability to use its resources and expand 

the utilization of the Vet Centers. Vet Centers can be found in most major population centers. 

MCVET’s job placement office has placed veterans in high profile jobs such as 

drafting, certified computer systems administrator, and maintenance technician for 

a municipal transportation system, master fitness trainer, web designer, and schoolteacher. MCVET strives to place veterans in situations where they can succeed rather than fail. 

• For FY 2007, the retention rate after 90 days for veterans placed in employment was 96 percent. 

• After 180 days, the retention rate for FY 2007 was 90 percent. 

• For FY 2006, it was 79 percent. 

We have placed 97 percent of the veterans seeking employment for FY 2007. (See 

chart below) We are committed to developing careers for our veterans rather than 

dead-end jobs that tend to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and homelessness. 

Veterans who are educated, gainfully employed and independent are assets to 

their communities. They are reunifying with families, purchasing their own homes, 

starting their own businesses and participating in the economy. Because of our work 

with veterans, HUD declared the program a national model on 7 May 1997. This 

occurred after we had been serving veterans a little less than 3 years. 

In closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and 

to share MCVET’s story. Homeless veterans are likely to face greater challenges in 

the years ahead as scarce resources strain a service delivery system that is already 

overburdened. I urge you, in your deliberations, to consider the plight of those young 

men and women who have been sent to defend the ideals of this country. Many of 

them are returning home broken of body, mind and soul and this country needs to 

provide them with resources to enable them to share in the American dream. 

Department of Labor Performance Measures 

Category Year MCVET 

Goal 

Accomplishment Percentage 

of Goal 

Department 

of Labor 

Goal 

FY 06–07 

Assessments 300 313 104% 85% 

Enrollments 200 208 104% 85% 

Placements 160 154 97% 85% 

90-Day Retention 112 107 96% 85% 

Average Hrly. Wage $9.00 $13.12 146% 85% 

FY 05–06 

Assessments 300 321 107% 85% 

Enrollments 200 202 101% 85% 

Placements 160 155 97% 85% 

90-Day Retention 112 109 97% 85% 

Average Hrly. Wage $9.00 $12.03 134% 85% 

FY 04–05 

Assessments 300 309 103% 85% 

Enrollments 200 204 102% 85% 

Placements 160 159 99% 85% 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

90 

Department of Labor Performance Measures—Continued 

Category Year MCVET 

Goal 

Accomplishment Percentage 

of Goal 

Department 

of Labor 

Goal 

90-Day Retention 112 118 105% 85% 

Average Hrly. Wage $9.00 $12.17 135% 85% 

f 

Prepared Statement of Phil Landis, Chief Executive Officer, 

Veterans Village of San Diego, CA 

Chairman Filner, Congressman Buyer, Committee Members, My name is Phil 

Landis and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the finest homeless, veteran-only, 

drug and alcohol treatment facility in the United States. Prior to assuming duties 

as CEO, for the previous 11 years I was blessed to be a member of the Board of 

Directors and ultimately chair of Veterans Village of San Diego (VVSD), formerly 

known as Vietnam Veterans of San Diego. In addition to the Veteran Recovery Center, VVSD is the founder of the National Stand Down which annually, for three days 

in July, hosts over 700 homeless veterans and their families in a tent city where 

they can access medical and dental services, employment services, VA, Social Security, and have available to them the services of other providers in the San Diego 

area. While at Stand Down, veterans also have the opportunity to have legal issues 

examined and potentially have misdemeanors and their records cleared at ‘‘Homeless Court’’, also founded by VVSD in partnership with the San Diego Public Defenders Office. As you can readily see, I have been involved with/in the homeless 

veteran issue for many years. 

First, let me say that homelessness in the United States of America is a fact of 

life that we as the richest Nation in the world should be ashamed of. Further, the 

fact that in San Diego County alone there are over 2000 homeless veterans each 

and every night is a national travesty. Our veterans should not be relegated to a 

life on the streets with no hope for a return to a healthy, sober and productive life. 

Homelessness and drug/alcohol addiction go hand in hand and they are not limited to any one socio economic level. At Veterans Village of San Diego, we count 

among our successful alumni a Medal of Honor recipient, navy fighter pilots, army 

helicopter pilots, officers and enlisted, senior and junior, infantry to administration. 

Until the last couple of years, most of our clients have been Vietnam Veterans, 

Cold War Era Veterans, Gulf War Veterans, most with a time lag before they seek 

help of up to several years. Recently, we are seeing a startling trend with our young 

OIF/OEF/GWOT veterans, the time between separation from the service and becoming homeless and addicted is diminishing from years to, in some cases, months. The 

issues are remarkably similar to those carried by their predecessors, drug/alcohol 

abuse and addiction, mixed with post traumatic stress disorder or some other treatable mental illness. We cannot let this happen again, the lessons we learned from 

our Vietnam Veterans should be applied to our OIF/OEF veterans through early 

identification of mental health issues, specifically PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury 

(TBI). If this early treatment is available for not only veterans but active duty as 

well, and they are encouraged to participate in the treatment, then perhaps we can 

stop the cycle before it has a chance to become an embarrassment to our great country. 

For the last 20 years, VVSD has sponsored the National Stand Down. Each year 

the number of veterans participating has continued to grow to over 700 this past 

year, with at least that number anticipated this July. If the number continues to 

grow, we as a Nation are not addressing the needs of our veterans and this generation of combat heroes will relive what their comrades in arms from past conflicts 

have lived, more homelessness and addiction. 

For the last 8 years the city of San Diego has funded an emergency shelter program, two shelters, one for the general population and one for veterans only. VVSD 

has operated the Veteran Only Winter Shelter for the city each year of operation. 

This year’s shelter program ended on April 2, 2008 and over 400, non-duplicated Social Security numbers of veterans were recorded. What does this mean, the issue 

of homeless veterans is not going away and may in fact be growing. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

91 

What can we do? 

VVSD is just a small part of the answer, currently we operate 224 early treatment 

beds where homeless addicted veterans receive residential recovery services, mental 

health therapy and a safe environment to learn how to stay clean and sober. Once 

clean and sober, our employment services department enters the game, skills and 

aptitude assessment, training if required, assistance with writing a resume, and finally placement in a job with a life sustaining wage. After employment, VVSD provides 64 beds in three sober living facilities where the veteran can stay for up to 

24 months. All of this, and more, information is available on our Web site, 

www.vvsd.net. 

What do we need? 

After becoming clean and sober, gaining life sustaining employment, and getting 

physically healthy, our veterans need affordable supportive housing, both transitional and permanent. Studies have demonstrated that the longer a person stays in 

a supportive environment, the greater the likelihood of long term success is. We 

need additional funding to build or purchase additional transitional/permanent 

housing beds, not just in San Diego or California, but throughout the United States, 

in any city where there resides a veteran who for what ever reason must spend the 

night on the street, under a bridge or in a doorway. We also need additional funding 

to expand the supportive services that are provided, specifically weekly case management and therapy. 

The Department of Veteran Affairs is meeting the challenge of providing services 

and treatment of our newest veterans head on. However, resources seem to be limited and the need continues to escalate. Though the VA budget for healthcare has 

steadily increased, more needs to be done. I am sure that Secretary Peak would 

happily provide the committee with the budget needed to meet the growing requirements. Again, this is step one, treat the veteran before he falls into the cycle of 

drug/alcohol addiction and ultimately homelessness. Our veterans deserve no less. 

New to the homeless veteran issue is prevention. Armed with the lessons 

learned from treating Vietnam Era veterans, many with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), now is the time to act to prevent the veterans of the Iraqi and Afghanistan Theatres of war from entering the cycle that leads to homelessness and 

addiction. To that end VVSD has embarked on a new program, privately funded by 

a grant, called the Warrior Tradition Program. This program will be targeted to our 

most recent veterans and active duty service members, to provide them with a safe 

place to voice their concerns, receive peer support and guidance from experienced 

facilitators who have experienced the rigors of combat and PTSD and referral to 

other services as the needs are identified. 

On a slightly different note, I would like to address a VA policy that impacts service providers to veterans such as VVSD. 

The VA Grant and Per Diem program is the largest government funder of homeless veteran programs in America. This important and successful program provides 

transitional housing and services to thousands of homeless veterans through over 

300 programs across America. 

Approximately one year ago, the VA Grant and Per Diem Program informed 

grantee that to open any new beds or to receive a per diem rate increase, agencies 

are now required to provide a valid, Indirect Cost Rate to determine the cost of administrative overhead. This requirement is difficult for homeless veteran providers 

like VVSD to meet for three reasons: 

1. The amount of work to determine this rate is overwhelming. It took our Chief 

Financial Officer, who has both a Bachelors and Masters in Accounting, four 

months to put the required information together. 

2. The Indirect Cost Rate places a huge financial burden on the resources of 

homeless veteran agencies. Some agencies such as HUD have a maximum Administrative Rate of 5%. Others, like some city grants, pay no administrative 

overhead. Some government funders provide up to a 20% rate. Under the Indirect Cost Rate, a small nonprofit like VVSD must use its precious and limited 

non-governmental funds to subsidize a grant that pays less than the agency’s 

average Indirect Cost Rate. 

3. Because of this requirement, VVSD was near walking away from a foundation 

grant of almost $1 Million., that helps Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans and active duty members cope with PTSD. Only after the Foundation unhappily 

agreed to include an Indirect Cost Rate and budget realignments was the grant 

saved. Currently, VVSD is in danger of discontinuing our contract with the 

City of San Diego for the 4 month long, 150 bed Emergency Winter Shelter for 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

92 

Veterans for the same reason: being required to operate the program at a deficit. This would be tragic. 

Most nonprofits receive funding from multiple government agencies: Federal, 

state and local, and they each have different rules and allowances for administration. The Indirect Cost Rate places the burden of covering administrative overhead 

on the usually small nonprofit that is juggling these grants to provide the best possible services to veterans. The Indirect Cost Rate requirement reduces services for homeless veterans and should be discontinued. 

This concludes my remarks. 

f 

Prepared Statement of William G. D’Arcy, Chief Operating Officer, 

Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation, Chicago, IL 

Hello, Mr. Chairman, honorable committee members and guests. 

My name is William D’Arcy. I am honored to be invited to offer testimony on the 

status of the St. Leo Residence for Veterans that was developed as a pilot project 

under Public Law 107–95, the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 

2001. 

I am employed at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago and serve as 

the Chief Operating Officer of the Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation in Chicago, IL. I will give testimony about the pilot project at the St. Leo Residence for Veterans and Auburn Gresham Community Based Outpatient Clinic (Clinic) that Catholic Charities developed in Chicago, IL by working with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

We at Catholic Charities of Chicago are committed to work toward the national 

goal to end chronic homelessness among veterans. I am happy to report that we had 

a successful first year of operations at the St. Leo Residence and Auburn Gresham 

Clinic in Chicago, IL. I will summarize my comments in three sections: Project Planning & Construction, First Year of Operations, and Lessons Learned. 

Section One—Project Planning & Construction 

In November 2002, representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs requested Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago to join in a national pilot 

program aimed at developing affordable housing for homeless veterans. Specifically, 

the pilot project included building a residence of 141 studio apartments for homeless 

veterans and an outpatient clinic for veterans partially funded through the Veterans 

Affairs Loan Guarantee program (P.L. 107–95). 

The Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation (CCHDC) is the project 

sponsor. CCHDC has developed and managed affordable housing in Cook County, 

IL since 1985. Presently Catholic Charities manages 24 affordable and federally assisted housing properties that serve more than 1,700 seniors, adults and families 

on a daily basis. Veterans live in many of our buildings and three properties serve 

veterans by design. 

Mission and Vision 

The mission of the St. Leo Residence is to furnish housing for homeless veterans, 

and the Auburn Gresham Clinic provides medical services, mental health counseling, job search assistance and case management supportive services. 

The vision is to attract homeless veterans to live at St. Leo Residence in a safe 

and sober environment while they obtain employment, improve their ability to live 

independently and attain financial stability. It is also expected that thousands of 

veterans from the south side of Chicago will travel to the nearby Auburn Gresham 

Clinic to receive primary care, mental health, benefits assistance, employment assistance and related services. 

The Unmet Need 

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates there are as many as 154,000 

homeless veterans in the United States and approximately 800 homeless veterans 

in the Chicago area. 

In addition, the Veterans Integrated Service Network 12 reported that a zip code 

analysis of Chicago veteran patients found over 70,000 veterans residing on the 

south and southeast sides of Chicago. This group is served by the Auburn Gresham 

Clinic. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

93 

Building Sites and Construction 

The St. Leo Residence is located at 7750 S. Emerald Avenue, Chicago, IL and was 

built on the site of a closed Catholic church procured from the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Auburn Gresham Clinic is one block away at 7731 S. Halsted Street, Chicago, IL. 

These sites were chosen because public transportation is available at the intersection of 79th Street and Halsted Street on the south side of Chicago. Catholic Charities purchased the land and buildings of the former St. Leo Church complex. The 

Church tower was saved but the old church, convent and school were demolished 

to make way for the apartment building. Catholic Charities purchased land on Halsted Street for the Clinic and its parking lot. 

Construction at the St. Leo Residence began in June 2005. Homeless veterans 

began moving in January 18, 2007 and the building was fully occupied in two 

weeks. The Auburn Gresham Clinic was completed in late April 2007 and the Jesse 

Brown VA Medical Center began offering services at the Clinic on May 15, 2007. 

Project Description 

At St. Leo Residence, the formerly homeless veterans live in 141 studio units, 

each containing its own kitchen and full bathroom. The 65,632 square foot apartment building has four floors and provides common recreational, exercise and meeting areas. The front door is monitored at the main desk on a 24 hour per day, 7 

days per week schedule. Off-street parking is provided. 

The Auburn Gresham Clinic is a two-story 15,800 square foot building. The primary care and mental health services are located on the first floor. Offices and 

meeting rooms on the second floor provide spaces for the Illinois Department of Employment Security, Veterans Benefits Administration, Veterans Resource Center, a 

computer training room, and an Illinois AMVETS service officer. Off street parking 

is provided. 

Purposes of the Housing 

St. Leo Residence houses 141 formerly homeless veterans. It provides supportive 

services and counseling with the goal of making them self-sufficient. Each veteran 

is required to seek/obtain/maintain employment. Veterans are charged a reasonable 

fee for rent and must maintain strict guidelines about sobriety as a condition of occupancy. 

Financing 

Catholic Charities structured its financing plan with 10 layers of funding. The 

cost for the St. Leo Residence and the nearby Auburn Gresham Clinic was approximately $20 million. 

Source Amount 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs loan $4,900,000 

Illinois Low Income Housing Tax Credits $9,821,498 

Park National Bank purchase of doNation tax credits $1,855,287 

Illinois Housing Development Authority Trust Fund loan $750,000 

Federal Home Loan Bank loan $750,000 

McKinney Supportive Housing Program grant $400,000 

Chicago Community Trust grant $250,000 

Illinois Dept. Commerce & Economic Opportunity energy grant $129,882 

Hilton Chicago Hotel donation $19,250 

Catholic Charities contribution $1,030,463 

Total budget cost $19,906,380 

Subsidized Rental Income 

Operating revenue is greatly enhanced through project based Housing Choice 

Vouchers from the Chicago Housing Authority for 50 units. Recently, an additional 

10 vouchers were received from the Rental Subsidy Program of the Chicago Low Income Housing Trust Fund. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

94 

Partners 

This pilot project became a reality because it grew out of a public and private 

partnership. Collaborators included: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Archdiocese of Chicago, Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation, Illinois 

Housing Development Authority, National Equity Fund, Park National Bank, Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, Chicago Community Trust, Illinois Department 

of Commerce & Economic Opportunity, City of Chicago Department of Housing, U.S. 

Department of Housing & Urban Development, U.S. Department of Labor and Hilton Chicago Hotel. 

Section Two—First Year of Operations 

The St. Leo Residence and Auburn Gresham Clinic project are viewed as quite 

successful in the first year of operations. The project has been recognized by three 

groups already: the Chicago Neighborhood Development Awards gave ‘‘Special Recognition;’’ the Institute of Real Estate Management presented its ‘‘Affordable Housing’’ award; and the 2007 Charles L. Edson Tax Credit Excellence Awards gave 

‘‘Honorable Mention’’ to St. Leo campus. 

Property Management 

Catholic Charities Housing Development Corporation is the property manager for 

St. Leo Residence and the Auburn Gresham Clinic. Catholic Charities provides five 

full-time staff plus two part-time staff, three of whom are veterans living at the residence. 

Occupancy 

St. Leo Residence averaged 98% occupancy in its first 12 months of operation. One 

measure of success is that 23 veterans (14%) moved out into permanent housing. 

Only seven veterans (4%) left the program because they broke the lease requirements. Another success is that St. Leo Residence operated at breakeven financially 

after funding the escrow and reserve accounts. 

Social Services 

Catholic Charities provides four case managers, a job developer, a community liaison and supervisory staff that serve a tenant population comprised of chronically 

homeless and mentally ill veterans who are highly eligible and highly connected to 

veteran’s services. In the first year, Catholic Charities found a need to expand its 

social service staff in response to the personal needs presented by the veterans. 

Case managers maintained frequent contact with the veterans. 

Clinic Services 

Jesse Brown VA Medical Center reports that Auburn Gresham Clinic served 1,185 

veterans in the first nine months of operation. These same veterans had 4,951 encounters of service at the Clinic, including: medical health care, mental health counseling, Vet Center counseling and a computer training program. 

The Illinois Department of Employment Security reports that it assisted 312 veterans in job searches and that 45 (14%) obtained employment in the first nine 

months of operation. 

Section Three—Lessons Learned 

Several components of the project contribute to its overall success, namely: 

Public & Private Partnership 

Part of the success of the St. Leo Residence and Auburn Gresham Clinic stems 

from the public and private partnership that developed to support the project. It 

must be noted that the VA’s commitment to this project was vital in assisting 

Catholic Charities to recruit others to join. The project engaged 4 Federal agencies, 

2 State of Illinois agencies and the City of Chicago to participate. In addition, private participants were 2 faith based groups, a foundation, a bank, the tax credit 

syndicator and a hotel. Public and private partnerships are necessary but they can 

be quite complicated and require a considerable time commitment. 

Financing 

Part of the success relates to the 10 layers of funding that were assembled. The 

VA’s ability to commit the first funding for the project was the key that opened the 

door to other sources of funding. In addition, the commercial component of the Auburn Gresham Clinic is a stabilizing factor. The State of Illinois provided $10 million in Federal low income housing tax credits to this project—one of its largest allocations ever. Catholic Charities procured more than $4 million in donations to fill 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

95 

funding gaps. If other pilot projects are to be built, a simpler financing approach 

must be found. 

Housing Vouchers 

Part of the success comes from having project-based housing vouchers to ensure 

operational funding. While the first year had a breakeven financial outcome, housing vouchers provided only 35% of the rental income. Low rents collected from veterans provided 65% of funding. Such a small revenue budget cannot pay for both 

property management and social services. More housing vouchers and/or grants are 

needed or it is likely this project will fail. 

Social Services 

Part of the success comes from the large Catholic Charities social service team. 

In the first year, 79 residents (48.5%) of St. Leo Residence obtained some employment—seasonal, part-time or full-time. Nearly all the veterans are receiving benefits. This is a great achievement. However, the cost of social services was in excess 

of $500,000. These funds came from grants and donors—not from collecting rents 

from the veterans. It is doubtful that Catholic Charities can sustain the first year 

level of social services for subsequent years because most grants and donations were 

one-time events. Without social services, positive outcomes for the veterans are unlikely, thus, funding for social services is vital to future success. 

Community Response 

Part of the success comes from community acceptance of St. Leo Residence and 

the Auburn Gresham Clinic. Being located in a neighborhood and near transportation is very important. Benefactors of St. Leo Residence come from various areas: 

local businesses, church groups, and veterans groups are frequently generous with 

donations of food, clothing and financial support of social activities. Ongoing support 

from these groups is critical to helping the veterans. 

Conclusion 

We at Catholic Charities believe that our country needs more housing to address 

the problem of homelessness among veterans. The St. Leo Residence and Auburn 

Gresham Clinic have made a real contribution to the national plan to end homelessness. The formerly homeless veterans are becoming viable contributors to our society. We are willing to work with anyone you designate to review this pilot project 

in order to make the next project even more successful. I urge the Committee to 

promote this program, find a way to simplify its implementation and provide financial support for social services. Thank you. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Peter H. Dougherty, Director, 

Homeless Veterans Programs, Veterans Health Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to 

discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs’ programs and services that help homeless veterans achieve self-sufficiency. Thank you for inviting us to testify today. 

Mr. Chairman, as you and this Committee know, homelessness for any person is 

unacceptable; however, for those who have honorably served our Nation in the military, homelessness should be inconceivable. VA’s commitment to end chronic homelessness among veterans gains strength every day. To meet that goal, VA is making 

unprecedented strides to create opportunities to bring together veterans in need of 

assistance with the wide range of services and treatment VA provides directly as 

well as those services we offer in partnership with others. 

As the largest integrated health care system in the United States and, as such, 

the largest provider of homeless treatment and assistance services to homeless veterans in the Nation, VA provides health care and services to more than 100,000 

homeless veterans each year. We do this by aggressively reaching out and engaging 

veterans in shelters and in soup kitchens, on the streets and under bridges. By not 

waiting for veterans to contact us and by proactively offering services, VA helps 

some 70,000 of these veterans each year who would not otherwise know of their eligibility for assistance. We connect homeless veterans to a full complement of VA 

health care and benefits, including compensation and pension, vocational rehabilitation, loan guaranty and education services. 

We continuously work to reach and identify homeless veterans and encourage 

their utilization of VA’s health care system. Once they are enrolled, we furnish timejbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

96 

ly access to quality primary health care, as well as psychiatric evaluations and 

treatment and engagement in treatment programs for substance abuse disorders. In 

addition, it is extremely important that these veterans are seen by mental health 

specialists and a case manager. Our objective is to help these veterans receive coordinated needed care and other VA benefits, which, in turn, furthers their chances 

of obtaining and maintaining independent housing and gainful employment. The 

provision of such VA assistance should enable most veterans to live as independently as possible given their individual circumstances. 

We work very closely with our Federal partners at the Departments of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Labor 

(DOL) specifically DOL’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, to ensure 

those homeless veterans who want and need housing, alternative access to health 

care and supportive services and employment have an opportunity to become productive, tax-paying members of society. Housing and employment are very important because we understand from many formerly homeless veterans that having opportunities for gainful employment were vital to their being able to overcome psychological barriers that contributed to their homelessness. 

With the support of Congress, VA continues to make a significant investment in the provision of services for homeless veterans. We expect to spend nearly $300 million this year. VA expects to spend nearly $1.6 billion to cover homeless veteran 

treatments and programs to assist homeless veterans supported through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). 

Services and treatment for mental health and substance use disorders are essential both to the already homeless veteran and to those at risk for homelessness. VA’s 

overall mental health funding increased by nearly $200 million this year, and we 

use those funds to enhance access to mental health services and substance use 

treatment programs. Increasing access and availability to mental health and substance use treatment services are critical to ensure that those veterans who live far 

away from VA healthcare facilities are able to live successfully in their communities. 

Equally important is the work of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). 

VBA’s Loan Guaranty Service program allows non-profit entities to purchase VA 

foreclosed properties. More than 200 homes have been sold to non-profit and faithbased organizations that are helping to provide thousands of nights of shelter to 

homeless veterans and other homeless individuals. I also want to note that VBA’s 

Compensation and Pension Service strives to provide timely processing and payment 

of benefits claims to homeless veterans. As a result of VBA’s efforts, 21,000 veterans’ claims were expedited to allow these veterans to receive the benefits to which 

they are entitled. 

As part of VA’s efforts to eradicate homelessness among veterans, we work in a 

variety of venues with multiple partners at the Federal, state, territorial, tribal and 

local government levels. We have hundreds of community non-profit and faith-based 

service providers working in tandem with our healthcare and benefits staff to improve the lives of tens of thousands of homeless veterans each night. We have about 

2,000 beds for homeless veterans specifically available under our domiciliary care 

and other VA operated residential rehabilitation programs. 

A year-long follow-up study of 1,350 veterans discharged from VA’s residential 

care programs indicates that we are achieving long-term success for the well-being 

of these veterans. Four out of five veterans who completed these programs remain 

appropriately housed one year after discharge. Through such effective, innovative 

and extensive collaboration, VA is able to maximize opportunities for success. 

We firmly believe that the best strategy to prevent homelessness is early intervention. As the Subcommittee knows, combat-theater veterans returning from the 

present conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have, depending on their date of discharge, enhanced enrollment priority for up to five years in VA’s health care system 

and extended eligibility for VA health care at no cost for conditions possibly related 

to their combat service. We believe that this eligibility allows our clinical staff to 

identify additional health problems that may, if otherwise left untreated, contribute 

to future homelessness among those veterans. During the past two years, 556 returning veterans have needed VA residential services either in VA-operated programs or in the community transitional housing programs under our Homeless 

Grant and Per Diem Program. The best option is to reach out and to treat those 

in need who are willing to seek services today to prevent more acute problems later. 

Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH), Intergovernmental and Local 

Relationships 

VA has always been an active partner with nearly all Federal departments and 

agencies that provide services to homeless veterans. Last month, Secretary Peake 

was passed the chair of the Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH), demjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

97 

onstrating his and VA’s commitment to working collaboratively. We participate in 

a variety of interagency efforts to assist homeless veterans. During Secretary 

Peake’s tenure as ICH Chair, VA will continue hosting regular meetings of the ICH 

Senior Policy Group. These efforts have brought VA to an unprecedented involvement in State and local plans to end chronic homelessness. 

In the past, VA has worked closely with HUD and HHS to assist the chronically 

homeless with housing, healthcare and benefits coordination. Under this initiative, 

funding was provided to 11 communities that developed quality plans to house and 

provide wraparound services. As a result of our collaboration, nearly 1200 individuals were enrolled in the program during the first year of the project, and nearly 

600 were housed. Thirty percent of those receiving services under this initiative are 

veterans. This effort is based on the premise that housing and treating those who 

are chronically homeless will decrease total costs for healthcare, emergency housing, 

related social services and the court system. VA is pleased to be a partner in this 

effort. We are also pleased to lead the effort to evaluate this project, in partnership 

with HUD and HHS, and look forward to sharing with you our findings regarding 

the subsequent year of the project when they become available. 

VA has a long tradition of engaging and working with local providers in their 

communities. VA collaborates annually with communities across the United States 

in Project CHALENG (Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and 

Networking Groups) for veterans. At regularly scheduled CHALENG meetings, VA 

works with faith-based and community homeless service providers, representatives 

of Federal, state, territorial, tribal and local governments, and homeless veterans, 

themselves. Our meetings and annual reports are designed to identify met and 

unmet needs for homeless veterans, aid in the community effort to aid homeless veterans, and develop local action plans to address those identified needs. 

Last year our CHALENG meetings had over 9,000 participants, including nearly 

5,000 current or formerly homeless veterans at meetings sponsored by VA medical 

centers and supported by regional offices to strengthen their partnerships with community service providers. This leads to better coordiNation of VA services as well 

as the development of innovative, cost-effective strategies to address the needs of 

homeless veterans at the local level. It shows us what is being done effectively and 

what pressing unmet needs remain. 

This process also helps us to establish, as part of local needs, the number of veterans who are homeless on any given night. You should be pleased to know that 

the number of homeless veterans is going down. Two years ago we estimated there 

were approximately 195,000 homeless veterans on any given night. Last year we believe that number dropped to 154,000, a 21-percent reduction. While there are still 

far too many veterans among the homeless, we are making progress, and their numbers are coming down. This progress demonstrates to us that this scourge is not unmanageable and that our collective efforts are realizing success. We are confident 

that our continued efforts will achieve our goal of ending chronic homelessness 

among veterans. 

VA Involvement in Stand Downs 

VA’s involvement in stand downs began more than 20 years ago when the first 

stand down for homeless veterans was held in San Diego. We have participated in 

over 2,000 events since then. Participating in stand downs for homeless veterans is 

another avenue by which VA continues its collaborative outreach at the local level 

through coordiNation of our programs with other departments, agencies, and private 

sector programs. In calendar year 2007, VA, along with hundreds of veteran service 

organization representatives, community homeless service providers, state and local 

government offices, faith-based organizations, and health and social service providers, provided assistance to more than 27,000 veterans. The latest information 

shows that more than 3,500 spouses and children attended these events. Nearly 

18,000 volunteers and VA employees participated in last year’s stand downs. 

Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program 

VA’s largest program involving local communities remains our Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program. As you are aware, this highly successful program allows VA to provide grants to state and local governments as well as faithbased and other non-profit organizations to develop supportive transitional housing 

programs and supportive service centers for homeless veterans. The current Notices 

of Funding Availability (NOFA) has $37 million available: $12 million for per diem 

only programs and $25 million for new grant programs. Organizations may also use 

VA grants to purchase vans to conduct outreach and provide transportation for 

homeless veterans to health care and employment services. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

98 

Since the Grant and Per Diem Program was authorized in 1992, VA has fostered 

the development of nearly 500 programs with more than 9,000 operational beds 

today and with plans already approved or in process to develop more than 14,000 

transitional housing beds. We already have 23 independent service centers and provided funding for 200 vans to provide transportation for outreach and connections 

with services. 

We are currently accepting applications to create 2,200 new transitional housing 

beds. Applications will be accepted until April 11, 2008 and will be promptly reviewed, with awards expected by this summer. 

Technical Assistance Grants 

With the enactment of Public Law 107–95, VA was authorized to provide grants 

to entities with expertise in preparing grant applications. We have awarded funding 

to two entities that are providing technical assistance to non-profit community and 

faith-based groups that are interested in seeking VA and other grants relating to 

serving homeless veterans. Grants were awarded to National Coalition for Homeless 

Veterans (NCHV), Public Resources, Inc., and the North Carolina Governor’s Institute on Alcohol and Substance Abuse, Inc. to aid us in this effort. VA will continue 

to expand and improve services to connect veteran-specific service providers to other 

governmental and non-government resources. 

Grants for Homeless Veterans with Special Needs 

VA also provides grants to its health care facilities and existing grant and per 

diem recipients to assist them to serve homeless veterans with special needs, including women, women who care for dependent children, the chronically mentally ill, 

frail elderly, and, the terminally ill. We initiated this program in FY 2004 and have 

provided special needs funding totaling $15.7 million to 29 organizations. We issued 

two notices of funding availability on February 22, 2007. That call resulted in $8.8 

million to continue to fund both existing special needs grants and new awards. 

Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs (RRTPs) 

VA’s Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans (DCHV) Program, which was recently renamed the ‘‘Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Program,’’ provides 

a full range of treatment and rehabilitation services to many homeless veterans. 

Over the past 17 years, VA has established 34 DCHV programs providing 1,873 

beds. There have been over 71,000 episodes of treatment in the DCHV program 

since 1987. VA continues to improve access to the services offered through these 

programs. In FY 2007, DCHV programs treated 5,905 Homeless veterans, while VA 

funded the development of nine new DCHV programs offering a total of 400 new 

beds. In FY 2006, VA funded the development of two additional DCHV programs 

totaling 100 beds. In addition to the DCHV program, homeless veterans receive 

treatment and rehabilitation services in the Psychosocial Residential Rehabilitation 

Treatment Program (PRRTP). Currently there are 72 PRRTP programs with a total 

of 2,020 beds. 

Staffing at VBA Regional Offices 

Homeless Veterans Outreach Coordinators (HVOCs) at all VBA regional offices 

work in their communities to identify eligible homeless veterans, advise them of VA 

benefits and services, and assist them with claims. The coordinators also network 

with other VA entities, veteran service organizations, local governments, social service agencies and other service providers to inform homeless veterans about other 

benefits and services available to them. In FY 2007, VBA staff assisted homeless 

veterans in 28,962 instances. They contacted 4,434 shelters, made 5,053 referrals 

to community agencies, and made 4,006 referrals to VHA and DoL’s Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs (HVRP). 

Since the beginning of FY 2003, regional offices have maintained an active record 

of all compensation and pension claims received from homeless veterans. Procedures 

for the special handling and processing of these claims are in place. From FY 2003 

through FY 2007, VBA received 21,366 claims for compensation and pension from 

homeless veterans. Of those claims, 59 percent were for compensation and 41 percent were for pension. Of the compensation claims processed, 42.04 percent were 

granted, with an average disability rating of 44.85 percent, and 15.24 percent of 

claimants were rated at 100 percent disabled. Of the total claims denied, 42.66 percent were due to the veteran’s disability not being service connected. The average 

processing time for all compensation claims of homeless veterans was 155 days. Of 

the pension claims processed, 76.60 percent were granted. Nine percent of the 

claims denied were due to the veteran’s disability not being permanent and total. 

The average processing time for all pension claims of homeless veterans was 123 

days. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

99 

Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guaranty Program 

Public Law 105–368 authorized VA to establish a pilot program to guarantee up to 15 loans, up to an aggregate loan amount of $100 million, for multifamily transitional housing. Many complex issues, often varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, 

surround implementation, and VA has worked closely with veteran service organizations, veteran-specific housing providers, faith-based organizations, clinical support 

service programs, VA medical care staff, state, city and county agencies, homeless 

service providers, and finance and housing experts. We are also using consultants 

to assist us with our evaluation of potential sites and providers of housing services. 

VA has issued a final commitment under this program for a project to provide 144 

new beds for homeless veterans through the Catholic Charities of Chicago. The 

Catholic Charities’ project opened in January 2007 and was full within a week. At 

present we do not have any additional loans that appear to be approved 

CoordiNation of Outreach Services for Veterans At Risk of Homelessness 

VA, together with DoL and with additional assistance from the Department of 

Justice (DOJ), has helped develop demonstration projects providing referral and 

counseling services for veterans who are at risk of homelessness and are currently 

incarcerated. Through FY 2007, VA and DOL had seven sites that provided referral 

and counseling services to eligible veterans at risk of homelessness upon their release from correctional institutions. Local staffs from VHA and VBA provided veterans at each demonstration site with information about available VA benefits and 

services. 

DOL provided funding for these seven sites under its Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs (HVRP) for the Incarcerated Veterans’ Transition Program 

(IVTP). VA and DOL are reviewing this program carefully and will provide a report 

on its effectiveness. 

HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing (HUD–VASH) 

VA recognizes HUD’s longstanding support of the HUD–VASH program. This very 

successful partnership links the provision of VA case management services with permanent housing in order to assist the homeless veterans. HUD and VA hope to continue this valuable program, subject to the availability of resources. Last December, 

Congress appropriated funds to create about 10,000 units of permanent housing 

under the Housing Voucher Choice program. We are working closely with our colleagues at HUD and expect that thousands of veterans will be able to use these 

vouchers to move into housing by summer. We are starting to hire nearly 300 case 

managers who will provide case management services to those veterans who are eligible for VA health care to ensure that they have access to all needed health care 

and services. 

The Administration has proposed in HUD’s budget adding an additional 9,800 

units of permanent housing next year. If that occurs, we will make sure these additional veterans receive the appropriate case management services. 

Recently Discharged Veterans (Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, OEF/OIF, Veterans) 

During the past three fiscal years, 556 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated in one of VA’s homeless-specific residential treatment programs. Currently, there are approximately 90 OEF/OIF veterans in homeless-specific residential treatment programs. It is clear to us that there is a strong need for 

VA to be extremely diligent in insuring that these veterans get immediate attention. 

VA, with a host of external partners, seeks out these veterans. I want to be abundantly clear that our mission is to serve all eligible veterans who need our services. 

I should note that these veterans, like all veterans who enter VA’s homeless specific services, get access to primary care, but also as needed, to appropriate mental 

health and substance abuse services. Our efforts to reach out, find, and appropriately serve these veterans will do nothing but increase in the months and years 

ahead. 

Summary 

VA continues to make progress to prevent homelessness and treat our homeless 

veterans. Each year, we provide an annual report to Congress that outlines our activities for homeless veterans. VA collaborates closely with other Federal agencies, 

state and local governments and community and faith-based organizations to ensure 

that homeless veterans have access to a full range of health care, benefits and support services. We still have much to do to end chronic homelessness among veterans 

in America, and we are eager to work with you to meet that challenge. Developing 

appropriate links to health care, housing, benefits assistance, employment and 

transportation are all components that help bring these veterans out of despair and 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

100 

homelessness. We appreciate all of the assistance the Congress gives us to aid in 

this noble effort. 

Mr. Chairman that concludes my statement. I am pleased to respond to any questions you or the subcommittee members may have. 

f 

Statement of Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, 

Economic Commission, American Legion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit The American Legion’s views on the 

issue of homelessness among America’s veterans. The American Legion commends 

the Committee for addressing this important issue. 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups (CHALENG) report estimates 

that there are nearly 154,000 veterans who are homeless at any point in time, down 

from 195,000 in FY 2006. We must be wary of the VA’s claim of a decrease of a 

21 percent (41,000) of homeless veterans over the past year. According to the February 2007 Homeless Assessment Report to Congress from the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 2007, veterans account for 19 percent of all homeless people in America. The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) reports 

that there are 195,827 homeless veterans on the street each night. This accounts 

for 26 percent of all homeless people. The Alliance also estimates that 336,627 veterans were homeless in 2006. 

According to a report on homelessness released by the Urban Institute in 2000, 

‘‘Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve, Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients’’ the spike in homelessness among 

veterans during the eighties was attributed to: ‘‘the recession 1981–1982, and would 

go away when the economy recovered, while others argued that the problem 

stemmed from a lack of affordable housing and that homeless clients were simply 

a cross section of poor Americans.’’ This 2000 study stated that of current homeless 

veterans: ‘‘21 percent served before the Vietnam era (before August 1964); 47 percent served during the Vietnam era (between August 1964 and April 1975); and 57 

percent served since the Vietnam era (after April 1975). Many have served in more 

than one time period.’’ 

In order to prevent a national epidemic of homeless veterans in the upcoming 

years, measures must be taken to assist those veterans who are homeless. Steps 

must also be taken to prevent the future veterans and their families from facing 

homelessness. 

THE AMERICAN LEGION HOMELESS VETERANS TASK FORCE 

The American Legion coordinates a Homeless Veterans Task Force (HVTF) 

amongst its 55 departments. Our goal is to augment existing homeless veteran providers, the VA Network Homeless Coordinators, and the Department of Labor’s 

(DoL) Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP), Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Personnel (DVOPs) and 

Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVERs). In addition to augmentation, 

the Task Force attempts to fill in the gaps where there is no coverage. Many of The 

American Legion’s Departments contain an HVTF chairman and an employment 

chairman. These two individuals coordinate activities with The American Legion’s 

local posts within their state. The three-tiered coordiNation of these two chairmen 

and numerous local posts attempts to address the needs of homeless veterans in the 

local community, while identifying those at risk and preventing homelessness. 

The American Legion has conducted training with the assistance of the National 

Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV), DoL–Veterans Employment and Training 

Service (VETS), Project Homeless Connect, and VA on how to apply for Federal 

grants in various assistance programs, most notably the ‘‘Stand Down’’ and Grant 

and Per Diem programs. It is our goal to assist the Grant and Per Diem program 

by enabling individual posts and homeless providers to use The American Legion 

as a force multiplier. 

The American Legion augments homeless veteran providers with transportation, 

food, clothing, cash and in-kind donations, technical assistance, employment placement, employment referral, claims assistance, veterans’ benefits assistance, and in 

some cases housing for homeless veterans. The American Legion department service 

officers are accredited representatives that assist homeless veterans with their VA 

compensation and pension claims. 

A separate program administered by The American Legion that assists veterans 

in need is our ‘‘Heroes to Hometowns’’ program. ‘‘Heroes to Hometowns’’ is a transijbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

101 

tion program for severely injured service members returning home from Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The ‘‘Heroes to Hometowns’’ establishes a support network and coordinates resources for severely injured service 

members returning home. 

‘‘Heroes To Hometowns’’ can provide a welcome home celebration, temporary financial assistance, pro-bono financial planning, housing assistance, home and vehicle adaptation, government claims assistance, transportation to hospital visits, entertainment options, childcare, counseling, family support, and other benefits. 

The ‘‘Heroes To Hometowns’’ program has proven successful in preventing many 

veterans and their families from losing their homes by providing financial assistance. 

POTENTIAL HOMELESS VETERANS OF OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) 

Returning OEF/OIF combat veterans are at risk of becoming homeless. Combat 

veterans of OEF/OIF and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in need of assistance are beginning to trickle into the nation’s community-based veterans’ service organizations’ homeless programs. Already stressed by an increasing need for assistance by post-Vietnam Era veterans and strained budgets, homeless services providers are deeply concerned about the inevitable rising tide of combat veterans who 

will soon be requesting their support. 

VA’s Health Care for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) operates at 133 sites and reports assisting 1,819 OIF/OEF era homeless veterans over the past three years with 

an average age of 33. Nearly half of them, 859, were seen in the past year alone. 

The HCHV conducted physical and psychiatric health exams, treatment, referrals 

and ongoing case management to these homeless veterans with mental health problems, including substance abuse. Now treating combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan daily, VA is reporting that a high percentage of those casualties need 

treatment for mental health issues. That is consistent with studies conducted by VA 

and other agencies that conclude anywhere from 15 percent to more than 35 percent 

of combat veterans will experience some clinical degree of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression or other psychosocial problems. 

Unemployment, underemployment, difficulty translating military skills to the civilian sector and the state of our economy all contribute to conditions that could 

lead to homelessness. Younger veterans of OIF/OEF are experiencing employment 

obstacles at an alarming rate. A report by the DOL–VETS finds that 11.3 percent 

of veterans ages 20 to 24 were unemployed in 2007, compared to only 8.1 percent 

of nonveterans in the same age group. Moreover, a separate report by VA (Employment Histories Report Final Compilation Report, Associates Inc. September 28, 

2007) shows a rise in the figure for those who stopped looking for work because they 

couldn’t find jobs or returned to school from just 10 percent of young veterans in 

2000 to 23 percent in 2005. The VA even reports a higher percentage of unemployed 

veterans, 18 percent of veterans aged 20–24 who sought jobs within one to three 

years of discharge were unemployed. 

According to the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Manpower Data Center, since 

9/11, over 1.7 million U.S. service men and women have deployed in support of OIF/ 

OEF. Rotations of troops returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan are a common 

occurrence. Military analysts and government sources say the military deployments, 

then the reintegration of combat veterans into the civilian society, is unlike anything the Nation has experienced since the end of the Vietnam War. 

The DoD has reported that in the support of OIF/OEF from FY 2002 to February 

29, 2008: 

• 2.6 million deployment events; 

• 1.7 million service members have been deployed; 

• Currently there are 258,000 service members deployed; 

• 600,000 service members have more than one deployment; 

• 468,591 National Guard and Reservists have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001 

• Out of 600,000 service members with more than one deployment, 115,000 are 

members of the Reserve components 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HOMELESS SERVICES 

The signs of an impending crisis are clearly seen in VA’s own numbers. Under 

considerable pressure to stretch dollars, VA estimates it can provide assistance to 

about 100,000 homeless veterans each year, 70,000 are currently receiving services 

in specialized VA homeless programs. Yet, this accounts for less than 20 percent of 

the more than 400,000 who will need supportive services during the course of a 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

102 

year. Hundreds of community-based organizations nationwide struggle to provide 

assistance to the other 80 percent, but the need far exceeds available resources. 

Opponents of additional funding of homeless veteran programs frequently state 

that homeless veterans are all rated a Total Disability based upon Individual 

Unemployability (TDIU) and receive 100 percent compensation payments. They further argue that because these veterans are already receiving enough money to put 

them on their feet, more funding is not needed. In stark contrast to this absurd 

claim, VA reports that only 41 percent of homeless veterans are receiving compensation and pension benefits and even then it cannot be assumed that all of those 41 

percent are receiving the full 100 percent Total Disability they often need. 

In addition to this low number of homeless veterans receiving monthly benefit 

payments, many of their claims remain in the enormous backlog of all veteran 

claims. Identification and expedition of claims by homeless veterans has the potential to allow for a quicker adjudication process and ultimately, money to veterans 

and in turn assisting their transition to a more stable housing situation. VA has 

expedited 21,800 claims for homeless veterans since 2003 and approximately 44 percent of compensation claims and 77 percent of pension claims of homeless veterans 

have been approved annually. 

VA HOMELESS PROVIDERS GRANT AND PER DIEM PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS 

In 1992, VA was given authority to establish the Homeless Providers Grant and 

Per Diem (GPD) Program under the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act 1992, Public Law 102–590. The GPD Program is offered annually, as 

funding permits, by VA to fund community agencies providing service to homeless 

veterans. VA can provide grants and per diem payments to help public and nonprofit organizations establish and operate supportive housing and/or service centers 

for homeless veterans. VA’s Central Office staff needs additional full-time employees 

to expand the program to reach even more participants. 

Funds are available for assistance in the form of grants to provide transitional 

housing (for up to 24 months) with supportive services. Funds can also be used for 

supportive services in a service center facility for homeless veterans not in conjunction with supportive housing, or to purchase vans. VA can provide up to $33.10 for 

each day of care a veteran receives in a transitional housing program approved 

under VA’s Homeless Providers GPD Program. This token amount is far too little 

to fully assist a single veteran. Finally, all providers must justify that their costs 

are attributed to veterans. 

The American Legion is concerned with the ebb and flow of the homeless veteran 

population and asserts that measures should be enacted that allow a provider to always maintain a space for a homeless veteran. Due to the transient and drifting 

nature of chronically homeless veterans, seasonal weather changes that allow more 

homeless veterans to venture outside, and other factors, there are periods when 

GPD providers may have an empty bed. If a provider has an empty space dedicated 

for a homeless veteran under the program and, due to factors out of their control, 

a bed remains empty for a period of time, they have occasional difficulty justifying 

the grant and therefore may be penalized. 

The application process for grants must be streamlined. The accounting process 

currently required for reimbursement is in constant flux during the year and the 

strain of accurately reporting is placed on small community-based providers. Additionally, there are other Federal programs that can provide monetary assistance to 

homeless veterans, yet the GPD does not allow these funds to be used as a match 

for VA programs. This often discourages participation. However, other Federal programs do allow VA funds to be used as a match. VA’s GPD program requires unique 

flexibility due to the nature of the funding, homeless veteran providers, and homeless veterans. 

VA reports success in their performance measures to increase access and availability to both primary health care and specialty care within 30 and 60 days. Shortterm assistance, between 30 to 60 days, is imperative in order to prevent chronic 

homelessness. Many times, a veteran may be in transition due to loss of a job, a 

medical problem, poor finances, or some other factor and only requires a short-term 

transitional shelter that can be provided by the GPD program. In FY 2006, VA reported that they provided transitional housing services to nearly 15,500 homeless 

veterans. It is imperative that the number of veterans served by transitional housing services continues to increase and be adjusted to meet the demand. The consequences of inaction will be a stagnant, steady number of homeless veterans rather 

than a decrease of the number of homeless veterans. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

103 

The American Legion strongly supports funding the Grant and Per Diem 

Program for a 5-year period (instead of annually) and supports increasing 

the funding level to $200 million annually. 

DEPARTMENTS OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT—VETERANS 

AFFAIRS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING (HUD–VASH) HOMELESS PROGRAM 

The American Legion supports mandatory funding for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD– 

VASH) Homeless Program. 

The Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–95) codified the HUD–VASH Program, which provides permanent housing subsidies and 

case management services to homeless veterans with mental and addictive disorders. Under the HUD–VASH Program, VA screens homeless veterans for program 

eligibility and provides case management services to enrollees. HUD allocates rental 

subsidies from its Housing Choice Voucher program to VA, which then distributes 

them to the enrollees. A decade ago, there were approximately 2,000 vouchers earmarked for veterans in need of permanent housing. 

The American Legion is pleased to see $75 million appropriated for the HUD– 

VASH program which will create 10,000 units of Section 8 housing dedicated for 

veterans and their families. An influx of 300 VA staff will assist the residents of 

these units by providing case management. 

CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF TRADITIONAL HOMELESS VETERANS 

The Federal definition of a homeless person is: ‘‘An individual who (1) lacks a 

fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and (2) has a primary nighttime 

residence that is (a) a supervised, publicly or privately operated shelter designed to 

provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill), (b) an institution that provides 

a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or (c) a public 

or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.’’ McKinney Act (P.L. 100–77, sec 103(2) (1), 101 stat. 485 

(1987). 

No longer can a homeless veteran be easily identified as the McKinney Act defines. The American Legion is not advocating for an expanded definition of a homeless individual, but rather indicating that this country needs to help those normally 

financially secure veterans who continue to lose their homes. 

The stereotypes and faces of veterans on the road to homelessness are drastically 

changing. Professionals, the middle-class, blue collar and white collar veterans, students, and more middle-aged veterans are all affected by the current housing and 

economic crisis. Each day, external factors are affecting a more vulnerable population and thus creating different tiers and descriptions of those who are homeless 

veterans. Living with neighbors and relatives, staying short-term in hotel rooms, 

and in vehicles are the realities of those who are unemployed and homeless. To 

quote a veteran who wishes to remain anonymous: ‘‘I’ve been crashing on my buddy’s couch for 6 months while trying to find a job.’’ It is important to note that this 

veteran is not accounted for in the classic definition of homeless. 

HOUSING COST BURDEN AMONGST VETERANS 

The American Legion is very concerned with the ever-growing gap of housing expenses versus veterans’ income. The National Alliance to End Homelessness 

(NAEH) report, ‘‘Vital Mission, Ending Homelessness Among Veterans’’ reports that 

currently, over 930,000 veterans pay more than 50 percent of their income toward 

housing, be it renting or owning a home. (476,877 rent/ 453,354 own). 

‘‘There is a subset of veterans who rent housing and have severe housing 

cost burden (paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing 

costs). Of all veterans who rent housing (476,877), approximately 10 percent pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Of those with severe 

housing cost burden, 20 percent are very low income (have incomes at or 

below 50 percent of area median income) and 67 percent are extremely low 

income (have incomes at or below 30 percent of area median income). More 

than half of veterans with severe housing cost burden (55 percent) fall 

below the poverty level and 43 percent are receiving foods stamps. Using 

bivariate analysis, the National Alliance to End Homelessness found a 

number of statistically significant differences among veterans with severe 

housing cost burden and those paying less than 50 percent of their income 

for housing.’’ 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

104 

The 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the median monthly housing costs for mortgaged owners was 

$1,402, non-mortgaged owners $399, and renters $763. Approximately 37 percent of 

owners with mortgages, 16 percent of owners without mortgages, and 50 percent of 

renters in the United States spent 30 percent or more of household income on housing. The 2006 ACS further states that the median income for veterans in the past 

12 months of their survey was $34,437. 

Numerous mortgage consultants and financial advisors recommend adhering to 

the 28 percent/36 percent debt to income qualifying ratio. That is, in order to safely 

own a home or rent, an individual should be within the 28/36 range in order to 

withstand emergency financial situations without becoming delinquent in payments. 

Using his ratio, the median monthly cost of $1,402 for housing expenses is approximately $400 greater than what the average veteran can afford. 

Debt to Income Example (28/36 qualifying ratio model) 

Yearly Gross Income = $34,437 / Divided by 12 = $2,870 per month income 

$2,870 Monthly Income × .28 = $803 allowed for housing expense × .36 = $1,033 allowed for housing expense plus recurring debt 

The VA Loan Guarantee service has a very strong program, but even they report that the median income of all of their veteran loan holders is $60,276, or an average 

of $5,023 a month. However, they have reported a drop in loan initiations every 

month since 2003 (50,000 in August 2003 to 10,000 at the end of FY 2007). This 

could indicate that recently discharged and younger veterans may not be able to afford a home even using the VA Loan Guarantee program. Research should be conducted to ascertain the average age of a veteran homeowner and the correlation between the median income, affordability of homes, and the impact of the VA Loan 

Guarantee Program. 

CONCLUSION 

The Homeless Grant and Per Diem program is effective, but should be augmented 

with additional HUD–VASH Program vouchers. With 300,000 service members becoming veterans each year the availability of transitional housing must be increased. Our observations have shown that when the GPD program is allocated 

money, they are successful in distributing grants and administering their program 

and are only limited by the total dollar amount of funds available. 

Affordable housing, transition assistance, education, and employment are each a 

pillar of financial stability. They will prevent homelessness, afford veterans to compete in the private sector, and allow this nation’s veterans to contribute their transferable military occupational skills and education to the civilian sector. Homeless 

veterans have answered the call of duty for this country and are not asking for a 

handout, but rather a hand up. 

The American Legion looks forward to continue working with the Committee to 

assist the nation’s homeless veterans and to prevent future homelessness. Mr. 

Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my statement. 

f 

Statement of Hon. Jeff Miller, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Homelessness among our nation’s veterans is a concern that Congress has been 

diligently working to address. Understanding the needs of this special population— 

including food, clothing, shelter, medical services, job training, and transportation— 

is critical to ending homelessness among veterans. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest Federal provider of direct 

assistance to the homeless, and has been providing specialized services to homeless 

veterans for over 20 years. And, it is encouraging to note that VA reports a 21 percent drop in the number of homeless veterans from 2006 to 2007. Yet, we still are 

a long way from meeting our goal to end chronic homelessness in this decade. 

Sadly, my home state of Florida has the third highest population of homeless veterans in the country. That is why ensuring that programs available through VA are 

effective and monitoring programs to help veterans reach and maintain their independence is so important to me. 

I want to note that VA is planning at least 10 ‘‘Stand Downs’’ in Florida this year. 

Stand Downs are collaborative events, coordinated between local VA’s, other government agencies, and community agencies who serve the homeless. These events are 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

105 

important to reaching out to homeless veterans. They provide food, shelter, clothing, 

health screenings, VA and Social Security benefits counseling, and referrals to a variety of other necessary services, such as housing, employment and substance abuse 

treatment. 

The veteran population is becoming more diverse and we have a special obligation 

to ensure that VA adapts their programs to meet the needs of all of our veterans. 

While a majority of homeless veterans are male, we are seeing an increase in the 

number of women serving in our military, and women veterans are also overrepresented among the homeless population. Additionally, over 400 veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom have sought VA services for 

homeless veterans. These men and women have served us honorably, and it is now 

our turn to serve them, and give them the tools they need to reintegrate into civilian 

life. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and their view of what we 

must do to combat the vicious cycle of homelessness and prevent those veterans at 

risk of homelessness from becoming homeless. 

f 

Statement of Hon. John T. Salazar, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Good morning Chairman Filner, Ranking Member Buyer and distinguished members of this Committee. 

I thank the witnesses joining us here today and look forward to hearing their expert testimony and their personal experiences with homelessness across our nation. 

Our servicemen and women willingly serve our Nation to ensure that our rights 

and freedoms are preserved. 

At times, their service places them in harm’s way. 

It is a tragedy when a veteran loses his or her life in the service of our nation. 

It is also tragic when these brave individuals return from the battlefield without 

the ability or the tools to reintegrate into civilian life. 

This has resulted in dedicated and talented individuals falling victim to poverty 

and homelessness. 

According to the Veterans’ Administration, nearly one-quarter of all homeless 

adults are veterans. 

In addition, many of our veterans who live in poverty are at risk of becoming 

homeless. 

I know that homelessness is a major issue for Veterans in the Third District of 

Colorado. 

The issue of homelessness among veterans is particularly moving. 

It is unbelievable to think that in our Nation, individuals who gave so much of 

themselves can end up without such a basic human need. 

We are fortunate to have such a courageous group of people serving in our armed 

forces. 

They deserve to know that after serving our Nation, there are programs in place 

to help them enter into civilian life. 

I look forward to working with the committee, the VA, community groups and others to address the issue of homelessness among our Veteran population. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of this committee for giving us the 

opportunity to discuss these issues that are so important to the well-being of our 

veterans. 

f 

Statement of Sandra A. Miller, Chair, 

Homeless Veterans Committee, Vietnam Veterans of America 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, my name 

is Sandra A. Miller. I served as a senior enlisted woman in the U.S. Navy from 1975 

until 1981 and I currently chair Vietnam Veterans of America’s (VVA) Homeless 

Veterans Committee. Perhaps more importantly, I work with homeless veterans as 

the daily Program Coordinator of a transitional residence, one of the many programs provided by The Philadelphia Veterans Multi-Service & Education Center. 

Our transitional residence receives funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program (HGPD) and operates under a shared lease 

agreement on the grounds of the Coatesville VA Medical Center. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

106 

On behalf of VVA, I thank you and your colleagues for this opportunity to submit 

testimony sharing our views on the status of homeless assistance programs for veterans conducted by the VA. 

Homelessness continues to be a significant problem for veterans. The VA estimates about one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country 

in the Armed Services. Current population estimates suggest that about 154,000 

veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as 

many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. 

Federal efforts regarding homeless veterans must be particularly vigorous for 

women veterans with minor children in their care. And those Federal agencies that 

have responsibilities in addressing this situation, particularly the Departments of 

Veterans Affairs, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development, must work in concert and should be held accountable for achieving clearly defined results. 

VA HOMELESS GRANT & PER DIEM PROGRAM 

The VA’s Homeless Grant & Per Diem Program has been in existence since 1994. 

Since then, thousands of homeless veterans have availed themselves of the programs provided by community-based service providers. In some areas of this country, the VA and community-based service providers work successfully in a collaborative effort to actively address homelessness among veterans. The communitybased service providers are able to supply much needed services in a cost-effective 

and efficient manner. The VA recognizes this and encourages residential and service 

center programs in areas where homeless veterans would most benefit. The VA 

HGPD program offers funding in a highly competitive grant round. Because financial resources available to HGPD are limited, the number of grants awarded and 

the dollars granted are restrictive and hence many geographic areas in need suffer 

a loss that HGPD could address. 

It has been VVA’s position that VA Homeless Grant and Per Diem funding must 

be considered a payment rather than a reimbursement for expenses, an important 

distinction that will enable the community-based organizations that deliver the majority of these services to operate more effectively. Per diem dollars received by services centers are not capable of obtaining or retaining appropriate staffing to provide 

services supporting the special needs of the veterans seeking assistance. Per diem 

for service centers is provided on an hourly rate, currently only $3.91 per hour. The 

reality is that most city and municipality social services do not have the knowledge 

or capacity to provide appropriate supportive services that directly involve the treatment, care, and entitlements of veterans. 

Veterans are disproportionately represented among the homeless population, accounting, according to most estimates, for one in three homeless persons on any 

given night—and roughly 400,000 veterans over the course of a year. VA’s Grant 

and Per Diem program is effective in creating and aiding local shelters by providing 

transitional housing, vocational rehabilitation, and referrals for clinical services. 

VVA is recommending that Congress go above the authorizing level for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem program and fund the program at $200 million and not 

the $138 million authorized. Additionally, VVA supports and seeks legislation to establish Supportive Services Assistance Grants for VA Homeless Grant and Per Diem 

Service Center Grant awardees. 

VA HOMELESS DOMICILIARY PROGRAMS 

Domiciliary programs located within various medical centers throughout the VA 

system have proven costly. As stand-alone programs, many do not display a high 

rate of long-term success. Additionally, not all VISNs even have Homeless Domiciliary programs. 

Programs assisting homeless veterans need to show a cost/benefit ratio in order 

to survive. Due to the Federal pay scales and other indirect cost factors, VA Homeless Domiciliary programs generally cost twice as much per homeless veteran participant (often over $100 per day per veteran) as programs of community-based organizations. If the operational cost of the VA Homeless Domiciliary program is to be justified, then an assurance of success, including a diminished rate of recidivism, 

should be expected. This is not always the case and is especially true if the veteran 

has no linked transitional residential placement at time of discharge. A linkage with 

non-profit community programs will enhance outcomes in a cost-effective manner 

and openly speak to the belief in the ‘‘continuum of care’’ concept embraced by the 

VA. HGPD has increased transitional placement possibilities in a number of areas, 

but more are desperately needed. 

Where no VA Homeless Veteran Domiciliary exists, VVA urges the VA to form 

an active linkage with community-based organizations for extended homeless veteran transitional services at the conclusion of VA Homeless Domiciliary care. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

107 

HOMELESS VETERANS SPECIAL NEEDS 

VVA urges the Presidential Interagency Council on Homeless to recognize homeless veterans as a Special Needs Population. Further, we urge Congress to require 

all entities/agencies, including non-profit and governmental, that receive Federal 

program funding dollars, to report statistics on the number of veterans they serve, 

their residential status, and the services needed and provided. Additionally, VVA 

supports legislation that would incorporate a ‘‘fair share’’ dollar approach for the 

Federal funding of all homeless programs and services to specifically target homeless veterans. 

HOMELESS WOMEN VETERANS 

Women comprise a growing segment of the Armed Forces, and thousands have 

been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the 154,000 homeless veterans estimated 

by the VA, women make up 3 percent of that population. The VA must be prepared 

to provide services to these former servicemembers in appropriate settings. 

One of the confounding factors with homeless women veterans is the sexual trauma many if not most of them suffered during their service to our Nation. Few of 

us can know the dark places in which those who have suffered as the result of rape 

and physical abuse must live every day. It is a very long road to find the path that 

leads them to some semblance of ‘‘normalcy’’ and helps them escape from the secluded, lonely, fearful, angry corner in which they have been hiding. Not all residential programs are designed to treat mental health problems of this very vulnerable 

population. In light of the high incidence of past sexual trauma, rape, and domestic 

violence, many of these women find it difficult, if not impossible, to share residential 

programs with their male counterparts. They openly discuss their concern for a safe 

treatment setting, especially where the treatment unit layout does not provide them 

with a physically segregated, secured area. In light of the nature of some of their 

personal and trauma issues, they also discuss the need for gender-specific group sessions. The VA requests that all residential treatment areas be evaluated for the 

ability to provide and facilitate these services, and that medical centers develop 

plans to ensure this accommodation. 

While some facilities have found innovative solutions to meet the unique needs 

of women veterans, others are still lagging behind. VVA believes that to adequately 

serve this growing special population of veterans, additional funding is required. We 

recommend an additional $10 million over FY08. 

HUD–VASH 

In 1992, the VA joined with HUD to launch the HUD–VASH program. HUD funded almost 600 vouchers for this program. Through the end of FY’02, 4,300 veterans 

had been served by the program, and had participated for an average of 4.1 years. 

Of veterans enrolled in the program, 90 percent successfully obtained vouchers and 

87 percent moved into an apartment of their own. This partnership highlights the 

success of linking ongoing clinical care to permanent housing to assist homeless 

chronically mentally ill veterans. This program was given additional HUD–VASH 

vouchers with the passage of P.L. 107–95, which authorized 500 HUD/VASH vouchers in FY’03, 1,000 in FY’04, 1,500 in FY’05, and 2,000 in FY’06. The program was 

reauthorized under section 710, Rental Assistance Vouchers for Veterans Affairs 

Supported Housing Program, with the passage of PL 109–461, which authorized 500 

vouchers for FY’07, 1,000 vouchers for FY’08, 1,500 vouchers for FY’09, 2,000 vouchers for FY’10 and 2,500 vouchers for FY’11. 

VVA applauds the Senate Appropriations Committee for having funded 

$75,000,000 for the HUD–VASH Program in Public Law 110–161. The vouchers created by this funding will prove paramount in addressing the permanent housing 

needs of our less fortunate veterans. By allocating this funding, Congress has given 

providers the greatest tool possible in our fight to end homelessness among our veterans. VVA supports the FY’09 appropriations request from the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development for $75,000,000, which will provide an additional 

10,000 vouchers. If enacted into law, some 20,000 vouchers will now be available 

to assist homeless veterans. VVA urges this Committee to reach out to your colleagues and request their support of these vouchers. 

‘‘SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY’’ PROGRAMS 

VVA realizes that, to a certain extent, the budget drives the ability of the VA to 

fund HGPD programs. Consider these few items: the VA’s limited funding ability; 

the decreasing desire of HUD to fund Supportive Services programs; the disincentives placed by HUD on cities to renew the McKinney-Vento supportive services program; the impact that lost supportive service programs will have on the local social 

service system. Drop-in centers are one type of program that utilize homeless grants 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

108 

for what is known as ‘‘Supportive Services Only’’ (SSO) funding. HUD funds these 

SSO programs via the local agency’s inclusion on their city’s priority list for its annual HUD McKinney-Vento submission. When originally funded, an agency was required to commit to a 20-year operational program. SSO programs targeting homeless veterans are included in this evolving funding atmosphere. Our question is: To 

what extent are the cities responsible for the continued renewals of programs that 

were previously vital to the local continuum? 

We ask this in light of the 20-year financial burden of commitment required by 

small non-profit agencies when they are originally awarded grants and led to believe 

they are a crucial component and partner to the comprehensive approach to the 

elimiNation of homelessness. To suggest the non-profits find alternate funding in 

order to continue and satisfy a commitment of over 20 years seems unrealistic in 

light of the very limited grant funding available for these programs. In some instances, this could ultimately lead to the death of some non-profit agencies—the life 

line of not only the agencies’ homeless clients, but also some of the city social service 

agencies that depend on the agency to assist with clients in an already over-burdened local service system. 

At a time when the big push is on permanent housing for the homeless, with 

wraparound supportive services, is it logical to eliminate these programs on the 

community level? In light of this situation, and as a logical fit, VVA believes it is 

time for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to enter this arena. 

We urge this Committee to encourage HHS to work with the VA in establishing a 

unique partnership, creating a joint program in an effort to provide enhanced opportunities to homeless veterans. VVA urges a continuing dialog between these two 

agencies to reach a viable option to the situation that is facing the non-profits gravely concerned about their own potential demise. What a terrible loss this would be 

to the structure of community involvement that has been so encouraged. 

PERMANENT HOUSING NEEDS FOR LOW-INCOME VETERANS 

Although the Federal government makes a sizeable investment in home ownership opportunities for veterans, there is no parallel national rental housing assistance program targeted to low-income veterans. Veterans are not well served through 

existing housing assistance programs due to their program designs. Low-income veterans in and of themselves are not a priority population for subsidized housing assistance. And HUD devotes minimal attention to the housing needs of low-income 

veterans. This has been made abundantly clear by the longstanding vacancy for special assistant for veterans programs within the Office of Community Planning and 

Development. It is imperative that Congress elevate national attention to the housing assistance needs of our Nation’s low-income veterans. 

P.L. 105–276, The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 under 

Title III, permanently repealed Federal preferences for public housing and allowed 

the Public Housing Authority to establish preference for low-income veterans applying for public housing. In accordance with the GAO report, ‘‘Rental Housing Information on Low-Income Veterans Housing Condition and Participation in HUD’s Programs,’’ only a few of the PHAs surveyed were using veterans’ preference criteria 

to assist low income veterans with housing. VVA has found no mention of these 

guidelines in any of the 5-year plans issued by the PHAs since the law was passed 

in 1998, which means HUD is once again creating homeless veterans by not abiding 

by and instead overlooking laws mandated by Congress. 

VVA is requesting that this committee support H.R. 3329, the Homes for Heroes 

Act of 2007 introduced by Representative Al Green, which would repeal the 1998 

decision and provide additional benefits and services to homeless veterans. VVA also 

encourages this committee to begin open dialog with your colleagues on the House 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 

and Related Agencies, for they are a willing partner in ending homelessness among 

veterans. 

Lastly, VVA urges full funding to the authorized level of $50 million for the 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) administered by the Department 

of Labor. This training/employment program has long suffered the consequences of 

limited funding. How can the DOL extol a commitment to the training of homeless 

veterans and deny them the full funding that has been requested under P.L. 107– 

95 and P.L. 109–233? 

Former Congressman Lane Evans, in a 1994 statement before the full House of 

Representatives, explained, ‘‘Veterans are veterans no matter what else has transpired in their lives. These men and women served our nation. Providing them with 

their rightful benefits can only remind them of their prior commitment to society, 

promote their sense of self, and further their rehabilitation.’’ 

VVA strongly believes that homeless veterans have perhaps the best possibility 

for achieving rehabilitation because at an earlier point in their lives they did have 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

109 

a steady, responsible job and lifestyle in the military. We hope to recoup these individuals in the most efficient manner, thereby saving Federal resources. And we 

must do so with bipartisan support from our Congressional leaders. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

110 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

CRS REPORT TO CONGRESS 

Order Code RL34024 

Veterans and Homelessness 

Updated April 4, 2008 

Libby Perl, Analyst in Housing, Domestic Social Policy Division 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Summary .................................................................................................................. 111 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 111 

Overview of Veterans and Homelessness ................................................................ 112 

Definition of ‘‘Homeless Veteran’’ ........................................................................ 112 

Counts of Homeless Veterans ............................................................................... 113 

The Department of Veterans Affairs ................................................................ 113 

CHALENG Estimates FY1998–FY2006 ....................................................... 113 

CHALENG Estimate FY2007 ....................................................................... 113 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development ................................... 114 

Characteristics of Homeless Veterans ................................................................. 114 

Overrepresentation of Veterans in the Homeless Population ................................ 115 

Overrepresentation of Male Veterans .................................................................. 115 

Overrepresentation of Female Veterans .............................................................. 116 

Why Are Veterans Overrepresented in the Homeless Population? ..................... 117 

Factors Present During and After Military Service ....................................... 118 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) ..................................................... 118 

Factors that Pre-Date Military Service ........................................................... 118 

Federal Programs that Serve Homeless Veterans .................................................. 119 

The Department of Veterans Affairs ................................................................... 122 

Health Care for Homeless Veterans ................................................................. 122 

Program Data ................................................................................................ 122 

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans ........................................................ 122 

Program Data ................................................................................................ 123 

Compensated Work Therapy/Therapeutic Residence Program ..................... 123 

Grant and Per Diem Program ......................................................................... 123 

Program Rules and Data .............................................................................. 124 

Grant and Per Diem for Homeless Veterans with Special Needs .............. 124 

HUD–VASH ...................................................................................................... 124 

Program Evaluations .................................................................................... 125 

Loan Guarantee for Multifamily Transitional Housing Program ................. 125 

Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Veterans ............................................. 126 

The Department of Labor ..................................................................................... 126 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program ..................................................... 126 

Program Data ................................................................................................ 127 

Stand Downs for Homeless Veterans ........................................................... 127 

Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program Demonstration Grants .......... 127 

Emerging Issues ....................................................................................................... 128 

Permanent Supportive Housing .......................................................................... 128 

Veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .................................................. 128 

Female Veterans ................................................................................................... 129 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Results from Four Studies: Veterans as a Percentage of the Homeless 

Population and Likelihood of Experiencing Homelessness ................................ 116 

Table 2. Funding for Selected Homeless Veterans Programs, FY1988–FY2008 .. 120 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

111 

Summary 

The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought renewed attention to 

the needs of veterans, including the needs of homeless veterans. The Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that it has served approximately 400 returning 

veterans in its homeless programs and has identified over 1,500 more as being at 

risk of homelessness. Both male and female veterans are overrepresented in the 

homeless population, and as the number of veterans increases due to the current 

wars, there is concern that the number of homeless veterans could rise commensurately. 

Congress has created numerous programs that serve homeless veterans specifically, almost all of which are funded through the Veterans Health Administration. 

These programs provide health care and rehabilitation services for homeless veterans (the Health Care for Homeless Veterans and Domiciliary Care for Homeless 

Veterans programs), employment assistance (Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and Compensated Work Therapy program), transitional housing (Grant and 

Per Diem and Loan Guarantee programs) as well as other supportive services. 

Through an arrangement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), approximately 1,000 veterans currently use dedicated Section 8 vouchers for 

permanent housing, with supportive services provided through the VA. These are 

referred to as HUD–VASH vouchers. In FY2007, it is estimated that approximately 

$282 million was used to fund programs targeted to homeless veterans. 

Several issues regarding veterans and homelessness have become prominent, in 

part because of the current conflicts. One issue is the need for permanent supportive 

housing for low-income and homeless veterans. With the exception of HUD–VASH 

vouchers, there is no source of permanent housing specifically for veterans. In 

FY2007, the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act (P.L. 

109–461) authorized funding for additional HUD–VASH vouchers. Although these 

vouchers were not initially funded, the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act 

(P.L. 110–161) included $75 million for Section 8 vouchers for homeless veterans. 

In addition, proposed legislation in the 110th Congress would both fund additional 

vouchers and provide resources for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction 

of permanent supportive housing for very low-income veterans and their families. 

A second emerging issue is the concern that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who are at risk of homelessness may not receive the services they need. 

Efforts are being made to coordinate services between the VA and Department of 

Defense to ensure that those leaving military service transition to VA programs. Another emerging issue is the needs of female veterans, whose numbers are increasing. 

Women veterans face challenges that could contribute to their risks of homelessness. 

They are more likely to have experienced sexual abuse than women in the general 

population and are more likely than male veterans to be single parents. Few homeless programs for veterans have the facilities to provide separate accommodations 

for women and women with children. 

Introduction 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought renewed attention to the needs 

of veterans, including the needs of homeless veterans. Homeless veterans initially 

came to the country’s attention in the seventies and eighties, when homelessness 

generally was becoming a more prevalent and noticeable phenomenon. The first section of this report defines the term ‘‘homeless veteran,’’ discusses attempts to count 

homeless veterans, and presents the results of studies regarding the characteristics 

of homeless veterans. 

At the same time that the number of homeless persons began to grow, it became 

clear through various analyses of homeless individuals that homeless veterans are 

overrepresented in the homeless population. The second section of this report summarizes the available research regarding the overrepresentation of both male and 

female veterans, who are present in greater percentages in the homeless population 

than their percentages in the general population. This section also reviews research 

regarding possible explanations for why homeless veterans are overrepresented. 

In response to the issue of homelessness among veterans, the Federal government 

has created numerous programs to fund services and transitional housing specifically for homeless veterans. The third section of this report discusses eight of these 

programs. The majority of programs are funded through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Within the VA, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 

which is responsible for the health care of veterans, operates all but one of the programs for homeless veterans. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which 

is responsible for compensation, pensions, educational assistance, home loan guarantees, and insurance, operates the other. In addition, the Department of Labor operjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

112 

1Peter H. Rossi, Down and Out in America: The Origins of Homelessness (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 181–194, 41. See, also, Martha Burt, Over the Edge: The Growth 

of Homelessness in the 1980s (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992), 31–126. 2Down and Out in America, p. 34; Over the Edge, p. 123. 3See Randall Kuhn and Dennis P. Culhane, ‘‘Applying Cluster Analysis to Test a Typology 

of Homelessness by Pattern of Shelter Utilization: Results from the Analysis of Administrative 

Data,’’ American Journal of Community Psychology 26, no. 2 (April 1998): 210–212. 4Martha R. Burt, Laudan Y. Aron et al., Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve, 

Technical Report, Urban Institute, December 1999, p. 11–1, available at http://www.huduser.org/ 

Publications/pdf/home_tech/tchap-11.pdf. Of homeless male veterans surveyed, 32% reported 

being homeless for 13 or more months, versus 17% of nonveteran homeless men. 5Marjorie J. Robertson, ‘‘Homeless Veterans, An Emerging Problem?’’ in The Homeless in Contemporary Society, ed. Richard J. Bingham, Roy E. Green, and Sammis B. White (Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1987), 66. 6 Ibid, pp. 64–65. 

7The United States Code defines the term as ‘‘a veteran who is homeless’’ as defined by the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 38 U.S.C. § 2002(1). 8 12 U.S.C. § 101(2). 

ates one program for homeless veterans. In FY2007, approximately $282 million 

funded the majority of programs targeted to homeless veterans. 

Several issues regarding homelessness among veterans have become prominent 

since the beginning of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fourth section of 

this report discusses three of these emerging issues. The first is the need for permanent supportive housing for homeless and low-income veterans. A second issue is 

ensuring that an adequate transition process exists for returning veterans to assist 

them with issues that might put them at risk of homelessness. Third is the concern 

that adequate services might not exist to serve the needs of women veterans. This 

report will be updated when new statistical information becomes available and to 

reflect programmatic changes. 

Overview of Veterans and Homelessness 

Homelessness has always existed in the United States, but only in recent decades 

has the issue come to prominence. In the 1970s and 1980s, the number of homeless 

persons increased, as did their visibility. Experts cite various causes for the increase 

in homelessness. These include the demolition of single room occupancy dwellings 

in so-called ‘‘skid rows’’ where transient single men lived, the decreased availability 

of affordable housing generally, the reduced need for seasonal unskilled labor, the 

reduced likelihood that relatives will accommodate homeless family members, the 

decreased value of public benefits, and changed admissions standards at mental 

hospitals.1 The increased visibility of homeless persons was due, in part, to the decriminalization of actions such as public drunkenness, loitering, and vagrancy.2

Homelessness occurs among families with children and single individuals, in rural 

communities as well as large urban cities, and for varying periods of time. Depending on circumstances, periods of homelessness may vary from days to years. Researchers have created three categories of homelessness based on the amount of 

time that individuals are homeless.3 First, the transitionally homeless are those 

who have one short stay in a homeless shelter before returning to permanent housing. In the second category, those who are episodically homeless frequently move in 

and out of homelessness but do not remain homeless for long periods of time. Third, 

the chronically homeless are those who are homeless continuously for a period of 

one year or have at least four episodes of homelessness in three years. Chronically 

homeless individuals often suffer from mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders. Although veterans experience all types of homelessness, they are thought to 

be chronically homeless in higher numbers than nonveterans.4

Homeless veterans began to come to the attention of the public at the same time 

that homelessness generally was becoming more common. News accounts chronicled 

the plight of veterans who had served their country but were living (and dying) on 

the street.5 The commonly held notion that the military experience provides young 

people with job training, educational and other benefits, as well as the maturity 

needed for a productive life, conflicted with the presence of veterans among the 

homeless population.6

Definition of ‘‘Homeless Veteran’’ 

Although the term ‘‘homeless veteran’’ might appear straightforward, it contains 

two layers of definition.7 First, the definition of ‘‘veteran’’ for purposes of Title 38 

benefits (the Title of the United States Code that governs veterans benefits) is a 

person who ‘‘served in the active military, naval, or air service’’ and was not dishonorably discharged.8 In order to be a ‘‘veteran’’ who is eligible for benefits according 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

113 

9The McKinney-Vento definition of homeless individual is codified at 42 U.S.C. 11302(a). 

10For the most recent CHALENG report, see John H. Kuhn and John Nakashima, The Fourteenth Annual Progress Report on Public Law 105–114: Services for Homeless Veterans Assessment and CoordiNation, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, February 28, 2008 (hereafter 

Fourteenth Annual CHALENG Report). Congress required the VA to issue the report as part 

of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act 1994, P.L. 103–446 (38 U.S.C. § 2065). 11Government Accountability Office, Homeless Veterans Programs: Improved Communications 

and Follow-up Could Further Enhance the Grant and Per Diem Program, GAO–06–859, September 2006, p. 13, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06859.pdf. 12 Continuums of Care are typically formed by cities, counties, or combinations of both. Representatives from local government agencies and service provider organizations serve on CoC 

boards, which conduct the business of the CoC. HUD first required these Continuums of Care 

to conduct counts of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in 2005. 

to this definition, at least four criteria must be met. (For a detailed discussion of 

these criteria see CRS Report RL33113, Veterans Affairs: Basic Eligibility for Disability Benefit Program, by Douglas Reid Weimer.) 

Second, veterans are considered homeless if they meet the definition of ‘‘homeless 

individual’’ established by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100– 

77).9 According to McKinney-Vento, a homeless individual is (1) an individual who 

lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, and (2) a person who has 

a nighttime residence that is: 

• a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, 

and transitional housing for the mentally ill); 

• an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to 

be institutionalized; or 

• a public or private place not designed for, nor ordinarily used as, a regular 

sleeping accommodation for human beings. 

Counts of Homeless Veterans 

The Department of Veterans Affairs. The exact number of homeless veterans 

is unknown, although attempts have been made to estimate their numbers. In every 

year since 1998, the VA has included estimates of the number of homeless veterans 

receiving services in its ‘‘Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education 

and Networking Groups’’ (CHALENG) report to Congress.10 The estimates are made 

as part of the CHALENG process, through which representatives from each local VA 

medical center called ‘‘points of contact’’ (POCs) coordinate with service providers 

from state and local governments and nonprofit organizations as well as homeless 

or formerly homeless veterans themselves to determine the needs of homeless veterans and plan for how to best deliver services. 

CHALENG Estimates FY1998–FY2006. In the first six years of CHALENG estimates (FY1998 through FY2003), the VA asked POCs to estimate the number of 

veterans homeless at any time during the year. Starting in FY2004 and continuing 

through FY2006, the VA changed its methodology, and asked POCs from each medical center to provide estimates of the highest number of veterans who are homeless 

on any given day during the year. The new methodology used in the FY2004– 

FY2006 CHALENG estimates is a point-in-time count and is not meant to reflect 

the total number of veterans who might experience homelessness at some time during the year. The VA considers the estimates from FY2004 to FY2006 to be more 

reliable than earlier estimates.11

CHALENG Estimate FY2007. During the FY2007 CHALENG process, the VA 

again asked POCs to provide a point-in-time estimate, just as they had in FY2004– 

FY2006. However, for the first time, the VA asked that POC estimates of homeless 

veterans coincide with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

counts of homeless individuals. Every other year HUD directs local jurisdictions 

called ‘‘Continuums of Care’’ (CoCs) 12 to conduct a count of sheltered and 

unsheltered homeless persons on one night during the last week of January (though 

some CoCs conduct counts every year). The most recent HUD count in which all 

CoCs participated took place in January 2007. 

To arrive at the FY2007 CHALENG estimate, POCs estimated the number of veterans experiencing homelessness on one night during the same 1-week period used 

by HUD. In order to bring the VA count in line with HUD estimates, POCs compared their 2007 estimates to the 2005 HUD estimates (the most recent data available at that time); if there were ‘‘major differences’’ between the two estimates, the 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

114 

13Fourteenth Annual CHALENG Report, p. 16. 14 Ibid, pp. 16–17. 15 Ibid, p. 16. 16 Ibid, pp. 16–17. 17 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Second Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, March 2008, available at http://www.hudhre.info/documents/ 

2ndHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf. 18 Ibid, p. 23. 19 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, February 2007, p. 31, available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ 

ahar.pdf. 20 ‘‘Homeless Veterans,’’ pp. 104–105. 21 Ibid, p. 105. 22 Richard Tessler, Robert Rosenheck, and Gail Gamache, ‘‘Comparison of Homeless Veterans 

with Other Homeless Men in a Large Clinical Outreach Program,’’ Psychiatric Quarterly 73, no. 

2 (Summer 2002): 113–114. 

POCs provided an explaNation of why this might be the case.13 In some jurisdictions, POC estimates were adjusted to be more consistent with HUD’s estimates. In 

addition to consulting HUD estimates, some POCs (71%) used more than one source 

to arrive at their estimates of homeless veterans. These included U.S. Census data 

(10%), VA low-income population estimates (7%), local homeless census studies 

(42%), VA client data (36%), estimates from local homeless assistance providers 

(59%), and VA staff impressions (52%).14

The most recent CHALENG report estimated that 154,000 veterans were homeless on one day during the last week of January 2007.15 This estimate is down from 

2006 and 2005 estimates of 195,827 and 194,254 respectively. The VA hypothesizes 

that improved methodology, VA program interventions for homeless veterans, and 

the changing demographics of the veteran population could account for the reduction 

in the CHALENG estimate.16

The Department of Housing and Urban Development. In addition to the 

CoC point-in-time counts, described above, HUD is engaged in an ongoing process 

to count homeless persons, including homeless veterans, through its Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). Continuums of Care collect and store information about homeless individuals they serve, and the information is aggregated in 

computer systems at the CoC level. Eventually the HMIS initiative is expected to 

produce an unduplicated count of homeless individuals as well as a summary of demographic information. HUD has released two Annual Homeless Assessment Reports (AHARs), in which it used HMIS data to estimate the number of individuals 

nationwide who were homeless during particular periods of time. The most recent 

AHAR was released in March 2008 and estimated the number of individuals who 

experienced homelessness at some point during a six-month period, from January 

1 to June 30, 2006.17 These estimates did not include homeless persons who were 

not residing in emergency shelters or transitional housing during the relevant time 

periods. 

The first and second AHARs did not provide estimates of the number of homeless 

veterans, though they did provide estimates of the percentage of the adult homeless 

population who are veterans. There are limitations to these data, however. The second AHAR estimated that 14.3% of adults who were homeless during the 6-month 

period from January 1 to June 30, 2006, were veterans (while 11.2% of the general 

population were veterans).18 These data do not include persons living on the street 

or other location not meant for human habitation. In addition, 20% of records were 

missing data on veteran status. The first AHAR estimated that 18.7% of the homeless population were veterans (compared to 12.6% of the general population) in the 

three-month period between February 1 and April 30, 2005. Of the records submitted, 35% were missing information on veteran status.19 (For more information 

about efforts to count homeless persons, see CRS Report RL33956, Counting Homeless Persons: Homeless Management Information Systems, by Libby Perl.) 

Characteristics of Homeless Veterans 

Homeless male veterans differ from homeless men who are nonveterans in a variety of ways. According to data from several studies during the 1980s, homeless male 

veterans were more likely to be older and better educated than the general population of homeless men.20 However, they were found to have more health problems 

than nonveteran homeless men, including AIDS, cancer, and hypertension.21 They 

also suffered from mental illness and alcohol abuse at higher rates than nonveterans. A study published in 2002 found similar results regarding age and education. Homeless male veterans tended to be older, on average, than nonveteran 

homeless men.22 Homeless veterans were also different in that they had reached 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

115 

23 Veterans averaged 12.43 years of education completed, versus 11.21 for nonveterans. 24Family instability is measured by factors that include parental separation or divorce and 

time spent in foster care. 25 Conduct disorder is measured by factors such as school suspensions, expulsions, drinking, 

using drugs, stealing, and fighting. 26Gail Gamache, Robert Rosenheck, and Richard Tessler, ‘‘Overrepresentation of Women Veterans Among Homeless Women,’’ American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 7 (July 2003): 1133– 

1134 (hereafter ‘‘Overrepresentation of Women Veterans Among Homeless Women’’). 27Martha R. Burt, Laudan Y. Aron, et al., Homelessness: Programs and the People They 

Serve: Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients, Technical 

Report, December 1999, available at http://www.huduser.org/publications/homeless/homeless_tech.html. 28Martha R. Burt and Barbara E. Cohen, America’s Homeless: Numbers, Characteristics, and 

Programs that Serve Them (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, July 1989). 29See Gail Gamache, Robert Rosenheck, and Richard Tessler, ‘‘The Proportion of Veterans 

Among Homeless Men: A Decade Later,’’ Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 36, no. 

10 (October 2001): 481 (hereafter ‘‘The Proportion of Homeless Veterans Among Men: A Decade 

Later’’). ‘‘Overrepresentation of Women Veterans Among Homeless Women,’’ p. 1134. 30Generally, the Vietnam era is defined as the period from 1964 to 1975. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 101(29)(B). 31 Alvin S. Mares and Robert A. Rosenheck, ‘‘Perceived Relationship Between Military Service 

and Homelessness Among Homeless Veterans with Mental Illness,’’ The Journal of Nervous and 

Mental Disease 192, no. 10 (October 2004): 715. 

higher levels of education than their nonveteran counterparts 23 and were more likely to be working for pay. They were also more likely to have been homeless for more 

than one year, and more likely to be dependent on or abuse alcohol. Family backgrounds among homeless veterans tended to be more stable, with veterans experiencing less family instability 24 and fewer incidents of conduct disorder,25 while also 

being less likely to have never married than nonveteran homeless men. 

Homeless women veterans have also been found to have different characteristics 

than nonveteran homeless women. Based on data collected during the late 1990s, 

female veterans, like male veterans, were found to have reached higher levels of 

education than nonveteran homeless women, and also more likely to have been employed in the 30 days prior to being surveyed.26 They also had more stable family 

backgrounds, and lower rates of conduct disorder as children. 

Overrepresentation of Veterans in the Homeless Population 

Research that has captured information about the entire national homeless population, including veteran status, is rare. Although HUD is engaged in ongoing efforts 

to collect information about homeless individuals, the most extensive information 

about homeless veterans specifically comes from earlier studies. Possibly the most 

comprehensive national data collection effort regarding persons experiencing homelessness took place in 1996 as part of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance 

Providers and Clients (NSHAPC), when researchers interviewed thousands of homeless assistance providers and homeless individuals across the country.27 Prior to the 

NSHAPC, in 1987, researchers from the Urban Institute surveyed nearly 2,000 

homeless individuals and clients in large cities nationwide as part of a national 

study.28 The data from these two surveys serve as the basis for more in depth research regarding homeless veterans, described below. No matter the data source, 

however, research has found that veterans make up a greater percentage of the 

homeless population than their percentage in the general population. 

Both male and female veterans are more likely to be homeless than their nonveteran counterparts.29 This has not always been the case, however. Although veterans have always been present among the homeless population, the birth cohorts 

that served in the military more recently, from the Vietnam 30 and post-Vietnam 

eras, have been found to be overrepresented. Veterans of World War II and Korea 

are less likely to be homeless than their nonveteran counterparts.31 (The same cohort effect is not as evident for women veterans.) Four studies of homeless veterans, 

two of male veterans and two of female veterans, provide evidence of this overrepresentation and increased likelihood of experiencing homelessness. 

Overrepresentation of Male Veterans 

Two national studies—one published in 1994 using data from the 1987 Urban Institute survey (as well as data from surveys in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Chicago), and the other published in 2001 using data from the 1996 NSHAPC—found 

that male veterans were overrepresented in the homeless population. In addition, 

researchers in both studies determined that the likelihood of homelessness dejbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

116 

32See Robert Rosenheck, Linda Frisman, and An-Me Chung, ‘‘The Proportion of Veterans 

Among Homeless Men,’’ American Journal of Public Health 84, no. 3 (March 1994): 466 (hereafter ‘‘The Proportion of Homeless Veterans Among Men’’); ‘‘The Proportion of Veterans Among 

Homeless Men: A Decade Later,’’ p. 481. 33 ‘‘The Proportion of Homeless Veterans Among Men,’’ p. 467. 34 Ibid 35 ‘‘The Proportion of Homeless Veterans Among Men: A Decade Later,’’ p. 483. 36 ‘‘Overrepresentation of Women Veterans Among Homeless Women,’’ p. 1133. 37 Ibid, p. 1134. 

pended on the ages of veterans.32 During both periods of time, the odds of a veteran 

being homeless was highest for veterans who had enlisted after the military 

transitioned to an all-volunteer force (AVF) in 1973. These veterans were age 20– 

34 at the time of the first study, and age 35–44 at the time of the second study. 

In the first study, researchers found that 41% of adult homeless men were veterans, compared to just under 34% of adult males in the general population. Overall, male veterans were 1.4 times as likely to be homeless as nonveterans.33 Notably, though, those veterans who served after the Vietnam War were four times more 

likely to be homeless than nonveterans in the same age group.34 Vietnam era veterans, who are often thought to be the most overrepresented group of homeless veterans, were barely more likely to be homeless than nonveterans (1.01 times). (See 

Table 1 for a breakdown of the likelihood of homelessness based on age.) 

In the second study, researchers found that nearly 33% of adult homeless men 

were veterans, compared to 28% of males in the general population. Once again, the 

likelihood of homelessness differed among age groups. Overall, male veterans were 

1.25 times more likely to be homeless than nonveterans.35 However, the same postVietnam birth cohort as that in the 1994 study was most at risk of homelessness; 

those veterans in the cohort were over three times as likely to be homeless as nonveterans in the same cohort. Younger veterans, those age 20–34 in 1996, were two 

times as likely to be homeless as nonveterans. And Vietnam era veterans were approximately 1.4 times as likely to be homeless as their nonveteran counterparts. 

(See Table 1.) 

Overrepresentation of Female Veterans 

Like male veterans, women veterans are more likely to be homeless than women 

who are not veterans. A study published in 2003 examined two data sources, one 

a survey of mentally ill homeless women, and the other the NSHAPC, and found 

that 4.4% and 3.1% of those homeless persons surveyed were female veterans, respectively (compared to approximately 1.3% of the general population).36 Although 

the likelihood of homelessness was different for each of the two surveyed populations, the study estimated that female veterans were between two and four times 

as likely to be homeless as their nonveteran counterparts.37 Unlike male veterans, 

all birth cohorts were more likely to be homeless than nonveterans. However, with 

the exception of women veterans age 35–55 (representing the post-Vietnam era), 

who were between approximately 3.5 and 4.0 times as likely to be homeless as nonveterans, cohort data were not consistent between the two surveys. (See Table 1 

for a breakdown of likelihood of homelessness by cohort.) 

Table 1—Results from Four Studies: Veterans as a Percentage of the 

Homeless Population and Likelihood of Experiencing Homelessness 

Veteran Group 

Veterans as a 

Percentage of the 

General 

Populationa

Veterans as a 

Percentage of the 

Homeless 

Population 

Odds Ratio (Likelihood of Homelessness among 

Veterans vs. Nonveterans) 

Men (data 1986–87)b 33.6 41.2 1.38 

Age 20–34 10.0 30.6 3.95 

Age 35–44 36.9 37.2 1.01 

Age 45–54 44.8 58.7 1.75 

Age 55–64 69.9 61.7 0.69 

> Age 64 46.3 37.4 0.71 

Men (data 1996)c 28.0 32.7 1.25 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

117 

38The NVVRS was undertaken at the direction of Congress as part of P.L. 98–160, the Veterans Health Care Amendments of 1983. 39 Robert Rosenheck and Alan Fontana, ‘‘A Model of Homelessness Among Male Veterans of 

the Vietnam War Generation,’’ The American Journal of Psychiatry 151, no. 3 (March 1994): 

Continued 

Table 1—Results from Four Studies: Veterans as a Percentage of the Homeless Population and Likelihood of Experiencing Homelessness—Continued 

Veteran Group 

Veterans as a 

Percentage of the 

General 

Populationa

Veterans as a 

Percentage of the 

Homeless 

Population 

Odds Ratio (Likelihood of Homelessness among 

Veterans vs. Nonveterans) 

Age 20–34 7.7 14.5 2.04 

Age 35–44 13.8 33.7 3.17 

Age 45–54 38.4 46.5 1.39 

Age 55–64 48.7 45.8 0.89f

> Age 64 62.6 59.5 0.88f

Women (data 1994–98)d 1.3 4.4 3.58 

Age 20–34 — — 3.61 

Age 35–44 — — 3.48 

Age 45–54 — — 4.42 

Age 55 and Older — — 1.54f

Women (data 1996)e 1.2 3.1 2.71 

Age 20–34 — — 1.60f

Age 35–44 — — 3.98 

Age 45–54 — — 2.00f

Age 55 and Older — — 4.40 

Sources: Robert Rosenheck, Linda Frisman, and An-Me Chung, ‘‘The Proportion of Veterans Among Homeless Men,’’ American Journal of Public Health 84, no. 3 (March 1994): 466–469; Gail Gamache, Robert 

Rosenheck, and Richard Tessler, ‘‘The Proportion of Veterans Among Homeless Men: A Decade Later,’’ Social 

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 36, no. 10 (October 2001): 481–485; Gail Gamache, Robert Rosenheck, 

and Richard Tessler, ‘‘Overrepresentation of Women Veterans Among Homeless Women,’’ American Journal of 

Public Health 93, no. 7 (July 2003): 1132–1136. aData are from the Current Population Survey. 

bData are from the Urban Institute Study and three community surveys conducted between 1985 and 1987. 

cData are from the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC). 

dData are from the Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports sample of women with 

mental illness. eData are from the NSHAPC. 

f Not statistically significant. 

Why Are Veterans Overrepresented in the Homeless Population? 

As the number of homeless veterans has grown, researchers have attempted to 

explain why veterans are homeless in higher proportions than their numbers in the 

general population. Factors present both prior to military service, and those that developed during or after service, have been found to be associated with veterans’ 

homelessness. 

Most of the evidence about factors associated with homelessness among veterans 

comes from The National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS) conducted from 1984 to 1988.38 Researchers for the NVVRS surveyed 1,600 Vietnam 

theater veterans (those serving in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos) and 730 Vietnam 

era veterans (who did not serve in the theater) to determine their mental health 

status and their ability to readjust to civilian life. The NVVRS did not specifically 

analyze homelessness. However, a later study, published in 1994, used data from 

the NVVRS to examine homelessness specifically.39 Findings from both studies are 

discussed below. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

118 

421–427 (hereafter ‘‘A Model of Homelessness Among Male Veterans of the Vietnam War Generation’’). 40See, for example, Alvin S. Mares and Robert Rosenheck, ‘‘Perceived Relationship Between 

Military Service and Homelessness Among Homeless Veterans With Mental Illness,’’ Journal of 

Nervous and Mental Disease 192, no. 10 (October 2004): 715. 41 Richard A. Kulka, John A. Fairbank, B. Kathleen Jordan, and Daniel S. Weiss, Trauma and 

the Vietnam War Generation: Report of Findings from the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (Levittown, PA: Brunner/Mazel, 1990), 142. 42The first category consisted of nine factors: year of birth, belonging to a racial or ethnic minority, childhood poverty, parental mental illness, experience of physical or sexual abuse prior 

to age 18, other trauma, treatment for mental illness before age 18, placement in foster care 

before age 16, and history of conduct disorder. The military category contained three factors: 

exposure to combat, participation in atrocities, and non-military trauma. The readjustment period consisted of two variables: accessibility to someone with whom to discuss personal matters 

and the availability of material and social support (together these two variables were termed 

low levels of social support). The final category contained four factors: post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychiatric disorders not including PTSD, substance abuse, and unmarried status. 43 ‘‘A Model of Homelessness Among Male Veterans of the Vietnam War Generation,’’ p. 424. 44 Ibid, p. 425. 45 ‘‘A Model of Homelessness Among Male Veterans of the Vietnam War Generation,’’ p. 425. 46 Robert Rosenheck, Catherine A. Leda, Linda K. Frisman, Julie Lam, and An-Me Chung, 

‘‘Homeless Veterans’’ in Homelessness in America, ed. Jim Baumohl (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 

1996), 99 (hereafter ‘‘Homeless Veterans’’). 47 Robert Rosenheck, Catherine Leda, and Peggy Gallup, ‘‘Combat Stress, Psychosocial Adjustment, and Service Use Among Homeless Vietnam Veterans,’’ Hospital and Community Psychiatry 42, no. 2 (February 1992): 148. 48 ‘‘Homeless Veterans,’’ p. 98. 49 ‘‘A Model of Homelessness Among Male Veterans of the Vietnam War Generation,’’ p. 426. 

Factors Present During and After Military Service. Although researchers 

have not found that military service alone is associated with homelessness,40 it may 

be associated with other factors that contribute to homelessness. The NVVRS found 

an indirect connection between the stress that occurs as a result of deployment and 

exposure to combat, or ‘‘war-zone stress,’’ and homelessness. Vietnam theater and 

era veterans who experienced war-zone stress were found to have difficulty readjusting to civilian life, resulting in higher levels of problems that included social isolation, violent behavior, and, for white male veterans, homelessness.41

The 1994 study of Vietnam era veterans (hereafter referred to as the Rosenheck/ 

Fontana study) evaluated 18 variables that could be associated with homelessness. 

The study categorized each variable in one of four groups, according to when they 

occurred in the veteran’s life: pre-military, military, the 1-year readjustment period, 

and the post-military period subsequent to readjustment.42 Variables from each 

time period were found to be associated with homelessness, although their effects 

varied. The two military factors—combat exposure and participation in atrocities— 

did not have a direct relationship to homelessness. However, those two factors did 

contribute to (1) low levels of social support upon returning home, (2) psychiatric 

disorders (not including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)), (3) substance abuse 

disorders, and (4) being unmarried (including separation and divorce). Each of these 

four post-military variables, in turn, contributed directly to homelessness.43 In fact, 

social isolation, measured by low levels of support in the first year after discharge 

from military service, together with the status of being unmarried, had the strongest association with homelessness of the 18 factors examined in the study.44

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Researchers have not found a direct 

relationship between PTSD and homelessness. The Rosenheck/Fontana study ‘‘found 

no unique association between combat-related PTSD and homelessness.’’ 45 Unrelated research has determined that homeless combat veterans were no more likely 

to be diagnosed with PTSD than combat veterans who were not homeless.46 However, the NVVRS found that PTSD was significantly related to other psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, problems in interpersonal relationships, and unemployment.47 These conditions can lead to readjustment difficulties and are considered 

risk factors for homelessness.48

Factors that Pre-Date Military Service. According to research, factors that 

predate military service also play a role in homelessness among veterans. The 

Rosenheck/Fontana study found that three variables present in the lives of veterans 

before they joined the military had a significant direct relationship to homelessness. 

These were exposure to physical or sexual abuse prior to age 18; exposure to other 

traumatic experiences, such as experiencing a serious accident or natural disaster, 

or seeing someone killed; and placement in foster care prior to age 16.49 The researchers also found that a history of conduct disorder had a substantial indirect 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

119 

50 Ibid 51 Richard Tessler, Robert Rosenheck, and Gail Gamache, ‘‘Homeless Veterans of the All-Volunteer Force: A Social Selection Perspective,’’ Armed Forces & Society 29, no. 4 (Summer 2003): 

511 (hereafter ‘‘Homeless Veterans of the All-Volunteer Force: A Social Selection Perspective’’). 52Testimony of Robert Rosenheck, M.D., Director of Northeast Program Evaluation Center, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., 

February 23, 1994. 53 ‘‘Homeless Veterans of the All-Volunteer Force: A Social Selection Perspective,’’ p. 510. 54Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Veterans’ Administration FY1988 Budget, the Vet 

Center Program, and Homeless Veterans Issues, 100th Cong., 1st sess., S.Hrg. 100–350, February 

18 & 19, 1987, p. 2–6. 55For more information about the VHA, see CRS Report RL33993, Veterans’ Health Care 

Issues, by Sidath Viranga Panangala. 56For more information about veterans benefits, see CRS Report RL33985, Veterans Benefits: 

Issues in the 110th Congress, coordinated by Carol Davis. 57For more information about educational assistance, see CRS Report RL33281, Montgomery 

GI Bill Education Benefits: Analysis of College Prices and Federal Student Aid Under the Higher 

Education Act, by Charmaine Mercer. 58For more information about VA home loan guarantees, see CRS Report RS20533, VA–Home 

Loan Guaranty Program: An Overview, by Bruce E. Foote and Meredith Peterson. 59The amount of funding is based on FY2007 VA obligations for its homeless programs and 

the amount appropriated for the Department of Labor’s Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. 

effect on homelessness.50 Conduct disorder includes behaviors such as being suspended or expelled from school, involvement with law enforcement, or having poor 

academic performance. Another pre-military variable that might contribute to homelessness among veterans is a lack of family support prior to enlistment.51

The conditions present in the lives of veterans prior to military service, and the 

growth of homelessness among veterans, have been tied to the institution of the all 

volunteer force (AVF) in 1973. As discussed earlier in this report, the overrepresentation of veterans in the homeless population is most prevalent in the birth cohort that joined the military after the Vietnam War. It is possible that higher rates 

of homelessness among these veterans are due to ‘‘lowered recruitment standards 

during periods where military service was not held in high regard.’’ 52 Individuals 

who joined the military during the time after the implementation of the AVF might 

have been more likely to have characteristics that are risk factors for homelessness.53

Federal Programs that Serve Homeless Veterans 

The Federal response to the needs of homeless veterans, like the Federal response 

to homelessness generally, began in the late eighties. Congress, aware of the data 

showing that veterans were disproportionately represented among homeless persons,54 began to hold hearings and enact legislation in the late eighties. Among the 

programs enacted were Health Care for Homeless Veterans, Domiciliary Care for 

Homeless Veterans, and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Projects. Also around 

this time, the first (and only) national group dedicated to the cause of homeless veterans, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, was founded by service providers that were concerned about the growing number of homeless veterans. 

While homeless veterans are eligible for and receive services through programs 

that are not designed specifically for homeless veterans, the VA funds multiple programs to serve homeless veterans. The majority of homeless programs are run 

through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which administers health care 

programs for veterans.55 The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which is responsible for compensation and pensions,56 education assistance,57 home loan guarantees,58 and insurance, operates one program for homeless veterans. In addition, 

the Department of Labor (DoL) is responsible for one program that provides employment services for homeless veterans. In FY2007, funding of approximately $282 million was provided for homeless veterans programs,59 eight of which are summarized 

in this section. Table 2, below, shows historical funding levels for seven of these 

eight programs. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

Table 2—Funding for Selected Homeless Veterans Programs FY1988–FY2008 (dollars in thousands) 

Fiscal 

Year 

Obligations (VA Programs) Budget Authority 

(DoL Program) Tota

for 

P

Health Care 

for Homeless 

Veteransa

Domiciliary 

Care for 

Homeless 

Veterans 

Compensated 

Work Therapy/ 

Therapeutic 

Residence 

Grant and Per 

Diem Program 

HUD–VA 

Supported 

Housing 

Loan Guarantee 

for Multifamily 

Transitional 

Housing 

Homeless Veterans 

Reintegration 

Program 

1988 $12,932 $15,000b NA NA NA NA $1,915 $1989 13,252 10,367 NA NA NA NA 1,877 1990 15,000 15,000 NA NA NA NA 1,920 1991 15,461c 15,750 —c NA NA NA 2,018 1992 16,500c 16,500 —c NA 2,300 NA 1,366 1993 22,150 22,300 400 NA 2,000 NA 5,055 1994 24,513 27,140 3,051 8,000 3,235 NA 5,055 1995 38,585d 38,948 3,387 —d 4,270 NA 107e 1996 38,433d 41,117 3,886 —d 4,829 NA 0 1997 38,063d 37,214 3,628 —d 4,958 NA 0 1998 36,407 38,489 8,612 5,886 5,084 NA 3,000 1999 32,421 39,955 4,092 20,000 5,223 NA 3,000 2000 38,381 34,434 8,068 19,640 5,137 661 9,636 2001 58,602 34,576 8,144 31,100 5,219 366 17,500 2002 54,135 45,443 8,028 22,431 4,729 528 18,250 2003 45,188 49,213 8,371 43,388 4,603 594 18,131 2004 42,905 51,829 10,240 62,965 3,375 605 18,888 2005 40,357 57,555 10,004 62,180 3,243 574 20,832 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2006 56,998 63,592 19,529 63,621 5,297 507 21,780 2007 71,925 77,633 21,514 81,187 7,487 613 21,809 2008f 74,802 80,738 22,375 107,180 7,786 660 23,620 

Sources: Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Justifications, FY1989–FY2009, VA Office of Homeless Veterans Programs, Department of Labor Budget Justifications FY

and the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act P.L. 110–161. a Health Care for Homeless Veterans was originally called the Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill veterans program. In 1992, the VA began to use the title ‘‘Health Car

Veterans.’’ b Congress appropriated funds for the DCHV program for both FY1987 and FY1988 (P.L. 100–71), however, the VA obligated the entire amount in FY1988. See VA Budge

FY1989, Volume 2, Medical Benefits, p. 6–10. cFor FY1991 and FY1992, funds from the Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill veterans program as well as substance abuse enhancement funds were used for the Com

Therapy/Therapeutic Residence program. dFor FY1995 through FY1997, Grant and Per Diem funds were obligated with funds for the Health Care for Homeless Veterans program. VA budget documents do not 

rate breakdown of Grant and Per Diem Obligations. e Congress appropriated $5.011 million for HVRP in P.L. 103–333. However, a subsequent rescission in P.L. 104–19 reduced the amount. fThe obligation amounts for FY2008 are estimates. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
122 

60For more information about the organization of the VA, see U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Organizational Briefing Book, May 2007, available at http://www.va.gov/ofcadmin/ 

ViewPDF.asp?fType=1. 61 In 1992, the VA began to refer to the program by its new name. VA FY1994 Budget Summary, Volume 2, Medical Benefits, p. 2–63. 62Shortly after the HCHV program was enacted in P.L. 100–6, Congress passed another law 

(P.L. 100–322) that repealed the authority in P.L. 100–6 and established the HCHV program 

as a pilot program. The program was then made permanent in the Veterans Benefits Act of 1997 

(P.L. 105–114). The HCHV program is now codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 2031–2034. 63 38 U.S.C. § 2031, § 2034. 64 Veterans Administration, Report to Congress of member agencies of the Interagency Council 

on Homelessness pursuant to section 203(c)(1) of P.L. 100–77, October 15, 1987. 65The program was most recently authorized in the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–461). 66FY2004 VA Budget Justifications, p. 2–163. 67Wesley J. Kasprow, Robert A. Rosenheck, Diane DiLello, Leslie Cavallaro, and Nicole 

Harelik, Health Care for Homeless Veterans Programs: Twentieth Annual Report, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Northeast Program Evaluation Center, March 31, 2007, pp. 117–118 

(hereafter Health Care for Homeless Veterans Programs: Twentieth Annual Report). 68 Ibid, p. 25. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

The majority of programs that serve homeless veterans are part of the Veterans 

Health Administration (VHA), one of the three major organizations within the VA 

(the other two are the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the National 

Cemetery Administration).60 The VHA operates hospitals and outpatient clinics 

across the country through 21 Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs). Each 

VISN oversees between five and eleven VA hospitals as well as outpatient clinics, 

nursing homes, and domiciliary care facilities. In all, there are 157 VA hospitals, 

750 outpatient clinics, 134 nursing homes, and 42 domiciliary care facilities across 

the country. Many services for homeless veterans are provided in these facilities. In 

addition, the VBA has made efforts to coordinate with the VHA regarding homeless 

veterans by placing Homeless Veteran Outreach Coordinators (HVOCs) in its offices 

in order to assist homeless veterans in their applications for benefits. 

Health Care for Homeless Veterans. The first Federal program to specifically 

address the needs of homeless veterans, Health Care for Homeless Veterans 

(HCHV), was initially called the Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill veterans program.61 The program was created as part of an emergency appropriations act for FY1987 (P.L. 100–6) in which Congress allocated $5 million to the VA to provide 

medical and psychiatric care in community-based facilities to homeless veterans suffering from mental illness.62 Through the HCHV program, VA medical center staff 

conduct outreach to homeless veterans, provide care and treatment for medical, psychiatric, and substance abuse disorders, and refer veterans to other needed supportive services.63 Although P.L. 100–6 provided priority for veterans whose illnesses were service-connected, veterans with non-service-connected disabilities were 

also made eligible for the program. Within two months of the program’s enactment, 

43 VA Medical Centers had initiated programs to find and assist mentally ill homeless veterans.64 The HCHV program is currently authorized through December 31, 

2011.65

Program Data. The HCHV program itself does not provide housing for veterans 

who receive services. However, the VA was initially authorized to enter into contracts with non-VA service providers to place veterans in residential treatment facilities so that they would have a place to stay while receiving treatment. In 

FY2003, the VA shifted funding from contracts with residential treatment facilities 

to the VA Grant and Per Diem program (described later in this report).66 Local 

funding for residential treatment facilities continues to be provided by some VA 

medical center locations, however. According to the most recent data available from 

the VA, 1,131 veterans stayed in residential treatment facilities in FY2006, with an 

average stay of about 58 days.67 The HCHV program treated approximately 60,857 

veterans in that same year.68

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans. Domiciliary care consists of rehabilitative services for physically and mentally ill or aged veterans who need assistance, but are not in need of the level of care offered by hospitals and nursing homes. 

Congress first provided funds for the Domiciliary Care program for homeless veterans in 1987 through a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 100–71). Prior to enactment of P.L. 100–71, domiciliary care for veterans generally (now often referred 

to as Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment programs) had existed since the 

1860s. The program for homeless veterans was implemented to reduce the use of 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

123 

69Sandra G. Resnick, Robert Rosenheck, Sharon Medak, and Linda Corwel, Eighteenth 

Progress Report on the Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans Program, FY2006, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Northeast Program Evaluation Center, March 2007, p. 1. 70 Ibid, p. 9. 71 Ibid, p. 10. 72Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, report to accompany S. 2908, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 

S.Rept. 94–1206, September 9, 1976. 73The Compensated Work Therapy program was authorized in P.L. 87–574 as ‘‘Therapeutic 

and Rehabilitative Activities.’’ It was substantially amended in P.L. 94–581, and is codified at 

38 U.S.C. § 1718. 74 VA Veterans Industry/Compensated Work Therapy web pages, available at http:// 

www1.va.gov/vetind/. 75 VA Fact Sheet, ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans,’’ September 2006 (hereafter ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans’’). 76 38 U.S.C. § 1718(c). 77The VA’s authority to operate therapeutic housing is codified at 38 U.S.C. § 2032. 78The provision for nonprofits was in P.L. 102–54, but was repealed by P.L. 105–114, section 

1720A(c)(1). 79 ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans.’’ 80The Grant and Per Diem program is codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 2011–2013. 

more expensive inpatient treatment, improve health status, and reduce the likelihood of homelessness through employment and other assistance. Congress has appropriated funds for the DCHV program since its inception. 

Program Data. The DCHV program operates at 38 VA medical centers and has 

1,991 beds available.69 In FY2006, the number of veterans completing treatment 

was 5,282.70 Of those admitted to DCHV programs, 92.7% were diagnosed with a 

substance abuse disorder, more than half (56.7%) were diagnosed with serious mental illness, and 52.5% had both diagnoses.71 The average length of stay for veterans 

in FY2006 was 104.4 days, in which they received medical, psychiatric and substance abuse treatment, as well as vocational rehabilitation. 

Compensated Work Therapy/Therapeutic Residence Program. The Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) Program has existed at the VA in some form since 

the thirties.72 In the most current version of the program, the VA enters into contracts with private companies or nonprofit organizations that then provide disabled 

veterans with work opportunities.73 Veterans must be paid wages commensurate 

with those wages in the community for similar work, and through the experience 

the goal is that participants will improve their chances of living independently and 

reaching self sufficiency. Most CWT positions are semiskilled or unskilled, and include work in clerical, retail, warehouse, manufacturing, and food service positions.74 In 2003, the Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act (P.L. 108–170) added work skills training, employment support services, 

and job development and placement services to the activities authorized by the CWT 

program. The VA estimates that approximately 14,000 veterans participate in the 

CWT program each year.75 The CWT program is permanently authorized through 

the VA’s Special Therapeutic and Rehabilitation Activities Fund.76

In 1991, as part of P.L. 102–54, the Veterans Housing, Memorial Affairs, and 

Technical Amendments Act, Congress added the Therapeutic Transitional Housing 

component to the CWT program. The purpose of the program is to provide housing 

to participants in the CWT program who have mental illnesses or chronic substance 

abuse disorders and who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.77 Although the 

law initially provided that both the VA itself or private nonprofit organizations, 

through contracts with the VA, could operate housing, the law was subsequently 

changed so that only the VA now owns and operates housing.78 The housing is transitional—up to 12 months—and veterans who reside there receive supportive services. As of September 2006, the VA operated 66 transitional housing facilities with 

520 beds.79

Grant and Per Diem Program. Initially called the Comprehensive Service Programs, the Grant and Per Diem program was introduced as a pilot program in 1992 

through the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Services Act (P.L. 102–590). The 

law establishing the Grant and Per Diem program, which was made permanent in 

the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Services Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–95), authorizes the VA to make grants to public entities or private nonprofit organizations to 

provide services and transitional housing to homeless veterans.80 For the last four 

fiscal years (FY2004–FY2007) the Grant and Per Diem program has received more 

funding than any of the other eight VA programs that are targeted to homeless veterans (see Table 2). The Grant and Per Diem program is permanently authorized 

at $130 million (P.L. 109–461). 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

124 

81 38 U.S.C. § 2011(c). 82 38 CFR § 61.1. 83 38 CFR § 61.33. 84 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Geriatrics and Extended Care, Description of the State Veterans Home Program, available at http://www1.va.gov/geriatricsshg/docs/ 

FY07STATEVETHOMEPROGRAMHistory.doc. 85 Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans Fifth Annual Report, p. 11. 86 Health Care for Homeless Veterans Programs: Twentieth Annual Report, p. 154. 87Government Accountability Office, Homeless Veterans Programs: Improved Communications 

and Follow-up Could Further Enhance the Grant and Per Diem Program, September 2006, p. 

12, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06859.pdf. 88Statement of Pete Dougherty, Director, Homeless Veterans Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs Grant and Per Diem Program, 110th Cong., 1st sess., September 27, 2007. 89The first announcement of voucher availability was announced in the Federal Register. See 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‘‘Invitation for FY1992 Section 8 Rental 

Voucher Set-Aside for Homeless Veterans with Severe Psychiatric or Substance Abuse Disorders,’’ Federal Register vol. 57, no. 55, p. 9955, March 20, 1992. 

The program has two parts: grant and per diem. Eligible grant recipients may 

apply for funding for one or both parts. The grants portion provides capital grants 

to purchase, rehabilitate, or convert facilities so that they are suitable for use as 

either service centers or transitional housing facilities. The capital grants will fund 

up to 65% of the costs of acquisition, expansion or remodeling of facilities.81 Grants 

may also be used to procure vans for outreach and transportation of homeless veterans. The per diem portion of the program reimburses grant recipients for the costs 

of providing housing and supportive services to homeless veterans. The supportive 

services that grantees may provide include outreach activities, food and nutrition 

services, health care, mental health services, substance abuse counseling, case management, child care, assistance in obtaining housing, employment counseling, job 

training and placement services, and transportation assistance.82 Organizations 

may apply for per diem funds alone (without capital grant funds), as long as they 

would be eligible to apply for and receive capital grants. 

Program Rules and Data. The per diem portion of the Grant and Per Diem program pays organizations for the housing that they provide to veterans at a fixed 

dollar rate for each bed that is occupied.83 Organizations apply to be reimbursed for 

the cost of care provided, not to exceed the current per diem rate for domiciliary 

care. The per diem rate increases periodically; the FY2007 rate is $31.30 per day.84

The per diem portion of the program also compensates grant recipients for the services they provide to veterans at service centers. Grantee organizations are paid at 

an hourly rate of one eighth of either the cost of services or the domiciliary care 

per diem rate, however organizations cannot be reimbursed for both housing and 

services provided to the same individual. Organizations are paid by the hour for 

each veteran served for up to eight hours per day. Any per diem payments are offset 

by other funds that the grant recipient receives. The Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans has recommended that the per diem reimbursement system be revised 

to take account of actual service costs instead of using a capped rate.85 Legislation 

has been introduced in the 110th Congress that would make changes to the way 

in which grant recipients are reimbursed. For more information about proposed legislation, see CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and 

Recent Legislation, by Libby Perl et al. 

According to the most recent data available from the VA, in FY2006 the Grant 

and Per Diem program funded more than 300 service providers. These providers 

had a total of 8,200 beds available and served more than 15,000 homeless veterans.86 According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office report, an additional 

9,600 Grant and Per Diem transitional beds are needed to meet the demand.87 The 

VA has stated that an additional 3,000 beds are expected to become available once 

construction and renovation of various facilities is completed.88

Grant and Per Diem for Homeless Veterans with Special Needs. In 2001, 

Congress created a demonstration program to target grant and per diem funds to 

specific groups of veterans (P.L. 107–95). These groups include women, women with 

children, the frail elderly, those veterans with terminal illnesses, and those with 

chronic mental illnesses. The program was initially authorized at $5 million per 

year for FY2003 through FY2005. P.L. 109–461, enacted on December 22, 2006, reauthorized the program for FY2007 through FY2011 at $7 million per year. 

HUD–VASH. Beginning in 1992, through a collaboration between HUD and the 

VA, funding for approximately 1,753 Section 8 vouchers was made available for use 

by homeless veterans with severe psychiatric or substance abuse disorders.89 Secjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

125 

90For more information about Section 8 in general, see CRS Report RL32284, An Overview 

of the Section 8 Housing Programs, by Maggie McCarty. 91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‘‘Funding Availability (NOFA) for the 

Section 8 Set-Aside for Homeless Veterans with Severe Psychiatric or Substance Abuse Disorders,’’ Federal Register vol. 59, no. 134, p. 36015, July 14, 1994. 92Wesley J. Kasprow, Robert A. Rosenheck, Diane DiLello, Leslie Cavallaro, and Nicole 

Harelik, Health Care for Homeless Veterans Programs: Twentieth Annual Report, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Northeast Program Evaluation Center, March 31, 2007, pp. 272–273. 93 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(19). 94Testimony of Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, FY2009 Appropriations, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., February 13, 2008. 95See Budget of the U.S. Government FY2009—Appendix, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, p. 541, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/appendix/ 

hud.pdf. 96 Robert Rosenheck, Wesley Kasprow, Linda Frisman, and Wen Liu-Mares, ‘‘Cost-effectiveness of Supported Housing for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness,’’ Archives of General Psychiatry 60 (September 2003): 940 (hereafter ‘‘Cost-effectiveness of Supported Housing for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness’’). An-Lin Cheng, Haiqun Lin, Wesley Kasprow, and Robert 

Rosenheck, ‘‘Impact of Supported Housing on Clinical Outcomes,’’ Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 195, no. 1 (January 2007): 83 (hereafter ‘‘Impact of Supported Housing on Clinical 

Outcomes’’). 97 ‘‘Cost-effectiveness of Supported Housing for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness,’’ p. 945. 98 ‘‘Impact of Supported Housing on Clinical Outcomes,’’ p. 85. 99 Ibid 100 38 U.S.C. §§ 2051–2054. 101 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee 

Program: Program Manual, April 6, 2007, p. 9, available at http://www1.va.gov/homeless/docs/ 

Loan_Guarantee_Program_Manual_4-6-07.pdf. 

tion 8 vouchers are subsidies used by families to rent apartments in the private 

rental market.90 Through the program, called HUD–VA Supported Housing (HUD– 

VASH), local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) administer the Section 8 vouchers 

while local VA medical centers provide case management and clinical services to 

participating veterans. HUD distributed the vouchers to PHAs through three competitions, in 1992, 1993, and 1994. Prior to issuing the vouchers, HUD and the VA 

had identified medical centers with Domiciliary Care and Health Care for Homeless 

Veterans programs that were best suited to providing services. PHAs within the geographic areas of the VA medical centers were invited to apply for vouchers. In the 

first year that HUD issued vouchers, 19 PHAs were eligible to apply, and by the 

third year the list of eligible VA medical centers and PHAs had expanded to 87.91

HUD does not separately track these vouchers. However, the VA keeps statistics on 

veterans with vouchers who receive treatment through the VA. In FY2006, 1,238 

veterans with HUD–VASH vouchers received treatment during the course of the 

year, with 1,028 veterans still receiving treatment at the end of that year.92

In 2001, Congress codified the HUD–VASH program (P.L. 107–95) and authorized 

the creation of an additional 500 vouchers for each year from FY2003 through 

FY2006.93 A bill enacted at the end of the 109th Congress (P.L. 109–461) also provided the authorization for additional HUD–VASH vouchers. However, not until 

FY2008 did Congress provide funding for additional vouchers: the Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110–161) included $75 million for Section 8 vouchers for 

homeless veterans. HUD has estimated that this will fund between 9,000 and 

10,000 additional vouchers.94 The Administration has also requested an additional 

$75 million for HUD–VASH vouchers in FY2009.95

Program Evaluations. Long-term evaluations of the HUD–VASH program have 

shown both improved housing and improved substance abuse outcomes among veterans who received the vouchers over those who did not.96 Veterans who received 

vouchers experienced fewer days of homelessness and more days housed than veterans who received intensive case management assistance or standard care through 

VA homeless programs alone.97 Analysis also found that veterans with HUD–VASH 

vouchers had fewer days of alcohol use, fewer days on which they drank to intoxication, and fewer days of drug use.98 HUD–VASH veterans were also found to have 

spent fewer days in institutions.99

Loan Guarantee for Multifamily Transitional Housing Program. The Veterans Programs Enhancement Act 1998 (P.L. 105–368) created a program in which 

the VA guarantees loans to eligible organizations so that they may construct, rehabilitate or acquire property to provide multifamily transitional housing for homeless 

veterans.100 Eligible project sponsors may be any legal entity that has experience 

in providing multifamily housing.101 The law requires sponsors to provide supjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

126 

102 38 U.S.C. § 2052(b). 103 Ibid 104Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program: Program Manual, p. 10. 105The Notice of Funding Availability is available at Federal Register 71, no. 10, April 12, 

2006, p. 18813. 106See U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, ‘‘Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program: Program Overview,’’ Presentation by Claude B. Hutchinson, Jr., July 2007, 

available at http://www1.va.gov/homeless/docs/Loan_Guarantee_Informational_Video_Slides.ppt. 107Statement of Pete Dougherty, Director, Homeless Veterans Programs, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Looking At Our Homeless Veterans Programs: How Effective Are They?, 109th 

Cong., 2nd sess., March 16, 2006. 108Testimony of Pete Dougherty, Director, Homeless Veterans Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military Construction and 

Veterans Affairs, FY2008 Appropriations, 110th Cong., 1st sess., March 8, 2007. 109 Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans Fifth Annual Report, p. 14. 110The program was most recently authorized in the Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, 

and Business Improvement Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–170). The program is codified at 38 U.S.C. 

§ 2041. 111 ‘‘VA Programs for Homeless Veterans.’’ 

portive services, ensure that residents seek to obtain and maintain employment, 

enact guidelines to require sobriety as a condition of residency, and charge veterans 

a reasonable fee.102 Veterans who are not homeless, and homeless individuals who 

are not veterans, may be occupants of the transitional housing if all of the transitional housing needs of homeless veterans in the project area have been met.103

Supportive services that project sponsors are to provide include outreach; food and 

nutritional counseling; health care, mental health services, and substance abuse 

counseling; child care; assistance in obtaining permanent housing; education, job 

training, and employment assistance; assistance in obtaining various types of benefits; and transportation.104 Not more than 15 loans with an aggregate total of up 

to $100 million may be guaranteed under this program. The VA has committed 

loans to two projects and released a notice of funding availability for additional applications.105 One project, sponsored by Catholic Charities of Chicago, opened in 

January 2007 with 141 transitional units for homeless veterans.106 A second project 

in San Diego is also expected to provide 144 transitional housing units.107 According 

to the VA, the agency has been slow to implement the program due to service providers’ concerns that they may not be able to operate housing for such a needy population and still repay the guaranteed loans.108 The VA has stated that it plans to 

review the program to determine whether it should be modified, discontinued, or replaced by another program.109

Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Veterans. The Acquired Property 

Sales for Homeless Veterans program is operated through the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). The program was enacted as part of the Veterans Home Loan 

Guarantee and Property Rehabilitation Act of 1987 (P.L. 100–198). The current 

version of the program was authorized in P.L. 102–54 (a bill to amend Title 38 of 

the U.S. Code), and is authorized through December 31, 2008.110

Through the program, the VA is able to dispose of properties that it has acquired 

through foreclosures on its loans so that they can be used for the benefit of homeless 

veterans. Specifically, the VA can sell, lease, lease with the option to buy, or donate, 

properties to nonprofit organizations and state government agencies that will use 

the property only as homeless shelters primarily for veterans and their families. The 

VA estimates that over 200 properties have been sold through the program.111

The Department of Labor 

The Department of Labor (DoL) contains an office specifically dedicated to the employment needs of veterans, the office of Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS). In addition to its program for homeless veterans—the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP)—VETS funds employment training programs 

for all veterans. These include the Veterans Workforce Investment Program and the 

Transition Assistance Program. 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. Established in 1987 as part of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100–77), the HVRP was authorized through FY2011 as part of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information 

Technology Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–461). The program has two goals. The first is to 

assist veterans in achieving meaningful employment, and the second is to assist in 

the development of a service delivery system to address the problems facing homeless veterans. Eligible grantee organizations are state and local Workforce Investjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

127 

112 Veterans Employment and Training Service Program Year 2007 Solicitation for Grant Applications, Federal Register vol. 72, no. 71, April 13, 2007, p. 18682. 113 Ibid, p. 18679. 114 ‘‘Procedures for Preapplication for Funds; Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, 

FY1988’’ Federal Register vol. 53, no. 70, April 12, 1988, p. 12089. 115Presentation of Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and 

Training, U.S. Department of Labor, to the VA Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, January 31, 2008. 116 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and 

Training, FY2005 Annual Report to Congress, March 23, 2007, p. 9, available at http:// 

www.dol.gov/vets/media/FY2005_Annual_Report_To_Congress.pdf. 117 Ibid, p. 9. 118 Ibid, p. 12. 119 38 U.S.C. § 2023. 120DoL VETS FY2005 Annual Report to Congress, p. 13. 121Presentation of Charles S. Ciccolella. 

ment Boards, local public agencies, and both for- and non-profit organizations.112

Grantees receive funding for one year, with the possibility for two additional years 

of funding contingent on performance and fund availability.113

HVRP grantee organizations provide services that include outreach, assistance in 

drafting a resume and preparing for interviews, job search assistance, subsidized 

trial employment, job training, and follow-up assistance after placement. Recipients 

of HVRP grants also provide supportive services not directly related to employment 

such as transportation, provision of or assistance in finding housing, and referral 

for mental health treatment or substance abuse counseling. HVRP grantees often 

employ formerly homeless veterans to provide outreach to homeless veterans and to 

counsel them as they search for employment and stability. In fact, from the inception of the HVRP, it has been required that at least one employee of grantee organizations be a veteran who has experienced homelessness.114

Program Data. In program year (PY) 2006, HVRP grantees served a total of 

13,346 homeless veterans, of whom 8,713, or 65%, were placed in employment.115

The percentage of participants placed in employment has grown nearly every year 

since PY2000, when 52.8% of veterans participating in HVRP entered employment.116 In PY2004, the most recent year for which more extensive data are available, of those who became employed, an estimated 64% were still employed after 90 

days, and 58% after 180 days.117 The average wage for participants has grown steadily from $8.73 per hour in PY2000 to $9.55 per hour in PY2004. 

Stand Downs for Homeless Veterans. A battlefield stand down is the process 

in which troops are removed from danger and taken to a safe area to rest, eat, clean 

up, receive medical care, and generally recover from the stress and chaos of battle. 

Stand Downs for Homeless Veterans are modeled on the battlefield stand down and 

are local events, staged annually in many cities across the country, in which local 

Veterans Service Organizations, businesses, government entities, and other social 

service organizations come together for up to three days to provide similar services 

for homeless veterans. Items and services provided at stand downs include food, 

clothing, showers, haircuts, medical exams, dental care, immunizations, and, in 

some locations where stand downs take place for more than one day, shelter. Another important facet of stand downs, according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, is the camaraderie that occurs when veterans spend time among 

other veterans. 

Although stand downs are largely supported through donations of funds, goods, 

and volunteer time, the DoL VETS office allows HVRP grant recipient organizations 

to use up to $8,000 of their grants to fund stand downs. The VETS program also 

awards up to $8,000 to HVRP eligible organizations that have not received an 

HVRP grant. According to the most recent data available, $364,460 was used to 

serve 10,155 veterans at stand downs in FY2005.118

Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program Demonstration Grants. The 

Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–95) instituted 

a demonstration program to provide job training and placement services to veterans 

leaving prison.119 By 2005, the program awarded $1.45 million in initial grants to 

seven recipients, and extended these seven grants through March 2006 with funding 

of $1.6 million.120 The Department of Labor reported that these grant recipients enrolled 2,191 veterans in the transition program in fiscal years 2004 through 2006 

and that of these enrollees, 1,104, or 54%, entered employment.121 The average 

wage for those veterans entering employment was $10.00 per hour. 

Authorization for the incarcerated veterans transition program expired on January 24, 2006 and no additional funding has been provided. However, service projbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

128 

122See National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, ‘‘FY2007 Public Policy Priorities,’’ January 

24, 2007, available at http://www.nchv.org/content.cfm?id=24. 123 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Advisory 

Committee on Homeless Veterans Fifth Annual Report, 2007, p. 16 (hereafter Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans Fifth Annual Report). 124The Fourteenth Annual CHALENG Report, p. 12. 125Government Accountability Office, Information on Low-Income Veterans’ Housing Needs 

Conditions and Participation in HUD’s Programs, GAO–07–1012, August 17, 2007, p. 29, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071012.pdf. 126 Ibid 127Testimony of Cheryl Beversdorf, Director, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, before 

the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, FY2008 Appropriations, 110th Cong., 1st sess., March 8, 2007. 

viders encourage continued involvement in making arrangements for veterans leaving correctional facilities.122 And in its report for 2007, the Advisory Committee on 

Homeless Veterans recommended that the program be continued.123 Legislation that 

would remove the program’s demonstration status and authorize it has been introduced in the 110th Congress. For more information about pending legislation, see 

CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation, by Libby Perl et al. 

Emerging Issues 

Permanent Supportive Housing 

With the exception of Section 8 vouchers provided through the HUD–VASH program, the Federal programs for homeless veterans offer funding only for transitional 

housing developments; they do not fund permanent supportive housing. The permanent supportive housing model promotes stability by ensuring that residents receive 

services tailored to their particular needs, including health care, counseling, employment assistance, help with financial matters, and assistance with other daily activities that might present challenges to a formerly homeless individual. 

Although veterans are eligible for permanent supportive housing through HUD 

programs for homeless persons, they are not prioritized above nonveteran homeless 

individuals. Some members of Congress, service providers, and the VA Advisory 

Committee on Homeless Veterans support the creation of permanent supportive 

housing dedicated to veterans. According to local government and community participants in the last five VA CHALENG surveys, permanent supportive housing is 

the number one unmet need of homeless veterans.124

In a report released in August 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found that low-income veteran renter households were less likely to receive HUD 

rental assistance than other low-income households.125 GAO estimated that 11% of 

low-income veteran renter households received HUD rental assistance compared to 

19% of low-income nonveteran renter households.126 Limited resources are available 

to house low-income families, and veterans must compete with other needy groups 

including elderly residents, persons with disabilities, and families with young children. Due to a lack of permanent housing options, when veterans complete programs that have transitional housing components, there is not always a place for 

them to go. Another concern is that, as Vietnam-era veterans age, there is a reduced 

chance that they will be able to find employment and support themselves. Permanent supportive housing would serve that population.127

As discussed previously, Congress appropriated $75 million for up to 10,000 additional Section 8 vouchers for homeless veterans in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110–161). The President’s FY2009 budget request also proposed 

$75 million to fund additional vouchers. Legislation has been introduced in the 

110th Congress that would provide funds for additional HUD–VASH vouchers, as 

well as funds for permanent supportive housing for very low-income veterans and 

their families. For more information about proposed legislation, see CRS Report 

RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation, by 

Libby Perl et al. 

Veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 

As veterans return from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF), just as veterans before them, they face risks that could lead to 

homelessness. To date, approximately 400 OEF/OIF veterans have used VA services 

for homeless veterans, and the VA has classified 1,500 as being at risk of homelessness. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, in an informal survey of service 

providers, estimated that 1,260 veterans of the Iraq War sought assistance from 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

129 

128 Conversation with Cheryl Beversdorf, Director, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, 

April 10, 2007 (hereafter ‘‘Conversation with Cheryl Beversdorf’’). 129Since October 2003, DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) has periodically (every 

60 days) sent VA an updated personnel roster of troops who participated in OEF and OIF, and 

who have separated from active duty and become eligible for VA benefits. The roster was originally prepared based on pay records of individuals. However, in more recent months it has been 

based on a combiNation of pay records and operational records provided by each service branch. 

The current separation data are from FY2002 through May 2007. 130See ‘‘Homeless Veterans,’’ p. 105. 131 Charles W. Hoge, Carl A. Castro, Stephen C. Messer, and Dennis McGurk, ‘‘Combat Duty 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care,’’ New England Journal 

of Medicine 351, no. 1 (July 1, 2004): Table 3. 132 Charles W. Hoge, Jennifer L. Auchterlonie, and Charles S. Milliken, ‘‘Mental Health Problems, Use of Mental Health Services, and Attrition from Military Service After Returning from 

Deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan,’’ JAMA 295, no. 9 (March 1, 2006): 1026, 1029. 133Office of the Surgeon Multi-National Force—Iraq and Office of the Surgeon General United 

States Army Command, Mental Health Advisory Team V, February 14, 2008, pp. 42–43, 46–47, 

available at http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_v/Redacted1-MHATV-OIF-4- 

FEB-2008Report.pdf. 134See, for example, Amy Fairweather, Risk and Protective Factors for Homelessness Among 

OIF/OEF Veterans, Swords to Plowshares’ Iraq Veteran Project, December 7, 2006, p. 6. 135 Charles S. Milliken, Jennifer L. Auchterlonie, and Charles W. Hoge, ‘‘Longitudinal Assessment of Mental Health Problems Among Active and Reserve Component Soldiers Returning 

from the Iraq War,’’ JAMA 298, no. 18 (November 14, 2007): 2141, 2144. 136 U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Population Representation in the Military Services, FY2005, Appendix D, Table D–13, 

available at http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2005/contents/contents.html. 137The Joint Economic Committee, Helping Military Moms Balance Family and Longer Deployment, May 11, 2007, p. 2, available at http://www.jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/ 

MilitaryMoms05.11.07Final.pdf. 138 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Grant and Per Diem programs in 2006.128 Approximately 751,273 OEF/OIF troops 

have been separated from active duty since 2002.129 If the experiences of the Vietnam War are any indication, the risk of becoming homeless continues for many 

years after service. After the Vietnam War, 76% of Vietnam era combat troops and 

50% of non-combat troops who eventually became homeless reported that at least 

10 years passed between the time they left military service and when they became 

homeless.130

Among troops returning from Iraq, between 15% and 17% have screened positive 

for depression, generalized anxiety, and PTSD.131 Veterans returning from Iraq also 

appear to be seeking out mental health services at higher rates than veterans returning from other conflicts.132 Research has also found that the length and number 

of deployments of troops in Iraq result in greater risk of mental health problems.133

Access to VA health services could be a critical component of reintegration into the 

community for some veterans, and there is concern that returning veterans might 

not be aware of available VA health programs and services.134 The VA has multiple 

means of reaching out to injured veterans and veterans currently receiving treatment through the Department of Defense (DoD) to ensure that they know about VA 

health services and to help them make the transition from DoD to VA services. (For 

more information about these efforts see CRS Report RL33993, Veterans’ Health 

Care Issues, by Sidath Viranga Panangala.) However, for some veterans, health 

issues, particularly mental health issues, may arise later. A study of Iraq soldiers 

returning from deployment found that a higher percentage of soldiers reported mental health concerns six months after returning than immediately after returning.135

Legislation has been introduced in the 110th Congress that would attempt to identify returning members of the armed services who are at risk of homelessness. For 

more information on this legislation and its status, see CRS Report RL30442, Homelessness: Targeted Federal Programs and Recent Legislation, by Libby Perl et al. 

Female Veterans 

The number and percentage of women enlisted in the military have increased 

since previous wars. In FY2005, approximately 14.4% of enlisted troops in the active 

components of the military (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines) were female, up 

from approximately 3.3% in FY1974 and 10.9% in FY1990.136 The number of women 

deployed to war is also on the rise. To date, over 165,000 female troops have been 

deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan,137 compared to 7,500 in the Vietnam War, and 

41,000 in the Gulf War.138 The number of women veterans can be expected to grow 

commensurately. According to the VA, there were approximately 1.2 million female 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

130 

139 Robert A. Klein, Women Veterans: Past, Present, and Future, U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Office of the Actuary, updated September 2007, pp. 8–9, available at http://www1.va.gov/ 

vetdata/docs/Womenveterans_past_present_future_9-30-07a.pdf. 140 Ibid 141 Jessica Wolfe et al., ‘‘Changing Demographic Characteristics of Women Veterans: Results 

from a National Sample,’’ Military Medicine 165, no. 10 (October 2000): 800. 142 Anne G. Sandler, Brenda M. Booth, Michelle A. Mengeling, and Bradley N. Doebbeling, 

‘‘Life Span and Repeated Violence Against Women During Military Service: Effects on Health 

Status and Outpatient Utilization,’’ Journal of Women’s Health 13, no. 7 (2004): 800. 143Laurel L. Hourani and Huixing Yuan, ‘‘The Mental Health Status of Women in the Navy 

and Marine Corps: Preliminary Findings from the Perceptions of Wellness and Readiness Assessment,’’ Military Medicine 164, no. 3 (March 1999): 176. 144Maureen Murdoch et al., ‘‘Women and War: What Physicians Should Know,’’ Journal of 

General Internal Medicine 21, no. s3 (March 2006): S7. 145 Health Care for Homeless Veterans 20th Annual Report, p. 26. 146 Conversation with Cheryl Beversdorf. 147 Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans Fifth Annual Report, p. 13. 

veterans in 1990 (4% of the veteran population) and 1.6 million in 2000 (6%).139 The 

VA anticipates that there will be 1.8 million female veterans in 2010 (8% of the veteran population) and 1.9 million (10%) in 2020. At the same time, the number of 

male veterans is expected to decline.140

Women veterans face challenges that could contribute to their risks of homelessness. Experts have found that female veterans report incidents of sexual assault 

that exceed rates reported in the general population.141 The percentage of female 

veterans seeking medical care through the VA who have reported that they have 

experienced sexual assault ranges between 23% and 29%.142 Female active duty soldiers have been found to suffer from PTSD at higher rates than male soldiers.143

Experience with sexual assault has been linked to PTSD, depression, alcohol and 

drug abuse, disrupted social networks, and employment difficulties.144 These factors 

can increase the difficulty with which women veterans readjust to civilian life, and 

could be risk factors for homelessness (see earlier discussion in this report). 

Women veterans are estimated to make up a relatively small proportion of the 

homeless veteran population. Among veterans who use VA’s services for homeless 

veterans, women are estimated to make up just under 4% of the total.145 As a result, programs serving homeless veterans may not have adequate facilities for female veterans at risk of homelessness, particularly transitional housing for women 

and women with children. As of 2007, eight Grant and Per Diem programs provide 

transitional housing for female veterans and their children.146 The VA Advisory 

Committee on Homeless Veterans noted in its 2007 report that ‘‘the needs and complexity of issues involving women veterans are increasing’’ and recommended continued support through the Grant and Per Diem Special Needs grants.

f 

147

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

131 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

CRS REPORT TO CONGRESS 

Order Code RL33956 

Counting Homeless Persons: Homeless Management Information Systems 

Updated April 3, 2008 

Libby Perl, Analyst in Housing, Domestic Social Policy Division 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Summary .................................................................................................................. 132 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 132 

What Are Homeless Management Information Systems? ...................................... 133 

HUD’s Continuing Role in Collecting Information About Homeless Persons ...... 133 

Development of the HMIS Network ........................................................................ 134 

Congressional Direction ....................................................................................... 134 

HUD Actions ......................................................................................................... 134 

HMIS Data and Technical Standards ............................................................ 135 

Confidentiality of Domestic Violence Victims ................................................. 135 

Status of the HMIS Network ................................................................................... 135 

HMIS Implementation ...................................................................................... 136 

Participation of Service Providers in HMIS ................................................... 136 

Counts of Homeless Persons .................................................................................... 136 

CoC Counts of Homeless Individuals .................................................................. 137 

2005 CoC Counts .............................................................................................. 138 

2006 CoC Counts .............................................................................................. 138 

The Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) ............................................ 138 

Estimates from the First AHAR Using HMIS Data ....................................... 138 

Estimates from the Second AHAR Using HMIS Data ................................... 139 

AHAR Estimates Using CoC Point-in-Time Counts ....................................... 140 

Previous Attempts to Count Homeless Persons .................................................. 140 

The Urban Institute (1987) .............................................................................. 140 

The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (1996) 140 

Sources of Demographic Information About Homeless Persons ........................... 141 

List of Tables 

Table 1. National Estimates of the Number of Homeless Individuals ................. 141 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

132 

1 As defined by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100–77), a homeless person is ‘‘(1) an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and (2) 

an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is—(A) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare 

hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (B) an institution that 

provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (C) a public 

or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for 

human beings.’’ 

Summary 

In 1998, Congress directed the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) to develop a process for collecting data about homeless persons. Together 

with local communities, HUD began in 2001 to implement a series of Homeless 

Management Information Systems (HMIS). Two categories of Federal fund recipients are required to participate in HMIS: organizations that receive grants through 

the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program and organizations that receive HUD Homeless Assistance Grants. The HOPWA program provides 

housing and supportive services for persons living with AIDS, while the Homeless 

Assistance Grants fund transitional and permanent housing, as well as services, for 

homeless individuals. 

Local jurisdictions called ‘‘Continuums of Care’’ (CoCs)—typically cities, counties, 

or combinations of both—are the entities that implement HMIS. Homeless service 

providers in these CoCs collect and store information about homeless individuals 

they serve, and the information is aggregated in computer systems at the CoC level. 

HUD anticipates that information about homeless individuals from CoCs across the 

country eventually will help it to better serve their needs. 

HUD released its second analysis of data from a sample of participating HMIS 

jurisdictions—the second Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)—in March 

2008. The second AHAR used HMIS data from a sample of 74 communities to derive 

national-level estimates of the number of homeless persons for three points in time 

during the six-month period from January 1 to June 30, 2006, as well as an estimate of the total number of people who experienced homelessness at least once during this same period. It is expected that data from HMIS eventually will provide 

an unduplicated count of the number of persons experiencing homelessness from 

communities across the country. 

Congress initially allocated funds for data collection regarding homeless persons 

in the FY2001 HUD Appropriations Act (P.L. 106–377), and has continued to allocate funds in all HUD spending bills from FY2002 to FY2008. Local communities 

can then apply to HUD for available funds that they may use to implement HMIS. 

Community implementation of HMIS increased from 2005 to 2006. According to the 

most recent HUD progress report to Congress regarding HMIS, 91% of local CoCs 

were implementing HMIS in 2006, meaning that they had established systems into 

which data are entered (compared to 72% in 2005). Approximately 9% of CoCs had 

decided to implement an HMIS, and were in the process of planning the system 

(compared to 20% in 2005), and 1% of CoCs were not yet planning an HMIS (compared to 7% in 2005). 

This report describes the development of HMIS, reports on the continuing 

progress of HMIS, summarizes information released in the first and second AHARs, 

and describes previous attempts to count homeless persons. It will be updated as 

events warrant. 

Introduction 

It is difficult to ascertain the number and characteristics of persons experiencing 

homelessness due to the transient nature of the population, although attempts to 

count and describe homeless individuals have been made in recent decades.1 Beginning in the mid-1990s, for example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required its grant recipients to provide information about the homeless 

clients they served. In addition, comprehensive attempts to count homeless individuals were made in both the 1980s and 1990s, first via Census data and then 

through a national collaborative survey called the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. However, no systematic method for tracking homeless persons has existed until now. In response to a directive from Congress in 1998, 

HUD began in 2001 to develop a system to track homeless individuals; the processes 

of data collection, organization, and storage systems, which take place at the local 

level, have been termed Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). In 

March 2008, HUD released results of its second analysis of HMIS data—the second 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR). This CRS report describes the develjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

133 

2States may also constitute CoCs to coordinate funding in sparsely populated areas. 

3 ‘‘HUD-Defined CoC Names and Numbers Listed by State,’’ Revised March 15, 2007, available 

at http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf12/supernofa/nofa07/coclist.pdf. 4For more information on the HOPWA program, see CRS Report RS20704, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), by Libby Perl. 5P.L. 100–77 is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 11301–11435. 

6For more information about the Homeless Assistance Grants, see CRS Report RL33764, The 

HUD Homeless Assistance Grants: Distribution of Funds, by Libby Perl. 7The FY2003 application is available on HUD’s website, http://www.hud.gov/library/ 

bookshelf12/supernofa/nofa03/cocapp.doc. 8See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Annual Homeless Assessment 

Report to Congress, February 2007, p. 2, available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ 

ahar.pdf (hereafter First AHAR). 

opment of HMIS, the results of the first and second AHARs, and previous attempts 

to count homeless individuals. 

What Are Homeless Management Information Systems? 

Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) are databases established at 

the local level through which homeless service providers collect, organize, and store 

information about homeless clients who receive services. HUD is implementing the 

HMIS initiative through local ‘‘Continuums of Care’’ (CoCs), which acquire and process data from all participating local service providers. CoCs are local boards formed 

by communities—typically cities, counties, or combinations of both—made up of representatives from nonprofit service providers, advocacy groups, local government, 

and other interested organizations.2 Local boards identify the needs of homeless persons in their communities and try to ensure that they receive the appropriate mix 

of preventative assistance, emergency services, transitional housing, supportive 

services, and permanent housing. Local homeless services providers submit requests 

for funding to their local CoC boards, which each in turn submit single consolidated 

applications to HUD. As of FY2007, there were approximately 467 CoCs, including 

those in the Territories.3

Two types of organizations are required to participate in HMIS: those that receive 

funding through the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program and those that receive Homeless Assistance Grants. The HOPWA program, 

enacted in 1990 (P.L. 101–625) provides housing and supportive services for persons 

living with HIV/AIDS.4 The Homeless Assistance Grants, enacted as part of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100–77),5 consist of both formula 

grants, which are distributed through the Emergency Shelter Grants program, and 

competitive grants, which are available through the Shelter Plus Care program, 

Supportive Housing Program, and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance for 

Single Room Occupancy Dwellings program.6 Other service providers that serve 

homeless individuals and families but do not receive Federal funds from these 

sources are also encouraged to participate in HMIS. 

HUD’s Continuing Role in Collecting Information About Homeless Persons 

Even prior to the congressional directive to implement HMIS (described in the 

next section of this report, ‘‘Development of the HMIS Network’’), HUD began efforts to collect information about homeless clients served in the communities that 

receive HUD Homeless Assistance Grants. Beginning in the mid-nineties, about the 

time that the Continuum of Care system developed, HUD required applicants for 

Homeless Assistance Grants to include in their applications information about the 

number of persons receiving assistance and the type of assistance they received. Initially this was done in narrative form. However, by 2003, the grant application required CoC applicants to complete a housing activity chart that included a pointin-time count of homeless individuals and families receiving services, though HUD 

did not specify when this count should take place.7 The 2003 application also asked 

applicants to categorize subpopulations served, including the number of chronically 

homeless individuals, veterans, those with severe mental illnesses, those with HIV/ 

AIDS, and victims of domestic violence. Some CoCs used database systems similar 

to HMIS to keep track of homeless individuals who were served; these predecessor 

systems are sometimes referred to as ‘‘legacy systems.’’ 8

The 2005 HUD point-in-time count of homeless persons marked the first time that 

HUD required all CoCs to conduct a count of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals, and to do it at a particular time of year. HUD directed CoCs to 

conduct a one-night count during the last week of January of both clients who used 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

134 

9 Ibid, p. 16. 

10 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Second Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, March 2008, p. 12, available at http://www.hudhre.info/documents/ 

2ndHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf (hereafter Second AHAR). 11See House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 

Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act 1999, report to accompany 

H.R. 4194, H.Rept. 105–610, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., July 8, 1998. The FY1999 HUD Appropriations Act referred to the House Committee Report language for specific requirements. 12 Ibid 13The provision allowing HMIS funding from the Supportive Housing Program (SHP) is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 11383(a)(7). HUD enumerated the ways in which CoCs may use SHP funds 

for management information systems in Federal Register, volume 69, no. 146, July 30, 2005, p. 

45890. 14See Conference Committee, Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act 2001, conference report to accompany H.R. 

4635, H.Rept. 106–988, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., October 18, 2000. 15See Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 

Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act 2001, report to accompany 

H.R. 4635, S.Rept. 106–410, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., September 13, 2000. 16 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Report to Congress: HUD’s Strategy 

for Homeless Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting, August 2001, p. 1, available at http:// 

www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/hmis/strategy/congressreport.pdf. 

homeless services and those who were on the street.9 HUD continues to require 

CoCs to conduct point-in-time counts every two years, though some CoCs choose to 

conduct counts every year. In 2006, 61% of CoCs voluntarily conducted counts.10

The most recent point-in-time count in which all CoCs participated occurred in January 2007. The results of these counts are described later in this report, in the section ‘‘CoC Estimates of Homeless Individuals.’’ 

Development of the HMIS Network 

Congressional Direction 

HUD’s ongoing attempts to count homeless individuals were given greater direction beginning in 1998, when Congress instructed HUD to count homeless persons 

and gather data about both their characteristics and use of homeless assistance 

services. The FY1999 HUD spending bill (P.L. 105–276) set aside up to 1% of the 

total appropriation for Homeless Assistance Grants for systems to track those persons experiencing homelessness. Specifically, Congress directed HUD to produce an 

unduplicated count of homeless persons and to collect information about homeless 

individuals surveyed such as age, race, sex, disability status, health status, and income; the types of services that homeless clients received; and client outcomes such 

as length of stay in transitional housing, success in acquiring permanent housing, 

and employment status.11 Congress concluded that this information would allow 

HUD to better assess the quality of service programs supported with Federal 

funds.12

Congress provided further direction to HUD in the HUD Appropriations Act for 

FY2001 (P.L. 106–377). The law made Supportive Housing Program funds available 

for local CoCs to implement management information systems.13 Congress directed 

HUD to work with local jurisdictions to develop a system to collect data, and to be 

ready to analyze the data within three years of passage of the appropriations bill.14

Congress also requested that HUD provide Congress with a report on its findings 

containing an unduplicated count of homeless persons and a descriptive profile of 

the population.15 The FY2001 Appropriations Act once again allocated funds to pay 

for data collection, this time setting aside 1.5% of the total appropriation for Homeless Assistance Grants of $1.02 billion. Congress has continued to allocate funds for 

homeless data collection in spending bills from FY2002 to FY2008. 

HUD Actions 

In the time since Congress directed HUD to implement a system to count homeless persons and collect information on their characteristics, HUD has issued six annual reports to Congress updating its progress. In an initial report, dated August 

2001, HUD stated that it would help CoCs collect homelessness data through four 

means: 16

• flexibly implementing the new Homeless Management Information System 

(HMIS) eligible activity under the Supportive Housing Program in the 2001 

McKinney-Vento competition; 

• initiating a comprehensive technical assistance program to help local jurisdictions collect unduplicated client-level data by 2004; 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

135 

17The website is http://www.hmis.info. 18Federal Register vol. 69, no. 146, July 30, 2004, pp. 45888–45934. 19 Ibid, p. 45905. 20 Ibid, pp. 45913–45914. 21 Ibid, p. 45914. 22 Ibid, p. 45891–45892. 23 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‘‘The Violence Against Women and 

Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005: Applicability to HUD Programs,’’ 72 Federal 

Register 12695–12700, March 16, 2007. 

• developing an approach to obtaining meaningful data for an Annual Homeless 

Assessment Report from a nationally representative sample of jurisdictions; and 

• analyzing the most viable approaches to obtaining homeless client-level reporting. 

Since issuing this 2001 report, HUD has initiated a number of activities to follow 

through on its pledge to assist CoCs. It specified that CoCs may use Supportive 

Housing Program funds for computer hardware, software, and personnel to manage 

and operate information systems, analyze HMIS data, and produce reports. HUD 

technical assistance teams hold training sessions for CoCs across the country. In 

each year from 2004 to 2007, HUD sponsored national conferences in which it provided sessions on a wide range of topics, including data entry, strategies for including data on domestic violence clients and chronically homeless individuals, and how 

to use HMIS to evaluate program performance and improve services to persons experiencing homelessness. HUD established a website—HMIS.Info—where information about HMIS implementation across the country can be disseminated.17 Since 

October 2004, the HMIS.Info site has published a newsletter, managed a listserv, 

and hosted conference calls. In addition, a number of publications on implementing 

management information systems are available on the HMIS.Info website. 

HMIS Data and Technical Standards. On July 30, 2004, HUD released its 

final notice on HMIS data and technical standards that local CoCs are expected to 

follow when they collect information about their homeless clients.18 The standards 

describe two levels of data collection—universal data, which homeless service providers must collect from all clients, and program-specific data, which programs that 

receive certain types of funding must collect, but that other programs are encouraged to collect as well. 

All participants must report on universal data elements, which include name, 

date of birth, race, ethnicity, gender, veteran status, Social Security Number, prior 

residence, and disabling conditions.19 In general, all programs that receive funds 

under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and HOPWA are required to 

provide program-specific data; this requirement is not new, as HUD already requires grantee organizations to provide this information in their Annual Progress 

Reports.20 Included in program-specific data elements are amount and sources of income, receipt of non-cash benefits, physical and developmental disabilities, HIV status, mental illness, substance abuse status, and domestic violence status.21

Confidentiality of Domestic Violence Victims. Due to the sensitive nature of 

much of the information that homeless service providers must collect, some groups 

that provide services to domestic violence victims raised privacy concerns to HUD 

after its release of proposed data and technical standards but prior to release of 

final standards in 2004. These organizations requested that information about domestic violence victims not be included in HMIS.22 At the time, HUD acknowledged 

the sensitivity of certain information, but concluded that CoCs could collect the information in such a way that would protect the identity of those in the system. To 

this end, HUD included privacy and security standards in the data and technical 

standards that all organizations must follow. 

However, on January 5, 2006, President Bush signed the Violence Against Women 

and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109–162), which included provisions to (1) amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to prevent victim 

service providers from disclosing personally identifying information through HMIS, 

and (2) permit disclosure of non-personally identifying information only after a public notice and comment period. On March 16, 2007, HUD released a notice regarding 

HMIS and the amendments to McKinney-Vento made by P.L. 109–162.23 In the notice, HUD confirmed that it would require disclosure of non-personally identifying 

information only after going through a notice and comment period. Until HUD does 

so, it has instructed organizations that provide services to domestic violence victims 

not to input information about their clients into HMIS. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

136 

24First AHAR, p. 1. 25 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Report to Congress: Sixth Progress 

Report on HUD’s Strategy for Homeless Data Collection, Reporting and Analysis, May 2007, p. 

4, available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/library/improvingDataCollection.pdf 

(hereafter Sixth Progress Report to Congress). 26 Ibid 27 Ibid 28 Ibid, p. 5. 29First AHAR, p. 13. 30Sixth Progress Report to Congress, p. 5. 

Status of the HMIS Network 

Two aspects of HMIS implementation contribute to a CoC’s ability to capture data 

regarding homeless persons. The first aspect is whether a data collection system has 

been established at the CoC level, and the second is the degree to which homeless 

service providers within a CoC are participating in the system. Although almost all 

CoCs have established an HMIS system into which data may be entered, the extent 

to which data are actually entered into these systems remains incomplete, on average. Once established, a comprehensive HMIS network is meant to improve the ability of communities to provide services to homeless persons as well as to help HUD 

determine how best to allocate resources.24

HMIS Implementation. HUD’s initial goal was that every CoC implement an 

HMIS by October 2004—meaning establish a system into which communities are 

entering data. Although this goal was not accomplished by 2004, the number of 

CoCs participating in HMIS has increased in every year since 2001.25 Between 2005 

and 2006, the percentage of CoCs that had implemented an HMIS (meaning they 

were actually inputting data) increased from 72% to 91%.26 From 2005 to 2006, the 

percentage of CoCs that had decided to implement an HMIS but were still in the 

planning stages decreased from 20% to 9%, and the percentage that were not yet 

planning an HMIS dropped from 7% to 1%.27

At the local level, CoCs have several options for implementing and maintaining 

their HMIS databases. Not all CoCs are implementing their own HMIS. Some are 

collaborating to create a multi-jurisdictional HMIS with two or more CoCs. Others 

are planning to make individual CoC data accessible at the state level, while 19 

states have decided to implement a state-level HMIS.28 Local initiatives also differ 

in their methods of incorporating service providers into HMIS. Local CoCs may use 

one central HMIS, into which all service providers input client information. Another 

option is to allow service providers to use different database systems, but to have 

technical specialists available at the CoC level to merge all data into one unified 

system. A third option is to use side-by-side systems where individual service providers enter data into their own systems, and also enter data into a CoC-wide 

HMIS. 

Participation of Service Providers in HMIS. Even where CoCs have successfully implemented HMIS, coverage of homeless service providers may be incomplete. 

HUD uses the term ‘‘bed coverage’’ to describe the rate at which local service providers within a CoC participate in HMIS. The term refers to the percentage of available beds in a CoC that are actually accounted for in HMIS. If not all service providers within a CoC participate in HMIS, then bed coverage may be low. Issues with 

bed coverage may arise in cases of domestic violence shelters that are reluctant to 

report data due to confidentiality concerns, or where service providers do not receive 

HUD funds and are not required to participate in HMIS. In addition, even when 

service providers report data to HMIS, they might not include all clients served, 

which could result in another limitation on the usefulness of the data.29

HUD keeps track of bed coverage rates both by the type of shelter provided, such 

as emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing, and by household type, such as homeless individuals and homeless families. From 2005 to 2006, 

the average number of beds across CoCs that were included in HMIS increased in 

all categories.30 HUD reports bed coverage as an average rate—the average of all 

CoCs’ bed coverage rates. 

• Emergency Shelter: The average bed coverage rate for shelters serving individuals went from 43% in 2005 to 55% in 2006. For shelters serving homeless families, the average bed coverage rate went from 45% in 2005 to 51% in 2006. 

• Transitional Housing: The average bed coverage rate for transitional housing 

serving homeless individuals increased from 41% in 2005 to 50% in 2006. Average bed coverage rates for homeless families increased from 51% to 62%. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

137 

31For an explaNation of how annual counts are estimated using data from point-in-time 

counts, see Martha R. Burt and Carol Wilkens, Estimating the Need: Projecting from Point-inTime to Annual Estimates of the Number of Homeless People in a Community and Using this 

Information to Plan for Permanent Supportive Housing, Corporation for Supportive Housing, 

March 2005, available at http://documents.csh.org/documents/pubs/csh_estimatingneed.pdf. 32 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs: A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People, Second Revision, January 15, 2008, 

p. 14, available at http://www.hudhre.info/documents/counting_unsheltered.pdf (hereinafter A 

Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People). 33First AHAR, p. 17. 34 Ibid 35 A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People. 36First AHAR, p. 18. 

• Permanent Housing: Average bed coverage rates for permanent supportive 

housing for individuals went from 46% in 2005 to 58% in 2006. Average bed 

coverage rates for homeless families went from 54% in 2005 to 58% in 2006. 

Counts of Homeless Persons 

Since the eighties, a number of attempts have been made to estimate the total 

number of homeless persons in the country as well as to describe their characteristics. Although the specific methods used in the studies have varied, in most, researchers surveyed a sample of the homeless population and used the sample to estimate the total number of homeless persons in the country. The time periods covered by these counts vary. Some are ‘‘point-in-time’’ counts that estimate the number of homeless people on a single night during the year. Others estimate the number of persons who are homeless during longer periods—a week or span of months. 

Researchers have also used samples to estimate the total number of persons who 

are homeless at some point during the year.31

The HMIS initiative differs from these previous efforts to count homeless people 

and gather information. Instead of sampling only certain communities or counting 

homeless individuals on only a single night, CoCs gather information from all homeless assistance providers regarding all homeless individuals who use their services 

each day of the year. Eventually, once communities have fully implemented HMIS, 

the network of systems is expected to provide an annual unduplicated count of 

homeless persons from each jurisdiction. Counting homeless populations on the 

street might continue to be important, however, as their use of services is unknown.32 HUD released its first report to Congress using HMIS data, the Annual 

Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), in February 2007. In March 2008, HUD released the second AHAR. Because HMIS is not fully implemented in all jurisdictions 

around the country, the two AHARs, like previous efforts to count homeless persons, 

rely on a sample of jurisdictions. 

This section describes several efforts to estimate the number of homeless individuals over the years. These include CoC point-in-time counts that take place every 

two years, estimates in the two AHARs using HMIS data, and previous estimates 

from the eighties and nineties. This section also includes resources that describe 

homeless demographic data. 

CoC Counts of Homeless Individuals 

As mentioned earlier in this report, in 2005 and 2007, HUD required all CoCs 

to conduct point-in-time counts of both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals in their jurisdictions. In 2006, 61% of CoCs voluntarily conducted point-intime counts. Although currently most CoCs conduct counts without using HMIS,33

eventually HUD expects the HMIS initiative to be part of this point-in-time collection of information about homeless individuals. As HMIS programs develop, CoCs 

will be able to use the systems as part of the data collection process in estimating 

the number of sheltered homeless people.34

The reliability of CoC point-in-time data vary by Continuum, particularly in the 

case of estimates of unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered individuals are 

those living in places not meant for human habitation, such as cars, abandoned 

buildings, highway underpasses, and public parks. Although HUD has published 

guidance on how to conduct street counts 35 and provides technical assistance to 

CoCs, the task is complicated, and not all CoCs are able to conduct statistically reliable surveys of those individuals who are not sheltered.36

During the point-in-time counts, HUD also asks participating CoCs to collect information about homeless individuals, which is referred to as ‘‘subpopulation information.’’ CoCs are to ask homeless individuals whether they are chronically homeless; have severe mental illnesses, substance abuse disorders, or HIV/AIDS; are vetjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

138 

37 Ibid 38For 2005, see http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/05local/05StatesHomelessData.pdf. 

For 2006, see http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/local/reports/06StatesHomelessData.pdf. 39 Because HUD directed CoCs to conduct a point-in-time count of homeless individuals during 

the last week of January 2005, not all CoC point-in-time counts took place on the same day 

in January. 40The counts are available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/local/index.cfm. 41For these results, see http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/05local/ 

05CoCHomelessData.pdf. 42The AHAR estimates using HMIS data, described in the next section of this report, do not 

include data from the territories. For comparability purposes, the CoC point-in-time counts in 

the states only were 415,366 sheltered homeless individuals, 338,781 unsheltered individuals, 

and 754,147 total individuals. See http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/05local/ 

05StatesHomelessData.pdf. 43The CoC point-in-time counts of homeless individuals in the states only were 424,932 sheltered individuals, 323,899 unsheltered individuals, and 748,831 total individuals. See http:// 

www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/local/reports/06StatesHomelessData.pdf. 44For these results, see http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/local/reports/ 

06CoCHomelessData.pdf. 45The first AHAR is available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ahar.pdf. 46The second AHAR is available at http://www.hudhre.info/documents/ 

2ndHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf. 

erans; have experienced domestic violence; or are unaccompanied youth. CoCs are 

not always able to gather this information, and even when they do, according to 

HUD, the subpopulation information is less reliable than the estimates of the number of homeless individuals.37 Further, in the required 2005 CoC count, it was optional for CoCs to provide information regarding unsheltered homeless subpopulations. Information about homeless subpopulations is available on HUD’s website.38

2005 CoC Counts. In both 2005 and 2007, HUD directed all CoCs to conduct 

counts on one night during the last week of January.39 As of the date of this report, 

the results of the 2007 count are not available. The HUD website provides a breakdown of these point-in-time estimates for each CoC from 2005.40 The 2005 results 

for the states and territories are as follows: 41

• the sheltered homeless population consisted of 418,165 persons on a single day 

during the last week of January 2005; 

• the unsheltered homeless population numbered 344,845; 

• the total number of homeless individuals counted on one day during the last 

week of January 2005 was 763,010.42

2006 CoC Counts. In 2006, 277 out of 448 CoCs, or just under 62%, voluntarily 

conducted point-in-time counts. HUD added the 2006 results from these 277 CoCs 

to the 2005 results of the CoCs that did not conduct counts to arrive at a total number of homeless individuals. HUD refers to this number as the 2006 estimate although some of the results come from 2005 point-in-time counts. The 2006 results 

for the states and territories are as follows: 43

• the sheltered homeless population consisted of 427,971 persons on a single day 

during the last week of either January 2005 or January 2006; 

• the unsheltered population numbered 331,130; and 

• the total number of homeless individuals counted on 1 day during the last week 

of either January 2005 or January 2006 was 759,101.44

The Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) 

On February 28, 2007, HUD released the first Annual Homeless Assessment Report, in which HMIS data were analyzed for the first time.45 A year later, in March 

2008, the second AHAR was released.46 For both the first and second AHARs, researchers relied on HMIS data collected from a sample of communities during a period of time and used these data to derive national-level estimates of the number 

of homeless persons. The two reports provide point-in-time estimates of the number 

of homeless individuals, estimates of the number of homeless persons during a 

longer period (three months during the first AHAR and six months during the second AHAR), and a description of characteristics of those persons experiencing homelessness. 

The HMIS data in the two AHARs provide estimates only of the sheltered homeless population—individuals living in emergency shelter and transitional housing— 

and do not include estimates of individuals living on the street or other places not 

meant for human habitation. As a result, both AHARs also reported data collected 

from CoCs during their one-night counts of homeless persons in January 2005 and 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

139 

47First AHAR, p. 53. 48 Ibid, p. 13. 49The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is 218,890 to 408,554, meaning that researchers are 95% sure that the actual number of homeless individuals on this date was somewhere 

in this range. See First AHAR, p. 22. 50The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is 235,315 to 434,233. First AHAR, p. 22. 51The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is 399,244 to 1,009,048. First AHAR, p. 28. 52First AHAR, p. 31. 53Second AHAR, p. 61. 54Second AHAR, pp. 4–5. As explained earlier in this report, the Violence Against Women and 

Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109–162) prevented domestic violence service 

providers from participating in HMIS. The first AHAR data collection period occurred prior to 

enactment of P.L. 109–162, and some of these providers were still participating in HMIS at that 

time. 

January 2006, which included individuals and families who were on the street or 

similar location. 

In the coming years, the AHAR is expected to include data from a larger number 

of service providers, cover nonresidential populations, examine longitudinal data 

over a time period greater than three months, and include more information about 

the clients served.47

Estimates from the First AHAR Using HMIS Data. Initially, data from a nationally representative sample of 80 CoCs were expected to be used in the first 

AHAR. However, minimum HMIS requirements meant that some sample communities were excluded from the analysis. In order to participate, each jurisdiction was 

required to have a minimum level of bed coverage—only CoCs in which at least 50% 

of beds in at least one of four categories (emergency shelter for individuals, emergency shelter for families, transitional housing for individuals, and transitional 

housing for families) could participate in the AHAR.48 As a result, data from 64 

rather than 80 sample communities were used to arrive at estimates in the first 

AHAR. 

Using HMIS data, the first AHAR reported two point-in-time estimates of the 

number of sheltered homeless persons, as well as an estimate of the number of persons who were homeless in the three-month period from February 1 to April 30, 

2005. (See Table 1.) These estimates do not include homeless people who were not 

residing in emergency shelters or transitional housing during the relevant time periods. Nor do the estimates include the territories. Data from the HMIS sample communities provided that 

• an estimated 313,722 persons in the country were homeless on April 30, 2005; 49

• an estimated 334,744 persons were homeless on an average day between February 1 and April 30, 2005; 50 and 

• an estimated 704,146 persons were homeless on at least one day between February 1 and April 30, 2005.51

The first AHAR did not attempt to use these numbers to estimate the total number of persons who were homeless at some point during the year. 

The HMIS data collected over the three-month period in 2005 also provided information about the characteristics of the homeless persons surveyed. Information from 

the sampled jurisdictions was used to estimate that 65.7% of homeless persons were 

individuals or households without children, while 34.4% consisted of households 

with children. Unaccompanied adult males made up the largest percentage of the 

population (47.4%). Children made up 21.2% of the population. The majority of 

homeless individuals in the three-month count were members of minority groups, 

58.9%. Of the adult homeless population counted during the three-month period, 

18.7% were veterans and 25.0% were disabled. However, 35% of the HMIS records 

were missing information on veteran status and 55% of records were missing information on disability status.52

Estimates from the Second AHAR Using HMIS Data. The second AHAR relied on data from a total of 74 communities that were collected from January 

through June 2006. As in the first AHAR, communities were required to meet bed 

coverage requirements of 50% in at least one of four categories in order to participate.53 Also, like the first AHAR, the second AHAR estimated the number of sheltered homeless individuals—those living in transitional housing or emergency shelters—and did not include those living in places not meant for human habitation. 

Unlike the first AHAR, the sample communities did not include any data from domestic violence shelters.54

The second AHAR reported three point-in-time estimates and an estimate of the 

total number of persons who were homeless during the six-month period from Janujbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

140 

55Second AHAR, p. 18. 56The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is 248,900 to 426,400. Second AHAR, p. 12. 57The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is 249,100 to 428,500. Second AHAR, p. 12. 58The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is 249,200 to 424,900. Second AHAR, p. 12. 59The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is 691,129 to 1,610,603. Second AHAR, p. 20. 60Second AHAR, p. 20. 61 Ibid, p. 22. 62 Ibid 63 Ibid, p. 23. 64 Ibid 65See First AHAR, pp. 23–24 and Second AHAR, pp. 11–12. 66For a short description of HUD’s 1983 count, see First AHAR, p. 3. 67Martha R. Burt and Barbara E. Cohen, America’s Homeless: Numbers, Characteristics, and 

Programs that Serve Them (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, July 1989). 68 Ibid, p. 29. The range varies based on estimates of homeless individuals who did not use 

homeless services, and therefore were not counted. 69 Ibid, p. 32. 

ary 2006 through June 2006. The estimates include only the states and do not include the territories: 55

• an estimated 338,000 persons were homeless on January 25, 2006; 56

• an estimated 339,000 persons were homeless on April 26, 2006; 57

• an estimated 337,000 persons were homeless on an average day between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006; 58 and • an estimated 1,150,866 persons were homeless at some time during the period 

January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006.59

The second AHAR did not attempt to estimate the total number of people who 

were homeless in 2006. 

The HMIS data for the second AHAR collected over the six-month period in 2006 

also provided information about the characteristics of the homeless persons surveyed. Information from the sampled jurisdictions was used to estimate that 72.8% 

of homeless persons were individuals or households without children, while 27.2% 

were households with children.60 Unaccompanied adult males made up the largest 

percentage of the population (53%).61 Children made up 17% of the population, and 

unaccompanied youth were 3%.62 The majority of homeless individuals in the sixmonth period were members of minority groups, 66.3%.63 Of the adult homeless 

population counted during the six-month period, 14.3% were veterans and 38.4% 

were disabled. However, 20% of the HMIS records were missing information on veteran status and 43% of records were missing information on disability status.64

AHAR Estimates Using CoC Point-in-Time Counts. Because the HMIS data 

used for the two AHARs did not include information about individuals and families 

who were unsheltered, both reports included estimates of sheltered and unsheltered 

homeless persons collected as part of CoCs point-in-time counts. The estimates summarized in the previous section of this report ‘‘CoC Estimates of Homeless Individuals’’ were reported in the first and second AHARs.65

Previous Attempts to Count Homeless Persons 

Previous attempts have been made both to arrive at an accurate count of the 

number of homeless persons in the United States and to describe their characteristics. The first national count occurred in 1983, when HUD reported an estimate of 

homeless individuals by asking service providers to estimate the number of homeless individuals in their area.66 Through this process, HUD estimated that between 

250,000 and 350,000 individuals were homeless at a given point in time. Two more 

recent, comprehensive estimates are described below. 

The Urban Institute (1987). In March 1987, the Urban Institute conducted 

interviews of a sample of homeless individuals living in 34 different cities with a 

population of 100,000 or more and who used soup kitchens and shelters.67 The researchers estimated that the number of homeless persons during an average sevenday period in March 1987 ranged from 496,000 to 600,000.68 They used this sevenday estimate to project that approximately one million individuals were homeless 

at some time during 1987.69

The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (1996). 

The Urban Institute released a second estimate in 2000 using data collected in 1996 

by the Census Bureau as part of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC). The NSHAPC surveyed both homeless individuals 

and service providers. Surveys were conducted in 76 communities of varying size 

and included clients and staff of numerous organizations such as emergency sheljbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

141 

70Martha R. Burt, Laudan Y. Aron, et al., Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve: 

Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients, Technical Report, 

December 1999, Chapter 2, p. 2–1, available at http://www.huduser.org/publications/homeless/ 

homeless_tech.html. 71 Ibid, p. 1–7. 72Martha Burt and Laudan Y. Aron, America’s Homeless II: Population and Services, The 

Urban Institute, February 1, 2000, available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900344_ 

AmericasHomelessII.pdf. 73The estimate for one week during the fall of 1996 was based on service usage by homeless 

individuals. 74The estimate for one week during winter of 1996 was based on service provider estimates. 75 America’s Homeless II: Population and Services. 76 Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. 

ters, transitional and permanent housing facilities, soup kitchens, food pantries, and 

drop-in centers.70 Although the purpose of the NSHAPC was not to arrive at a count 

of homeless individuals,71 researchers used the data to arrive at an estimate of the 

number of homeless individuals who relied on homeless services during two different seven-day periods in 1996.72 During a seven-day period in the fall 1996, an 

estimated 444,000 clients used homeless assistance services,73 and during a sevenday period in the winter of that year, the number was estimated to be 842,000.74

The researchers used these numbers to estimate that during all of 1996, between 

2.3 million and 3.5 million individuals were homeless at some time.75

Table 1—National Estimates of the Number of Homeless Individuals 

Time Period Source Population Sampled Estimate 

Data from Second Annual Homeless Assessment Report 

One Day, January 2006 CoC Counts a Sheltered Persons Only 424,932 

One Day, January 2006 CoC Counts Sheltered and 

Unsheltered Persons 

748,831 

January 24, 2006 HMIS Sheltered Persons Only 338,000 

April 26, 2006 HMIS Sheltered Persons Only 339,000 

Average Day, January—June 2006 HMIS Sheltered Persons Only 337,000 

Six Months, January—June 2006 HMIS Sheltered Persons Only 1,150,866 

Data from Previous Estimates 

Average Week, March 1987 Urban Institute Persons Using Shelters 

and Soup Kitchens 

496,000– 

600,000 

Average Week, October 1996 NSHAPC Persons Using Various 

Services 

444,000 

Average Week, February 1996 NSHAPC Persons Using Various 

Services 

842,000 

Full Year, 1996 NSHAPC Persons Using Various 

Services 

2.3–3.5 

million 

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Second Annual Homeless Assessment 

Report to Congress, March 2008, available at http://www.hudhre.info/documents/2ndHomelessAssessment Report.pdf; Martha R. Burt and Barbara E. Cohen, America’s Homeless: Numbers, Characteristics, and Programs 

that Serve Them (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, July 1989), 32; and Martha Burt and Laudan 

Y. Aron, America’s Homeless II: Population and Services, The Urban Institute: February 1, 2000, at http:// 

www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900344_AmericasHomelessII.pdf. a Although the second AHAR reported the results of CoC point-in-time counts that included counts from the 

territories, for comparability purposes (because HMIS estimates did not include the territories), the numbers 

in this table are for the states only. For these numbers, see HUD’s website http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/ 

homeless/local/index.cfm. 

Sources of Demographic Information About Homeless Persons 

A number of surveys have been conducted to collect information to describe the 

characteristics of the national homeless population. The NSHAPC data resulted in 

demographic, income, and other information about homeless individuals in 1996.76

Among the findings were that homeless clients were predominantly male (68%) and 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

142 

77 Ibid, p. 3–4. 78 Ibid, pp. 3–5 to 3–7. 79 Ibid, p. 3–3. 80 Ibid, pp. 8–3 to 8–8. 81 Ibid, p. 10–2. 82 Ibid, p. 10–10. 83For the most recent U.S. Conference of Mayors report, see U.S. Conference of Mayors, Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities, 

December 2007, available at http://www.usmayors.org/HHSurvey2007/hhsurvey07.pdf. 84The cities surveyed were Boston, Charleston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Des 

Moines, Detroit, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Nashville, Philadelphia, Phoenix, 

Portland (OR), Providence, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Seattle, St. Paul, and 

Trenton. 85 Ibid, p. 15. 86 Annetta C. Smith and Denise I. Smith, Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population: 

2000, U.S. Census Bureau, October 2001. The report is available from the Census Bureau 

website, at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/censr01–2.pdf. 87 Ibid, p. 6. 88 Ibid, p. 8. 89 John H. Kuhn and John Nakashima, The Fourteenth Annual Progress Report on Public Law 

105–114: Services for Homeless Veterans Assessment and CoordiNation, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, February 28, 2008. 

nonwhite (53%); 23% of homeless clients were veterans.77 Large proportions of 

homeless adults had never married (48%) and had not received a high school diploma (38%).78 The NSHAPC also found that although 48% of homeless adults had 

minor children, only 31% of those with children lived with them.79 Thirty-eight percent of homeless clients reported alcohol problems during the past month, and 39% 

reported mental health problems during that period.80 Over one-quarter (27%) of 

homeless clients had lived in foster care, a group home, or other institutional setting 

for part of their childhood.81 Twenty-five percent reported childhood physical or sexual abuse.82

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has issued an annual report since 1984, in which 

between 20 and 30 large cities survey their social service providers’ efforts to combat 

hunger and homelessness and provide housing.83 In 2007, the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors appointed 25 Mayors to serve on its Task Force on Hunger and Homelessness. The cities where those 25 Mayors serve were surveyed for the organization’s 

annual report on hunger and homelessness between November 1, 2006, and October 

31, 2007; 23 cities responded.84 Regarding the demographics of the homeless population, the surveyed cities estimated that 76% of homeless persons were single individuals, 23% were members of a family with children, and 1% were unaccompanied 

youth. Among single individuals and unaccompanied youth, an estimated 67.5% 

were men, 22.4% had mental health issues, 37.1% had substance abuse issues, and 

16.9% were veterans.85 The single homeless population was estimated to be 50.0% 

white, 45.7% African American, 12.8% Hispanic, 2.5% American Indian, and 1.6% 

Asian. Among homeless families with children, 60.6% of all members were estimated to be under age 18, 65% of adults were female, and 12.0% of adults were 

victims of domestic violence. Members of homeless families with children were estimated to be 47.0% white, 47.0% African American, 24.0% Hispanic, 4.0% American 

Indian, and 2.0% Asian. 

The Census Bureau released a report using data collected during the 2000 Census 

of individuals living in emergency and transitional housing. The information was 

collected on one day in March 2000 and captured information from nearly 171,000 

respondents. The report described some basic demographic characteristics of those 

who were included in the survey.86 Of those persons who were interviewed, 74% 

were adults (age 18 and older), and of the entire population (adults and children), 

61% were male and 39% were female.87 The most respondents were white (41%), 

slightly fewer were African American (40%), and 20% reported that they were Hispanic.88

In the area of veterans who experience homelessness, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) annually estimates the number of veterans who are homeless through 

the ‘‘Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and Networking 

Groups’’ (CHALENG) process. The estimates are based on a variety of sources, although the VA is attempting to make its process consistent with HUD’s CoC counts 

of homeless individuals. In its most recent report, the VA estimated that in 2007 

approximately 154,000 veterans were homeless on one day during the last week of 

January.89 For more information about the CHALENG process and estimates, see 

CRS Report RL34024, Veterans and Homelessness

f 

, by Libby Perl. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

143 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

John Driscoll 

Vice President for Operations and Programs 

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans 

3331⁄2 Pennsylvania Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20003–1148 

Dear John: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

John Driscoll, Vice President for Operations and Programs 

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans 

‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ 

April 9, 2008 

Questions from House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Question 1: In your testimony you devote quite a bit of time talking about the 

Grant and Per Diem Program and the fact that the payment system is outdated. 

You state that the reimbursement formula should reflect the actual cost of services—based on each grantee’s demonstrated capacity to provide those that are 

deemed critical to the success of the GPD program and veteran clients—rather than 

a flat rate on custodial care. 

Question 1(a): Please explain to the Committee how that would work and how 

that is different than what is now being done. 

Response: Grant and Per Diem Payment Restructuring 

Currently the reimbursement an organization receives under the Grant and Per 

Diem Program (GPD) is based on the state veterans’ home rate—which is generally 

custodial care—and limited to about $31 per day. That rate is then discounted based 

on additional Federal funding an organization receives. The original intent of the 

GPD program was to provide beds in a safe, substance-free environment for veterans transitioning out of homelessness. Experience has shown this transition also 

requires intense case management; counseling for substance abuse and behavioral 

problems; treatment for physical and mental illnesses; employment preparation, 

placement and follow-up services; lifeskills training; legal assistance; family reunification services, child care assistance. Access to these services is vital to successful 

transition out of homelessness; and these all represent additional costs to the service provider. 

Many organizations receive grants from the Departments of Housing and Urban 

Development, Labor, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Education to provide 

specialized services for their homeless clients, but the amount of reimbursement 

under the GPD program is reduced if homeless veteran programs receive other Federal funding. The guidelines of the GPD program make it clear that successfully 

competing for funds requires links to other community-based and local government 

agencies, yet penalize organizations that receive Federal funds to do so. 

A payment system based on the scope of services available at a facility rather 

than simply a daily amount for a veteran in a bed would allow VA to better coordinate and regulate the GPD program. VA would, as it does now, continue to monitor 

activities at GPD providers and audit their annual reports. However, organizations 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

144 

that provide on-site case management, 24-hour emergency psychiatric assistance, 

on-site employment preparation and placement services, on-site kitchen and meals, 

transportation assistance, child care facilities for dependent children and other supportive services would be able to incorporate those necessary costs in their grant applications as ‘‘allowable’’ costs chargeable to the VA under the Grant and Per Diem 

Program. 

The list of supportive services allowable under the grant would have to be revised, 

but not the application process. Organizations would have to clearly indicate the 

number of veterans their programs would serve, acceptable housing and employment ‘‘placement targets,’’ as they do now, but also an estimation of the cost and 

reach of their supportive services offerings. Annual audits would validate reported 

expenses and certify program outcomes. The audits are currently required, and GPD 

liaisons at all VA Medical Centers are responsible for completing these oversight 

functions, so there would be no significant increase in administrative burden for the 

program. Applicants would be evaluated on the number of veterans they help, the 

breadth of services they provide, and success reaching or exceeding their goals. 

While the prime objective of this recommendation is to help organizations provide 

the best level of care and continuity of services possible, it would also provide more 

financial stability to organizations—mostly nonprofits—focusing on service gaps that 

the government needs help to fill. That is the fundamental purpose of the Grant 

and Per Diem Program, and we now have an appreciable body of evidence that supports revising the payment system. 

Question 1(b): What are the barriers to updating the Grant and Per Diem payment system? 

Response: Barriers to updating the Grant and Per Diem Payment System 

Our greatest concern with respect to revising the GPD payment system is the equitable distribution of limited funds between larger organizations and smaller, less 

sophisticated homeless service providers. The larger GPD organizations that have 

social workers, psychiatric specialists, counselors, and employment specialists on 

staff will demonstrate a much larger services portfolio and much higher costs than 

the small organization that must refer clients to partner agencies for most of those 

services. The great majority of current GPD funding goes to renewal applications 

and special needs grants. Any move to increase funding for large organizations without increasing the annual appropriation will strain funding available for smaller 

programs—the vast majority of GDP programs nationwide. One possible solution is 

to introduce a new competitive level under the GPD program—Comprehensive Service Centers—that would apply for funding under a ‘‘services-focused’’ approach rather than a simple ‘‘client census’’ basis, with additional funding infused into the program for that purpose. 

We believe modifying the repayment system is a more pressing issue. Currently, 

service providers spell out in their applications what they are going to do, and submit a detailed program budget that must be approved by the VA. Then they provide 

services according to that agreement, and apply for reimbursement after the services are rendered. Payments are received as a ‘‘reimbursement’’ only, which means 

smaller organizations cannot draw on their approved funds to provide approved and 

critical support. They must sometimes go into debt while waiting for VA reimbursement payments. We have also heard of organizations not receiving their full funding, or having to pay back money they spent on previously approved activities that 

subsequent auditors ruled were unallowable. 

Grantees should be allowed to draw down the funds they need to provide services 

they are contractually obligated to provide while they are providing those services— 

not one to three months later. And once an agreement between the VA and a community-based service provider is executed, the VA should be responsible for monitoring the provider’s activities closely enough to safeguard against major disagreements on allowable expenses at a later date that could threaten the survival of the 

service provider. 

Question 2: In your testimony you state that the lack of affordable permanent 

housing is cited as the number one unmet need of America’s veterans, according to 

the CHALENG report. 

Question 2(a): What is your agency’s view on how to best address this shortfall? 

Response: Addressing the Lack of Affordable Housing 

Congress, with the help of several members of this committee, has already taken 

the first monumental step in this regard with the passing of the 10,000 HUD–VASH 

vouchers for veterans with chronic mental illness, disabilities and extreme poverty 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

145 

in FY 2008; and HUD’s inclusion of another 10,000 vouchers in FY 2009. This will 

go a long way in providing housing for nearly half of the 46,000 chronically homeless veterans (National Alliance to End Homelessness) in the Nation today. 

We worked closely with both House and Senate staffs to address this issue in the 

Homes for Heroes Act (H.R. 3329, S. 1084). More than 1.5 million veteran families 

live below the Federal poverty level, and most of them are one catastrophic economic or health event away from homelessness. This act would direct the HUD Secretary to provide assistance to private nonprofit organizations and consumer cooperatives to expand the supply of supportive housing for very low-income veteran 

families (that is, families with incomes not exceeding 50% of the area median income). The bill would also provide emergency funding and services for families in 

crisis. Administered through the VA, services could include rental assistance, child 

care, employment services, personal and financial counseling, case management, etc. 

The bills would increase housing stability by addressing health and economic problems of veterans before they result in an increased risk of homelessness. 

We also believe there needs to be greater participation by state and local governments to ensure the development of more affordable housing stock for special needs 

clients—the disabled, the elderly, the chronically ill, and low-income families. Much 

of the individual and family supportive work is being done by nonprofits, but developing housing options within a community is government’s work. We are currently 

working with the development and finance communities to study public-private 

partnerships to help local authorities understand the social and economic incentives 

of building these supported housing developments. 

A strategy to produce more affordable housing stock for low-income and homeless 

veterans must include a renewed focus on the VA Enhanced Use Lease Program. 

The program allows government and community-based service providers to enter 

into a lease agreement with the VA to use surplus or ‘‘underutilized’’ facilities for 

purposes that benefit veterans. It is our understanding the VA is already doing this 

with the hope of entering into agreements with homeless service providers in several locations this year. We will be following these developments closely. 

ReexamiNation of the purpose of the VA Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan 

Guarantee Program is another option. This initiative authorizes VA to guarantee 15 

loans with an aggregate value of $100 million for construction, renovation of existing property, and refinancing of existing loans to develop transitional housing 

projects for homeless veterans and their families. First authorized in 1998, only two 

projects have survived beyond the initial planning stages—in Chicago and San 

Diego—and only St. Leo’s in Chicago has been developed. 

While we believe this program seemed promising in its original design and intent, 

the real-life difficulties in long-term coalition building, planning and economic hardships developers have encountered to date strongly suggest a much more practical 

and streamlined program should be developed to address the critical supportive 

housing needs of homeless veterans and those at serious risk of homelessness due 

to chronic health problems and poverty. 

The need for increased service capacity is immediate, and many community-based 

providers have successfully developed additional transitional and longer term residential opportunities for their clients. We believe the resources earmarked for the 

Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program might be better allocated to support projects that can be developed and brought online more swiftly. 

Question 2(b): What are the other unmet needs of America’s veterans? 

Response: The ‘‘Other’’ Unmet Needs of Homeless Veterans 

Each year since 1994, the VA publishes the CHALENG Report, which gives an 

estimate of the number of homeless veterans across the Nation, as well as a list 

ranking how well the needs of homeless veterans are being met. This listing of 

‘‘met’’ and ‘‘unmet’’ needs of veterans has been surprisingly consistent over the 

years, with the lack of affordable long-term housing firmly established in the top 

two or three ‘‘unmet’’ needs for the last five years. From the 2006 CHALENG Report, the most recent posted on the VA website: 

Top unmet needs of homeless veterans nationwide (5 = need is met): 

1. Long-term, permanent housing (2.46) 

2. Child care (2.47) 

3. Access to dental care (2.64) 

4. Re-entry services for incarcerated veterans (2.71) 

5. Legal assistance (2.78) 

6. Guardianship (financial) (2.83) 

7. Helping manage money (2.86) 

8. Eyeglasses (2.92) 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

146 

1See House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 

Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act 1999, report to accompany 

H.R. 4194, H.Rept. 105–610, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., July 8, 1998. The FY1999 HUD Appropriations Act referred to the House Committee Report language for specific requirements. 

9. Eye care (2.93) 

10. Drop-in day centers (2.98) 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

Libby Perl 

Analyst in Housing 

Domestic Social Policy Division 

Congressional Research Service 

101 Independence Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20540–7500 

Dear Libby: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

Questions from Hon. Bob Filner 

For Libby Perl, Analyst in Housing 

Congressional Research Service 

June 5, 2008 

Question 1: The counting of the veteran homeless population has been a challenge for many years. The fact is we just don’t know how many veterans there are 

that are homeless. 

• How can we better design a program or instrument that would help us to more 

accurately capture the veteran homeless population? 

Response: Homeless Management Information Systems. Currently the most 

comprehensive attempt to count homeless persons occurs through the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD has developed a system through 

which local communities collect data on homeless persons served by recipients of 

HUD Homeless Assistance Grants and through the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. This effort has been termed ‘‘Homeless Management Information Systems’’ (HMIS) and its purpose is to develop an unduplicated 

count of homeless people, which, in turn, is expected to improve the effectiveness 

of homeless assistance services.1 Although HMIS currently has some limitations in 

its ability to count all homeless persons, including homeless veterans, it could at 

some point serve as a source for accurately capturing the homeless veteran population. 

Once HMIS is fully implemented, veterans who are served by participating homeless service providers should be identified because veteran status is one of the required data elements that service providers are to collect. (Other information includes name, date of birth, race, ethnicity, gender, and presence of a disabling condition). However, currently there are several reasons that some veterans might not 

be counted as part of the HMIS initiative: 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

147 

2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Report to Congress: Sixth Progress 

Report on HUD’s Strategy for Homeless Data Collection, Reporting and Analysis, May 2007, p. 

4, available at [http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/library/improvingDataCollection.pdf]. 3 Ibid, p. 5. 

4See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Annual Homeless Assessment 

Report to Congress, February 2007, p. 31, available at [http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/ 

ahar.pdf]. 5 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Second Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, March 2008, p. 23, available at [http://www.hudhre.info/documents/ 

2ndHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf]. 6See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, A Guide to Counting Unsheltered 

Homeless People, revised January 2008, available at [http://www.hudhre.info/documents/counting_unsheltered.pdf]. 

• HMIS implementation is incomplete. As of 2006, approximately 91% of communities, called ‘‘Continuums of Care’’ that receive homeless assistance funds 

through HUD were implementing HMIS—meaning they had established a system into which service providers are entering data.2

• Participation of service providers, even among those communities in which 

HMIS is being implemented, is incomplete. Even when service providers report 

data to HMIS, they might not include all clients served, which could result in 

another limitation on the usefulness of the data. HUD keeps track of the percentage of persons included in HMIS through what it terms ‘‘bed coverage 

rates.’’ These bed coverage rates are categorized both by the type of shelter provided, such as emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing, 

and by household type, such as homeless individuals and homeless families. In 

2006, the average level of bed coverage for service providers ranged from 50% 

to 62%, depending on the type of shelter and household type served.3

• If service providers do not receive HUD funds, they might not participate in 

HMIS. This could preclude the identification of veterans who are being served 

by service providers that do not receive HUD funds. However, many communities are attempting to integrate all homeless service providers in their communities into HMIS, no matter the sources of their funding. 

Limitations on the usefulness of these data regarding homeless veterans can be 

seen in HUD’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. HUD has 

released two AHARs since the implementation of HMIS; these reports use HMIS 

data to arrive at estimates of the number of individuals who are homeless during 

several different time periods. In the first AHAR, released in 2007 and using data 

from 2005, HUD estimated that 18.7% of homeless individuals were veterans. However, 35% of the HMIS records were missing information on veteran status.4 In the 

second AHAR, 20% of HMIS records were missing information on veteran status.5

Once service providers are able to collect better information about clients served, including whether they are veterans, HMIS could serve as a good measure of the 

number of homeless veterans. In addition, the ability of communities to include nonHUD funded service providers that assist homeless veterans in the HMIS initiative 

could improve the ability to capture the homeless veteran population. 

Street Counts of Homeless Individuals. Even when HMIS is fully implemented, street counts of homeless individuals would still be necessary to identify 

those individuals who are not seeking out homeless services, including veterans. 

Every other year, HUD requires Continuums of Care to conduct point-in-time counts 

of both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals in their jurisdictions on 

one night during the last week of January. HUD issues guidance on how to do this 

in a statistically reliable way.6 In its most recent CHALENG (Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups) report, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) coordinated its estimate of the number of homeless 

veterans with these HUD-directed point-in-time counts. Greater collaboration between service providers and the VA at the local level should help in making counts 

of homeless individuals, including veterans, more accurate. 

Question 2. According to your testimony, HUD is engaged in an ongoing effort 

to establish database systems at the local level to collect information about persons 

experiencing homelessness. There seem to be many issues surrounding this effort 

to include only sheltered individuals and not those on the street, as well as a large 

portion of the records were missing information on veteran status. 

Question 2(a): Is VA engaged in an attempt to accurately count ALL homeless 

veterans? 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

148 

7 John H. Kuhn and John Nakashima, The Fourteenth Annual Progress Report on Public Law 

105–114: Services for Homeless Veterans Assessment and CoordiNation, U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, pp. 16–17, February 28, 2008. 8 Ibid, p. 16. 

9 Ibid, p. 17. 

Response: VA CHALENG. In response to the first question, VA attempts to estimate the number of homeless veterans each year through the annual CHALENG 

process. However, the CHALENG estimate is not a physical count of homeless veterans in the same way that communities count homeless individuals during HUD 

point-in-time counts. In FY2007, the VA asked ‘‘points of contact’’ (POCs) at local 

VA medical centers to estimate the number of veterans who were homeless on one 

night during the last week of January. POCs arrive at estimates in a variety of 

ways, one of which includes consulting with local HUD Continuums of Care about 

their counts of homeless individuals. In fact, FY2007 was the first year in which 

the VA asked POCs to compare their estimates to the results of the 2005 HUD 

point-in-time counts conducted by Continuums (the most current data available at 

the time). In addition, some POCs (71%) used more than one source to arrive at 

their estimates of homeless veterans.7 These included U.S. Census data (10%), VA 

low-income population estimates (7%), local homeless census studies (42%), VA client data (36%), estimates from local homeless assistance providers (59%), and VA 

staff impressions (52%). 

Question 2(b): Do VA and HUD work together to ensure the most accurate information is captured? 

Response: In answer to the second question, this most recent CHALENG estimate is an effort to bring CHALENG estimates in line with HUD counts of homeless 

individuals. According to the VA, they chose the last week in January for their estimate so that ‘‘CHALENG estimates would coincide with the homeless point-in-time 

counts executed by HUD Continuums of Care nationwide. It is believed that 

CHALENG should make every effort to base their estimates on the local point-intime count, as it is the only nationwide homeless count conducted on an ongoing 

basis.’’ 8 The VA goes on to say that ‘‘In summary, it is believed the HUD pointin-time data has resulted in a revised CHALENG count that is more aligned with 

the most extensive homeless estimate methodology currently available, while allowing for adjustments of local estimates based on VA staffs first-hand knowledge of 

their service areas.’’ 9

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

Michelle Saunders 

Veterans Moving Forward 

5008 South 12th Street 

Arlington, VA 22204 

Dear Michelle: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

149 

Questions from Hon. Bob Filner 

For Michelle Saunders 

Before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Hearing 

‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ 

April 9, 2008 

Question 1: During my transition did anyone sit me down and ask me if I had 

a job lined up and a place to live? Do I believe this would have helped my transition? 

Response: No, no one asked me as a formality during any part of my out processing period. If someone had, I do believe it would’ve helped my transition, if in 

fact there was a simple answer/answers for me to help myself e.g. a place where 

I could go to get assistance for financial, employment, education and emotional 

counseling. During the transition phase there are a series of out processing blocks 

that need to be checked prior to a service member being discharged. Just because 

the blocks are ‘‘checked’’ doesn’t justify services actually being provided. Keep in 

mind the service member also plays the game in order ‘‘to JUST go home’’ Our service members do NOT experience the struggles and hurdles of the transition until 

already transitioned out of the military for numerous reasons already stated in my 

testimony. 

Question 2: In my estimation, how do I think DOD and VA can best work together in order to prevent other veterans falling through the crack and or even becoming homeless? 

Response: First, DOD and VA must collaborate prior to our service members 

being discharged from the military. Although they work together after and during 

the transition process they are failing in the aftermath. The aftermath is where the 

MOST assistance is needed. The process of a transitioning service member is parallel to a victim of trauma that acts out when he or she has time to actually get 

passed the initial trauma and the adrenaline calms down. This is when everything 

seems to surface and bleed through, by this time things have already manifested 

themselves into a fragile and tragic state. If there such a place where veterans could 

go after the transition or even start their transition process while still on active 

duty (a week is NOT enough) through the continuum of care that is currently lacking but also the rehabilitation and education needed to provide the skills in order 

to make them successful for the 21st century workforce. 

Question 3: What would have made my transition easier? 

Response: Having a place to go and receive the counseling without having to 

worry about just jumping into the workforce/paying bills and having to put all of 

my therapy on the backburner along with all other realities. This happens to a lot 

of our returning combat veterans. We are forced to ‘‘adapt and overcome’’ by finding 

‘‘meaningful’’ employment without the proper education and training. There are benefits out there to help assist with education, however, how does one go to school and 

provide for his or her family at the same time, while trying to figure out why they 

are SO angry and disconnected from the rest of society? This is a very complex process and it is complex because we as a government are working in a vacuum instead 

of paving the road from the beginning. I have mentioned my idea to build transitional housing facilities on college campuses in order to provide the continuum of 

care and the education and training needed to be productive. I am more than willing 

to share these ideas if asked. 

I am also attaching my business plan/idea on how I think we could better prepare 

ourselves in the future and also address the present. 

Thank you, 

Michelle Saunders 

Veterans Moving Forward 

The Reality and the Challenge 

There are approximately 32,000 wounded in the Global war on terror, not including service members with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD) or traumatic 

brain injuries which may not manifest for months or years after a soldier returns 

from combat. Our Military services are faced with processing more wounded than 

existing facilities have room to accommodate; troops are being rushed through their 

rehabilitation process, thus exacerbating the long-term effects of their injuries. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

150 

Given this large number of wounded, it is also an expected reality that the number 

of single and multiple amputees will be much higher than in other conflicts. The 

need for an intensive care, in-house, rehabilitation facility is now more vital and immediate than ever before. Our goal is to be able to facilitate as many projects as 

we can across the country, by laying the foundation and footprint of the Northeast 

Veteran Training and Rehabilitation Center (NVTRC). 

The ‘‘Hope for the Future’’ 

The Veterans Moving Forward Foundation addresses this new reality and associated challenge through the creation of the Northeast Veteran Training and Rehabilitation Center (NVTRC). All veterans at the NVTRC will have serious injuries, including, but certainly not limited to, the loss of limbs, disfiguring burns, traumatic 

brain injuries and deep personal psychological wounds. The center will provide these 

wounded veterans with both the time and the resources needed to first cope and 

then to successfully transition into a new career and way of life, essentially making 

the veteran population more marketable. The NVTRC is the first such facility to simultaneously offer education, counseling, therapy and vocational skill building 

which are so vital for the successful futures of our wounded service members. Providing ‘‘Hope for the future’’ is what the NVTRC is all about. More specifically, the 

NVTRC will provide: 

• Rehabilitation services to restore the ‘‘whole person’’ to a life in which he or she 

can live and interact with friends and family while addressing the psychological 

baggage that so often accompanies our disabled Veterans; 

• Physical, occupational and psychological therapies with an emphasis on family 

counseling and the life and recreational skills that are so often taken for granted; 

• Support for Veterans suffering from PTSD, providing them and their families 

the information and therapy necessary to cope with this debilitating condition. 

The Facility 

The facility will have room for up to twenty (20) veterans and their families at 

one time. Located on 10+ acres of the Wachusett Community College campus in 

Gardner, MA, the NVTRC will offer extensive state-of-the-art physical and occupational therapy facilities, including a golf simulator, an indoor swimming pool, a jogging track, a weight/exercise room, a gymnasium, a trout pond and a variety of 

other amenities designed to prepare residents for a life in which their disability will 

be more of a mere annoyance than a burden. Veterans and their families will be 

housed in 1000 sq. ft. town homes near the college campus. These housing units will 

have two bedrooms, one bath, a kitchen and living area. This concept allows disabled veterans to practice their living skills and provides privacy and on-going support during the rehabilitation process. 

Intake, Assessment, and Planning 

Upon arrival, an individual treatment plan, sculpted to each veteran’s needs, will 

be developed by state certified counselors. All therapy, counseling, educational/vocational pursuits, and estimated length of stay will be determined and outlined within 

the plan. Veterans who choose to pursue a degree while obtaining new life skills 

will be permitted to stay in the program for up to two years. The NVTRC, along 

with Veterans Moving Forward will collaborate with the Veterans Administration 

and other appropriate veteran service organizations to coordinate benefit and entitlement programs. 

All individual treatment plans will contain milestones and measures of success. 

All caseworkers will work with their assigned Veteran resident to measure progress 

and ensure success by addressing any unforeseen difficulties along the way. Upon 

completion of the treatment plan, there will be a number of follow up contacts in 

order to increase the effectiveness of the program. 

Providing ‘‘Hope for the future, is what ‘‘Veterans Moving Forward’’ is all 

about. Michelle Saunders, founder and co-chairman Msaunders@veterans 

movingforward.org 

Approximate Total Cost of Each Project 

$5,000,000 

Executive Summary 

Military veterans are returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan with 

severe, debilitating physical and mental injuries. Eighty percent of the wounded face 

a lifetime of recovery, two-thirds will have post-traumatic stress disorder, and 59 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

151 

percent of blast victims (if diagnosed) will have traumatic brain injuries. At 15.8 

percent, the unemployment rate for this population has tripled the national average. 

In addition the homeless rate of our veterans is currently increasing at a staggering 

1 in every 4 in the United States. 

To address this crisis, Veterans Moving Forward has partnered with the Veterans 

Homestead in Massachusetts and has developed an exemplary model that will be 

used as the template for the service portion of this Program. The model is based 

on the work of the organization’s founder, Leslie Lightfoot, and Michelle Saunders, 

a wounded veteran of the Iraq conflict. This holistic approach has addressed two 

major challenges faced by wounded veterans assimilating back into their community 

and family environments (often where the family becomes the caretaker); and acquiring the job skills needed in today’s 21st century workforce. 

Education, job- and life-skills training are central to the model: a lack of a higher 

education or job training coupled with their wounds places many veterans at a disadvantage when seeking employment. 

The Program’s mission statement reflects both the support services and housing 

required to help America’s veterans. 

The Problem 

Military veterans are returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan with 

severe, debilitating physical and mental injuries. According to industry research, 80 

percent of wounded veterans face a lifetime of recovery, two-thirds of them will have 

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 59 percent of blast victims (if diagnosed) 

will have traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Returning wounded veterans, many of 

whom are 19 to 25 years old, face a 15.8-percent unemployment rate, which is triple 

the national average. In addition the homeless rate of our veterans is currently increasing at a staggering 1 in every 4 in the United States. 

The Solution 

Given these staggering figures, there is a societal need to help these wounded veterans. In partnership with the Veterans Homestead (a service provider), Veterans 

Moving Forward will first build a facility in Massachusetts and use the footprint 

to replicate facilities across the U.S. that will provide supportive services to help 

these heroes attain self-sufficiency, and move forward with dignity and pride. 

A key component to the services aspect of this program is education and job- and 

life-skills training. Many wounded veterans entered the Armed Services at an early 

age, frequently straight from high school. A lack of a higher education or specific 

job training coupled with their wounds places many veterans at a distinct disadvantage when attempting to secure gainful, skills-appropriate employment. 

The Mission 

To create an environment that allows our wounded heroes and their families the opportunity to utilize and maximize their educational benefits 

without financial burden. This environment will also have the nurturing 

support and job skills training needed to properly transition our veterans 

back to a productive life. 

The Outcome 

As a result of participating in this Program, each veteran will be more confident, 

more marketable, and more professionally prepared to enter the 21st century workforce and transition back into their families and communities with success and sustainability. 

Each Veteran will be able to achieve his or her full intellectual, physical, and professional capacity unhindered by a lack of education, by insufficient skill levels required for the career field of their choice, or by fears relating to their own capabilities. 

This Program will differ for each veteran, just as their injuries differ. Some may 

have physical wounds: these veterans will learn how to live with the condition emotionally and physically—both internally and in a family and community setting. 

Some may have emotional wounds: they will receive support and coaching that enable them to live to their full capacity. Some may need job skills training in order 

to succeed in today’s workforce: they will receive job-skill assessments, learn new 

professional skills, and receive job placement help. Referrals will be made for those 

who need extended care and supportive services. 

Program’s Design 

Short-term Goal: to create the model footprint in Massachusetts, as we have already acquired 10.5 acres of land on Mount Wachusett Community College, courtesy 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

152 

of the college. In addition to researching the most capable veterans’ service providers in the surrounding area to help facilitate the needs and resources needed. 

Long-term Goal: the Program will build multi-unit transitional housing across 

the country and donate it to the best Service Providers (charities/social service agencies) who will house veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Service Providers will offer on-site services that include emotional support, physical rehabilitation, and education/job skills training. The facilities will be built as individual town 

homes or apartments with enough space for single veterans or veterans with their 

families. Engaging veterans in rehabilitation while they are in a family setting not 

only strengthens the veteran but the family unit as well. 

Where possible, housing will be built near community colleges or universities; and 

where space allows, housing will be constructed directly on the campus. Education 

is a central, integral part of the Program’s design in order to address a vital need 

of returning veterans: employability. Current statistics show today’s veterans have 

three to four times the national unemployment rate! Therefore, to avoid long-term 

dissolution of the family structure for these veterans—and to avoid future homelessness for this population—education is a critical component of this Program. 

Service Providers and the Support Services Function 

Service Providers will operate the housing facilities after the Program donates the 

facilities to them. They are responsible for providing (directly or through subcontracts) the emotional and intellectual services, the physical rehabilitation services, and the professional skills training that enable veterans to live to their full capacity. 

A ‘‘Support Services’’ function has been established to define the criteria for evaluating which Service Providers will be eligible to receive the Program’s housing donations. Support Services will use a ‘‘gap analysis’’ approach to establishing the criteria. 

Management and Operations 

This program was co-developed by Michelle Saunders (wounded OIF veteran and 

Dept. of Labor employment specialist) and Leslie Lightfoot (Vietnam Veteran and 

Director of Veterans Homestead Inc.). Operationally the program will be guided and 

directed by both Michelle and Leslie. Through the partnership and collaboration of 

Veterans Moving Forward and Veterans Homestead we have developed a holistic 

approach for veteran care that will be discussed throughout this plan. Through the 

guidance and coaching of this partnership it is anticipated that this model will be 

replicated across the country, so that multiple services providers will be able to replicate this model. The ultimate goal will be to serve as many veterans as possible. 

Direct Project Costs vs. Administrative Costs 

In-Kind Donations 

Veterans Moving Forward and Veterans Homestead will engage local construction 

companies in the surrounding communities and solicit in-kind donations of labor 

and materials for the housing they build. For conducting this effort the Project will 

be paid 5% of the in-kind donations obtained in order to cover operational costs. For 

example, if the project receives $500,000 in donations, the project will receive 

$25,000—a savings of $475,000 for the Project’s future Projects! 

Tax Deductions for Donations 

For donors to receive tax credit for their contributions, Veterans Moving Forward501(c)(3) will provide a Federal tax exempt form including the foundation Federal 

tax identification. The Veterans Homestead has successfully implemented this procedure for over fifteen years and will be pleased to utilize its experience (and documentation) on behalf of Veterans Moving Forward. 

In-kind donations of time and materials that are contributed during construction 

require a very specific method of tracking in order to: 

• Reflect accurate IRS reporting • Provide accurate records/receipts to the donors so that they receive recognition 

from the Program, the veterans, and the general public; and that they receive 

IRS credit • Reflect accurate contribution levels for the Project to use in marketing, communication, and fund development. 

The Veterans Homestead has over fifteen years’ experience perfecting this system 

and will use it on behalf of the Project. 

• Veterans Homestead audits are conducted annually by Boisselle, Morton and 

Assoc., LLP, of Hadley, MA. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

153 

• Additional audits are welcomed if VMF’s Steering and Finance Committees require. 

Funds 

All funding received for the Project must be used for either direct project costs 

or administrative costs directly related to the building and operational costs of the 

project. 

Two Project Bank Accounts 

A checking account has been established specifically for the Veterans Moving Forward organization with Bank of America. This account will be restricted to Project 

funding and can only be drawn upon with signatures from representatives that are 

authorized by the Project’s Finance Committee. 

This account will be linked to a separate Program account that will be opened: a treasury money market (sweep account). Funds in excess of $100,000 will be automatically transferred on a daily basis (each night) into the interest bearing treasury 

account and will transfer back into the checking account each morning. Interest is 

calculated by Bank of America on a daily basis and is reported to VMF at the end 

of each month. Interest earned is automatically deposited into the account on the 

1st of each month. Interest earned may be used for general VMF operations and 

is not considered restricted funds, unless otherwise specified by the Veterans 

Project’s donors. The unopened monthly bank statement shall be given to VMF and 

VH Executive Directors and the Project’s Finance Committee for review before being 

forwarded to the Finance Department for processing. 

Donations Received 

Checks received in the mail will be logged on a daily basis by the Office Manager. 

Copies and original documents are sent to the Finance Manager for deposit into 

checking account (all deposits are made within 24 hours of receipt). Deposits are entered into both QuickBooks (accounting package) and Donor Perfect (donor database) by the Finance Manager and Office Manager respectively and are posted to 

a general ledger account number that will be specific to the Project. 

Expenses 

All costs related to the Project will be tracked in accounting system using a specified set of general ledger account numbers. These account numbers will be classified 

under the ‘‘Strategic Initiatives Department’’ and will have an ‘‘a.1’’ extension after 

the main account number. All invoices will be coded by the Finance manager and 

approved by both VMF and VH Executive Directors. All checks over $10,000 will 

require two signatures (Executive Director and the Project’s Finance Committees). 

Note: Any Veterans Project expenses paid via the VMF operations general checking account shall be reimbursed to the operations checking account monthly once 

revenue streams are established. 

VMF Credit Cards Used 

All credit card holders are authorized to charge all travel-related expenses. This 

includes airfare, meals, ground transportation, lodging, and unanticipated meeting 

supplies or copying expenses. In addition to the above, credit card holders are authorized to charge up to $100 (per purchase) for non-travel related expenses without 

prior approval. If the expenditure is over $100, credit card holders must submit an 

approved Request for Purchase Form to the Finance Department before charging 

the expense to their credit card. 

Milestones and Timelines 

Phase 1 Pre-Planning 

• Create vision and mission—Completed (Apr 2007) 

• Define tangible and non tangible outcomes—Completed (Jun 2007) 

• Identify essential participants and their roles—Completed (Nov 2007) 

Phase II Planning 

• Develop business plan—Completed (Nov 2007) 

• Distribute circulation of business plan to proper participants—In process 

• Obtain celebrity and/or Corporate endorsement—In process 

• Begin short-term fund development (marketing costs)—In process 

Phase III Implementation 

• Launch program—Completed (work in progress) 

• Hire and orient staff; develop project plans—In progress 

• Begin long-term fund development and associated marketing—In progress 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

154 

Phase IV Success and Assurance 

• TBD during Phase III 

Overall Marketing Goals 

The overall marketing goals for VMF are to elevate the Project’s brand and to increase market awareness and development opportunities through the following: 

• Generate brand awareness for the Project between four development segments: 

builders, building industry suppliers and manufacturers, non-building industry 

partners, and possible government entities 

• Position the Project and its spokespeople as authorities on the topic of rehabilitation for wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan; and 

• Produce/Initiate positive national trade and local press coverage for the Project’s 

work 

Target Markets and Audiences 

The Project will achieve its goals through the following target markets and audiences: 

• Builders and their trade partners—To secure in-kind donations of time, expertise, resources, and cash donations to perform building projects and service 

providers’ resources 

• Building industry suppliers and manufacturers—To secure in-kind and 

cash donations to perform building projects and service providers’ resources 

• Non-building industry partners, such as corporations, sports leagues, 

consumer product companies, etc.—To secure in-kind and cash donations to 

perform building projects and service providers resources 

• Federal Government entities, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Human 

Services and Congress—To secure cooperative assistance in providing funds, 

intelligence, land, partnerships, etc. at the national level 

• State government entities—To secure cooperative assistance in providing 

funds, intelligence, land, partnerships, etc. at the state level 

• City and county (local) government entities—To secure cooperative assistance in providing funds, intelligence, land, partnerships, permits, etc. at the 

community level 

• Veterans service providers—To secure organizations to operate facilities that 

are constructed for wounded veterans and their families 

• Other veterans nonprofit organizations—To secure cash or in-kind support 

for building projects and necessary resources 

• National, trade, and local media—To raise national, trade, and local awareness of the work performed by the Project and its partners at all levels 

• General public—To raise mainstream awareness of the work performed by the 

Project and its partners, and to obtain cash donations. 

Strategic Messaging 

A common tool to encapsulate and focus all of the high-level messaging for a communications initiative is a positioning framework. The following positioning framework has been created for the Veterans Project. 

Positioning Statement: The project creates an environment with dignified housing and educational services, nurturing support and job skills training to enable today’s wounded veterans to return to and maintain a full productive life. 

Tagline: Building hope for today’s wounded heroes and their families 

Target Audiences: Builders and their trade partners; building industry suppliers and manufacturers; non-building industry partners, such as corporations, professional sports organizations, consumer product companies etc.; national, state, and 

local government entities, including the Veterans Administration; veterans service 

providers; other veteran non-profit organizations; national, trade, and local media; 

and the general public. 

Key Benefits: 

• Dignified housing and quality living environments 

• Camaraderie shared environment for veterans and their families 

• Continuum of care that is currently lacking 

• Family unit support (whole family) 

• Non-Government solution to a dire societal need 

• Opportunity for widespread involvement 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

155 

Marketing Messaging 

From within the positioning framework, high-level marketing messages can be derived through the following sample messages: 

• With 80 percent of U.S. wounded veterans facing a lifetime of recovery, we as 

American citizens owe it to them to do as much as possible in helping their recovery and it starts with providing a basic roof over their head. 

• Led by a celebrity and or corporate champion (e.g. Tiger Woods), Veterans Moving Forward and its partners will build multi-unit housing facilities across the 

country that offer education as well as job and life-skills training as part of the 

rehabilitation process. 

• With 3 out of every 5 veterans responsible for their family, family counseling 

is a critical component of the rehabilitation process and the Projects unique 

model for housing accommodates a family environment as part of the healing 

process. 

Fund Development Messaging 

The development process will leverage the above-stated marketing message. In 

addition, there are primary ROI messages that can appeal to prospective partners/ 

donors; they are as follows: 

• Increase corporate social responsibility profile through association with a highly 

visible cause 

• Leverage Project involvement through marketing and sales efforts with the following industries: Government; Military/defense; Academia/college institutions/ 

trade schools; building industry 

• Leverage association in the Project to ‘‘give back’’ to wounded veterans: Conduct 

corporate fundraising efforts; create scholarship programs to promote education 

among wounded veterans and or their caretakers; offer internships to wounded 

veterans and/or caretakers; employee voluntarism etc. 

• Gain network access to the nation’s leading builders through the organizations’ 

leadership and partners 

Core Value Prerequisites 

It is critical for all potential partners/affiliates and donors to understand the 

value they will receive from their association with this Project. These benefits are 

described in the following sections: WHAT Partners/Affiliates and Donors can leverage and HOW Partners/Affiliates and Donors can leverage. 

However, before proceeding to these sections, it is crucial to define an underlying 

philosophical approach that all Partners/Affiliates and Donors will require in order 

to maximize their alliance with the Veterans Moving Forward Project. This approach includes: 

Sincerity: Partners/Affiliates and Donors must have a true desire to help wounded veterans and their families get back on their feet and attain self-sufficiency. A 

lack of this desire will be evident in their marketing-related activities, especially 

with the media. 

Co-Branding Vision: They must have the vision to see that they are not contributing to the Project, but rather the wounded veteran population in which is being 

served. This vision enables Partners/Affiliates and Donors to more effectively utilize 

their association with the cause for their own marketing and communications purposes. In other words, they are serving a ‘‘long overdue’’ vital societal need, and cobranding with the project is a form of publicizing their giving back to not only the 

communities in which they live and work. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

156 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

John F. Downing 

President/Chief Executive Officer 

Soldier On 

421 North Main Street, Bldg. 6 

Leeds, MA 01053 

Dear John: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

June 5, 2008 

Submitted by: John F. Downing, President/CEO 

Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans 

April 9, 2008 

Questions from House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Question 1: Over the past 20 years there has been an intense focus on helping 

the homeless become productive citizens again. It seems that through the programs 

offered primarily through VA, that we have been somewhat successful in that area. 

My immediate concern, however, is that we do not repeat the last 20 years and 

stand by as the newest returning veterans fall into the same cycle. It is past time 

to make a concerted shift to the prevention of homelessness. 

Question 1(a): What has been done out in the field to tackle this issue? 

Response: The VA Program has increased its focus on outreach by assigning personnel to visit community based shelters, correctional institutions, and detox facilities with a primary focus of identifying veterans in need of services. 

Question 1(b): Rather than playing catch-up, what can we do to be proactive in 

identifying the ‘‘at risk’’ veterans? 

Response: Individuals who were raised in one parent families, at or below the 

poverty level are 4 or 5 times more likely to be a homeless veteran than an individual raised in a two parent family above the poverty level. The exposure to combat, periods of intense vigilance, and living in areas where enemy combatants cannot be identified from the indigenous population escalate the adjustment disorders, 

mental illness; addiction which lead to homelessness. 

Question 2: What type of new programs do you believe VA should be looking at 

implementing to address the needs of the OEF/OIF veteran returning from combat? 

Response: Every member of the armed forces should receive his/her VA enrollment card ninety (90) days before discharge. It should be received at the point of 

duty to heighten the importance of this opportunity. 

The Department of Defense should award each returning member of the Armed 

Forces a $1,000 a month bonus for the first three months post discharge if he/she 

has a 15 minute conversation with a Veterans Affairs Intake or Case Manager. This 

would increase by seven fold the likelihood of an individual contacting the VA personnel at the time of crisis. 

Question 3: What do you believe is the biggest challenge facing the Department 

today regarding the homeless programs? 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

157 

Response: Department of Veterans Affairs must be able to take complete control 

of the service delivery system to veterans. The inability to stay cost effective and 

remain competitive with cost/quality of community based health care is essential. 

The implementation of a ‘‘Smart Card’’ system that would have an individual’s benefits loaded in and give the veteran the ability to choose the VA or a community 

based provider is the only way all returning veterans will be able to be served. 

Question 4: The Grant and Per Diem Program is the VA’s biggest program that 

helps veterans. However, the program is somewhat outdated. The Committee has 

heard from many community-based providers about some improvements that, in 

their estimation, need to be made. Many of you addressed this issue in your testimony. 

Question 4(a): What is the number one issue for each of your organizations regarding the Grant and Per Diem Program? 

Response: The Grant and per Diem Program needs to be able to support with 

services individuals in safe-affordable housing. The need to be able to convert transitional housing funds into permanent housing opportunities must be developed. 

The increasing acceptance and viability of the ‘‘Housing First’’ model will continue 

to increase the need for GPD to be able to sweep unused transitional funds into permanent housing opportunities. If we want to decrease the dependence on ‘‘institutional care’’ as a long term expensive option we must find a way to fund safe affordable housing with services. 

Question 4(b): If you could change the Grant and Per Diem program what would 

it look like? 

Response: Continue to appear as a multi-disciplined service system to 

disenfranchised and un-served veterans and continue to shelter and support the current intervention. The need to embrace the ‘‘10 Year Program to End Homelessness’’ 

will require the ability to develop, support and create new affordable housing with 

services for veterans. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

Colonel Charles Williams, USA (Ret.) 

Executive Director 

Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training, Inc. 

301 North High Street 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Dear Charles: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

158 

The Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training 

response to questions from 

Honorable Bob Filner, Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Hearing 

‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ 

April 9, 2008 

Question 1: Over the past 20 years there has been an intense focus on helping 

the homeless become productive citizens again. It seems that through the programs 

offered primarily through the VA, that we have been somewhat successful in that 

area. My immediate concern, however, is that we do not repeat the last 20 years 

and stand by as the newest returning veterans fall into the same cycle. It is past 

time to make a concerted shift to the prevention of homelessness. 

Question 1(a): What has been done out in the field to tackle this issue? 

Response: Traditionally, a period of time has elapsed before veterans returning 

from conflicts show up on the ‘‘radar screen’’ in need of assistance. Currently, agencies dealing with veterans have been servicing Vietnam veterans, in the main. OIF/ 

OEF returning veterans, with the exception of those who are gravely injured and 

housed at Walter Reed Hospital, are not presenting themselves in great numbers 

for assistance. PTSD and TBI cases are trickling in. By the time they present themselves for treatment, many or all of them have fallen into cycles of addiction and 

homelessness. The VA, once the veterans have presented themselves, provides the care needed to address substance abuse, housing and mental 

health treatment programs. 

Question 1(b): Rather than playing catch-up, what can we do to be proactive in 

identifying the ‘‘at risk’’ veterans? 

Response: Veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq face problems that can 

be overcome through the Veterans Affairs system. Many problems occur from an ineffective readjustment period after transitioning from war zones. If the veteran is 

not connected to comprehensive services, then other problems, e.g., drugs, crime and 

homelessness, will surface. 

A unified service delivery system should be developed with HUD, VA and DOL 

participating in an effort to create a one stop application process. This process would 

be designed to eliminate the barriers which have been put in place that severely 

limit and discourage the veterans’ efforts at accessing services in a timely manner. 

In discharging soldiers from active duty, there should be a ‘‘handoff’’ system 

whereby their final physical, specifically their psychosocial and mental health 

issues, are documented and forwarded to their nearest VA medical center in their 

home areas. This should eliminate duplication of efforts and accelerate the time that 

treatment can begin. The unified service delivery system should be automatic which 

both the active duty health service system and the VA health service system can 

access. A system of this kind would also be of use for those applying for benefits. 

Psychosocial assessments should be done before the soldier leaves active duty 

service, especially if the soldier has served in a combat zone. Factors such as PTSD 

and TBI are not readily identifiable because physical trauma, i.e. loss of limbs and 

other visible wounds are not present. If factors that could adversely affect the individual leaving active duty are determined to be present prior to separation from the 

military, treatment and counseling should be provided to that individual. 

Question 2: What type of new programs do you believe the VA should be looking 

at implementing to address the needs of the OEF/OIF veteran returning from combat? 

Response: VA has developed a thrust to treat veterans returning from combat 

that is designed to ameliorate the effects of significant psychological trauma. It is 

recommended that they partner with community providers who service 

veterans as a priority group. The Maryland Center for Veterans Education & 

Training, Inc. is in the process of partnering with the Veterans Affair Medical Center in Baltimore, MD and the Veterans Affair Medical Center in Perry Point, MD 

in identifying participants in the MCVET program who are OEF/OIF veterans so 

that comprehensive services can be brought to bear. MCVET is partnering with the 

medical centers in an effort to stabilize those veterans who are in need of an inpatient stay in the hospital and those who can function on an outpatient basis while 

receiving stabilizing treatment. Meetings have been held and more are being 

planned. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

159 

Additionally, it is recommended that local police departments be briefed 

on OEF/OIF veterans returning to their respective cities and many have 

not had transitioning services that will prepare them for civilian life. Incidents have been recorded where returning veterans have been shot by local police 

during an altercation. MCVET has met with the Police Commissioner, at the time, 

to discuss the problems that could occur on Baltimore streets between returning veterans and the police. It is recommended that local police departments began 

a dialog with service providers and the local Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in efforts to develop programs designed to sensitize police and other 

first responders to the needs of our returning veterans. 

Question 3: What do you believe is the biggest challenge facing the Department 

today regarding the homeless programs? 

Response: Veterans Affairs (VA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 

and the Department of Labor (DOL) should develop a process that provides 

a seamless track for a veteran in need of services. That is, there should be 

a ‘‘pass through’’ referral system for the veteran that would expedite his access to 

services and the need to complete a number of applications. Since the aforementioned departments are crucial in the fight against homelessness, funding schemes 

would have to be developed that would involve satisfying the fiscal responsibility of 

each department. 

Question 4: The Grant and Per Diem Program is the VA’s biggest program that 

helps veterans. However, the program is somewhat outdated. The Committee has 

heard from many community-based providers about some improvements that in 

their estimation need to be made. Many of you addressed this issue in your testimony. 

Question 4(a): What is the number one issue for each of your organizations regarding the Grant and Per Diem Program? 

Response: No problem. 

Question 4(b): If you could change the Grant and Per Diem program what would 

it look like? 

Response: No changes. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

Phil Landis 

Chief Executive Officer 

Veterans Village of San Diego 

4141 Pacific Highway 

San Diego, CA 92110 

Dear Phil: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

160 

Responses from Veterans Village of San Diego 

Questions from Hon. Bob Filner 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Question 1: Over the past 20 years there has been an intense focus on helping 

the homeless become productive citizens again. It seem that through the programs 

offered primarily through the VA, that we have been somewhat successful in that 

area. My immediate concern, however, is that we do not repeat the last 20 years 

and stand by as the newest returning veterans fall into the same cycle. It is past 

time to make a concerted shift to the prevention of homelessness. 

Question 1(a): What has been done out in the field to tackle this issue? 

Response: Organizations such as Veterans Village of San Diego (VVSD) have initiated programs, funded by private funds, to help meet the needs of the returning 

combat veteran, both those still on active duty and those who have left the service. 

This program, Warrior Tradition, provides a safe environment for OIF/OEF combat 

veterans to meet, share their issues, frustrations and problems and receive referral 

services for counseling, both individual and family if required. 

Question 1(b): Rather than playing catch-up, what can we do to be proactive in 

identifying the ‘‘at risk’’ veterans? 

Response: All combat veterans and support personnel who have experienced the 

rigors of war should be interviewed and counseled regarding their experiences, how 

to recognize the symptoms of PTSD, and the resources available both to active duty 

and those who have left the military. Should a veteran require treatment/therapy 

he should receive it prior to separation, and once separated, referred to the VA Hospital nearest his home of record or the area he/she intends on living in. 

Question 2: What type of new programs do you believe VA should be looking at 

implementing to address the needs of the OEF/OIF veteran returning from combat? 

Response: Programs that focus on identification and treatment of those veterans 

whose combat experiences are likely to result in PTSD or other treatable mental illness. This will require making sure that all veterans receive out briefings from the 

combat theaters while still on active duty, and for those leaving the military, separation briefings that insure they have an accurate list of resources for the veteran 

and his family. 

Question 3: What do you believe is the biggest challenge facing the Department 

today regarding the homeless programs? 

Response: Public awareness and continued funding by Congress when paired are 

the biggest issues I see today. If we as a Nation continue to ignore the plight of 

our veterans who are homeless today, we will continue to experience as we do today, 

the inclusion of the OIF/OEF combat veterans, not 5–10 years later, but 1–2 years 

after service. 

Question 4: The Grant and Per Diem Program is the VA’s biggest program that 

helps veterans. However, the program is somewhat outdated. The Committee has 

heard from many community-based providers about some improvements that, in 

their estimation, need to be made. Many of you addressed this issue in your testimony. 

Question 4(a): What is the number one issue for each of your organizations regarding the Grant and Per Diem Program? 

Response: VVSD spends approximately $50.00 per day per client. Per diem is 

presently only $30.00 per day. An increase in the daily rate of reimbursement would 

help reduce the need for matching funds and potential operating deficits. 

Question 4(b): If you could change the Grant and Per Diem program what would 

it look like? 

Response: The Grant would be separate from the Per Diem, not tied together as 

they are now. Also, as an organization grows, there should be a mechanism in place 

to retain the same contract number and just modify the existing contracted bed 

numbers. For example, VVSD has four different Grant and Per Diem or Per Diem 

only contracts, each with its own rate. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

161 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

William G. D’Arcy 

Chief Operating Officer 

Catholic Charities Housing Development Corp. 

721 N. LaSalle, 5th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60610–3574 

Dear William: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

Responses from Catholic Charities 

Questions from the Honorable Bob Filner 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Hearing 

‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ 

April 9, 2008 

Question 1: Over the past 20 years there has been an intense focus on helping 

the homeless become productive citizens again. It seems that through the programs 

offered primarily through VA, that we have been somewhat successful in that area. 

My immediate concern, however, is that we do not repeat the last 20 years and 

stand by as the newest returning veterans fall into the same cycle. It is past time 

to make a concerted shift to the prevention of homelessness. 

Question 1(a): What has been done out in the field to tackle this issue? 

Response: Counseling, case management, and housing with the Grant and PerDiem Program. 

Question 1(b): Rather than playing catch-up what can we do to be proactive in 

identifying the ‘‘at risk’’ veterans? 

Response: 

1. At enlistment in the military, there is often a battery of exams that the recruits go through. At military discharge use that battery to capture some of 

the effects of their military experience. Use that info to offer service to the discharged personnel. Do follow up after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years post duty to see 

if any symptoms of PTSD or substance abuse problems develop rather than 

waiting for homelessness to occur. 

2. Do incremental follow ups with vets who served in military action zones. Perhaps create a system of 6 mo. follow up for 2–3 years. The follow-up questions 

would include info re: family and marital satisfaction; employment and employment satisfaction; financial stability; social/community satisfaction (vs isolation) as noted by involvement in church, community, circle of friends, and other 

social activities outside of the family circle. 

3. Good medical workups post military service and for a period of time afterward 

to diagnose appropriately any organic effects from their service. 

Question 2: What type of new programs do you believe VA should be looking at 

implementing to address the needs of the OEF/OIF veterans returning from combat? 

Response: The VA should increase their HUD VASH program, and emergency 

financial assistance to keep families and individuals out of homelessness. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

162 

Question 3: What do you believe is the biggest challenge facing the Department 

today regarding the homeless program? 

• Develop community based Permanent Supportive Housing in partnership with 

private entities. 

• Affordable housing with rental subsidy. 

• Trained staff to operate the housing programs 

• Employment reintegration—marketable skills—following military service to provide income to stay housed. 

• Employment maintenance following military service to provide income to stay 

housed. 

Question 4: The Grant and Per Diem Program is the VA’s biggest program that 

helps veterans. However, the program is somewhat outdated. The Committee has 

heard from many community-based providers about some improvements that, in 

their estimation, need to be made. Many of you addressed this issue in your testimony. 

Question 4(a): What is the number one issue for each of your organizations regarding the Grant and Per Diem Program? 

Response: The 24 months lifetime limit presents a barrier for same veterans. 

Question 4(b): If you could change the Grant Per Diem program what would it 

look like? 

Response: Extend the length of stay with criteria. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

April 10, 2008 

Hon. James B. Peake, M.D. 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing on ‘‘Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ on April 9, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on June 5, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202– 

225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Chairman 

Questions for the Record 

From the Honorable Bob Filner 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

April 9, 2008 

Ending Homelessness for Our Nation’s Veterans 

Questions 1(a): For five years we have had veterans returning from combat, both 

men and women, who have to reintegrate into society. I know the agency has held 

round tables and/or focus groups with this cohort. Realizing that they represent a 

smaller contingent than Vietnam: What has the Department learned about the 

needs of these veterans? 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

163 

Response: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has learned a great deal 

about the needs of homeless veterans during the past 20 years, having seen more 

than 400,000 homeless veterans during that time. We have learned that the needs 

are complex and to be effective we need to have a wide array of services. We have 

learned that all homeless veterans need shelter (emergency, drop-in centers, transitional and permanent), food, clothing, personal hygiene, employment, transportation, education, job training and assistance in finding a job, assistance in getting 

documentation, financial assistance (welfare payments, VA or Social Security disability/pension benefits, and money management), legal assistance, child care, and 

medical/mental health services. The medical/mental health services required include 

testing and treatment for contagious diseases (tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and AIDS/ 

HIV), medication, dental and eye care, substance abuse treatment, detoxification, 

counseling for emotional and psychiatric problems both individual and family. 

We have identified specific differences in the Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans that contributed to differing needs. These 

differences are OEF/OIF veterans are far more likely to be women, thus a need for 

shelters for women and a need for child care. OEF/OIF veterans are far more likely 

to have had combat participation; less likely to have alcohol abuse/dependency; less 

likely to have drug abuse/dependency, and far more likely to have combat post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). So there need for substance abuse treatment, detoxification is diminished but there need for mental health services to treat PTSD is 

greater, as is there need for assistance in applying for disability benefits for service 

connected PTSD. These veterans are younger and are far more technologically 

savvy, so we have other opportunities to reach out to these veterans (beyond classic 

outreach—walking the streets, etc.). 

Questions 1(b): What types of proactive activities have you implemented to ensure that a repeat of the past 20 years does not happen? 

Response: In 1994, VA launched Project CHALENG (Community Homelessness 

Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups) for Veterans, a program designed to enhance the continuum of care for homeless veterans provided by VA and 

its surrounding community service agencies. VA medical centers and regional offices 

designate CHALENG Points of Contact (POCs) who are responsible for 

• assess the needs of homeless veterans living in the area, 

• identify the needs of homeless veterans with a focus on health care, education 

and training, employment, shelter, counseling, and outreach, 

• assess the extent to which homeless veterans’ needs are being met, 

• develop a list of all homeless services in the local area, and 

• inform homeless veterans of non-VA resources that are available in the community to meet their needs. Project CHALENG brings VA together with community agencies and other Federal, State, and local governments who provide services to the homeless to raise awareness of homeless veterans’ needs and to develop plan to meet those needs. 

Other proactive activities VA has undertaken include: 

Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program. Provides funds to community-based agencies providing transitional housing or service centers for homeless 

veterans. 

Loan Guarantee Program for Multifamily Transitional Housing. Provides 

loan guarantees for large-scale self-sustaining transitional multifamily housing. Eligible transitional project are those that: 1) provide supportive services including job 

counseling; 2) require veteran to seek and maintain employment; 3) require veteran 

to pay reasonable rent; and 4) require sobriety as a condition of occupancy. 

Stand Downs. VA staff participated in the Stand Downs for Homeless Veterans 

run by local coalitions in various cities each year. Stand Downs give homeless veterans 1–3 days of safety and security where they can obtain food, shelter, clothing, 

and a range of other types of assistance, including VA provided health care, benefits 

certification, and links to other programs. 

Veterans Industries. Disadvantaged, at-risk, and homeless veterans live in community-based supervised group homes while working for pay in VA’s Compensated 

Work Therapy Program (also known as Veterans Industries). Veterans in VA’s Compensated Work Therapy/Transitional Residence program work about 33 hours per 

week, earning approximately $732 per month, and paying an average of $186 per 

month toward maintenance and up-keep of the residence. The average length of stay 

is about 174 days. VA contracts with private industry and the public sector for work 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

164 

done by these veterans, who learn new job skills, relearn successful work habits, 

and regain a sense of self-esteem and self-worth. 

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans. Provides residential bio-psychosocial 

treatment to homeless veterans with health problems, average length of stay in the 

program is 4 months. The domiciliaries conduct outreach and referral; vocational 

counseling and rehabilitation; and post-discharge community support. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development—VA Supported Housing 

Program (HUD–VASH). Provides permanent housing and ongoing treatment services to the harder-to-serve homeless mentally ill veterans and those suffering from 

substance abuse disorders. VA staff provide outreach, clinical care and ongoing case 

management services. Rigorous evaluation of this program indicates that this approach significantly reduces days of homelessness for veterans plagued by serious 

mental illness and substance abuse disorders. 

Supported Housing. VA staff help veterans find permanent housing and providing clinical support needed to keep veterans in permanent housing. Staff in these 

programs operate without benefit of the specially dedicated Section 8 housing vouchers available in the HUD–VASH program but are often successful in locating transitional or permanent housing through local means, especially by collaborating with 

veterans service organizations. 

Drop-In-Centers. Provide a daytime sanctuary where homeless veterans can 

clean up, wash their clothes, and participate in a variety of therapeutic and rehabilitative activities. 

Special Outreach and Benefits Assistance. Specially funded staff provide dedicated outreach, benefits counseling, referral, and additional assistance to eligible 

veterans applying for VA benefits. These homeless veterans coordinators make over 

4,700 visits to homeless facilities and over 9,000 contacts with non-VA agencies 

working with the homeless and provide over 24,000 homeless veterans with benefits 

counseling and referrals to other VA programs on an annual basis. 

Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Providers. Makes properties VA obtains through foreclosures on VA-insured mortgages available for sale to homeless 

providers at a discount of 20 to 50 percent, depending on time of the market. 

VA Excess Property for Homeless Veterans Initiative. Distributes Federal excess personal property, such as hats, parkas, footwear, socks, sleeping bags, and 

other items to homeless veterans and homeless veteran programs. 

Program Monitoring and Evaluation. VA has built program monitoring and 

evaluation into all of its homeless veterans’ treatment initiatives and it serves as 

an integral component of each program. These evaluations provide important information about the veterans served and the therapeutic value and cost effectiveness 

of the specialized programs. Information from these evaluations also helps program 

managers determine new directions to pursue in order to expand and improve services to homeless veterans. 

Questions 1(c): Are you working with the Department of Defense on this issue? 

Response: The Department of Defense (DoD) serves as a member of VA’s Advisory Committee for Homeless Veterans. VA and DoD participate in and encourage 

service members leaving military service to participate in transition assistance programs. We believe the more departing members know about VA benefits and services the less likely they are to becoming homeless. 

Question 2(a): Many of the community based providers are advocating for a 

change in the Grant and Per Diem Program. There is concern out there that the 

program is ‘‘pushing’’ providers out due to the low per diem rate and the onerous 

administrative duties to name a few. Does the VA believe this program needs to be 

‘‘updated’’? 

Response: The Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program was authorized in 1992 

and while much has changed over the past 16 years the basic approach and objective of that program is as relevant today as it was when authorized. The need for 

transitional housing for veterans that largely uses a veteran helping veteran approach in large and small program across the Nation still exists. 

We know that the initial concept of payments to providers was patterned after 

the State home program and its provider base and the needs of the veterans each 

program serves are different. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

165 

Question 2(b): How many of the community based providers have you lost because of these issues? 

Response: We have found that most of the ‘‘lost’’ providers were programs that 

we initially awarded funding that did not ever begin operating. We have found most 

did not anticipate the time and obstacles they would encounter when obtaining an 

appropriate location; site control and additional costs needed to complete their 

project. These are regrettable loses but are issues largely beyond our control. 

Question 3: Effective outreach is a very important part of the homeless program. 

Please explain your outreach program to the homeless veteran population. 

Response: VA has hundreds of staff based in our health care and benefits administrations who reach out to veterans who are homeless and at-risk. That effort is 

enhanced by thousands of community service providers, state and local veteran service officers and members of veteran service organizations. All have a common goal 

to help that veteran obtain needed health care and benefits assistance. Our staff 

goes to shelter, soup kitchens, food pantries, transitional housing program, under 

bridges, into parks; into the woods and other places where veterans are likely to 

seek shelter or daily living assistance. Each year between our outreach and health 

care services we engage more than 100,000 of these veterans. 

VA staff participated in the Stand Downs for Homeless Veterans run by local coalitions in various cities each year. Stand Downs give homeless veterans 1–3 days 

of safety and security where they can obtain food, shelter, clothing, and a range of 

other types of assistance, including VA provided health care, benefits certification, 

and links to other programs. 

Homeless veterans coordinators provide dedicated outreach, benefits counseling, 

referral, and additional assistance to eligible veterans applying for VA benefits. 

These homeless veterans coordinators make over 4,700 visits to homeless facilities 

and over 9,000 contacts with non-VA agencies working with the homeless and provide over 24,000 homeless veterans with benefits counseling and referrals to other 

VA programs on an annual basis. 

Question 4: What do you believe is the single biggest challenge facing the Department in addressing the homeless veteran issue? 

Response: Engaging that veteran who want and needs our assistance to participate is a major challenge. While that may sound simple many veteran are reluctant 

due to bad information and mental illness to engage in active treatment. That also 

creates pressure on us to continue to provide a comprehensive array of needed services: outreach; residential care; robust access to mental health and substance abuse 

and benefit assistance. That is why we constantly strive to improve our services at 

all levels at all locations. 

Question 5: Can you name three things that we have learned over the last 20 

years of running homeless programs that may help us to prevent an epidemic of 

homeless OEF/OIF veterans? 

Response: Early intervention; comprehensive health care and benefits; transitional and long term housing with services is a key to getting veterans healthy and 

preventing homelessness. 

Question 6: It is my understanding that many of the community-based providers 

do not have accommodations for women with children. Yet, many of our newest veterans are women who have served in combat or combat like conditions. Many of our 

women veterans have children. What positive steps is the agency taking to address 

the growing homeless women veteran population? 

Response: For the past 5 years VA has targeted funding under our notices of 

funding availability (NOFA) for programs that provide transitional housing for 

women veterans. The NOFA that is being reviewed has that same targeting mechanism. We recognize that many women veterans are uncomfortable in male dominated programs. Based upon feedback from veterans we believe women only programs are effective. We have enhanced physical security and privacy for women in 

our residential treatment programs. The new HUD–VASH program that will offer 

permanent housing to more than 10,000 homeless veterans. That housing has a target to find women veterans including women veterans with children. We believe 

HUD–VASH will allow us to serve women who are more likely to have children. Our 

experience shows these veterans are reluctant to seek services from VA until the 

needs of their children are addressed. 

Question 7(a): VA recently reported that there has been a decline in the homeless veteran population of 21 percent. You are to be commended on that. I know 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

166 

many people work very hard for this cause. VA attributed some of the decline to 

the effectiveness of current programs and some of it was attributed to other factors 

such as counting methods. What definition does VA use to determine if a veteran 

is considered homeless? 

Response: VA defines homeless veterans as a category of people who meet the 

criteria as a veteran under title 38 and who lack housing and food, usually because 

they cannot afford a regular, safe, and adequate shelter. This may also include veterans whose primary nighttime residence is a homeless shelter. 

Question 7(b): Please explain to the Committee how the methodology with this 

count differed from the last one. 

Response: The previous counts lacked a consistent nationwide methodology 

which was one of the problems that result in reliability issues with these counts. 

Our efforts each year are to develop consistent methodologies and to develop as precise a count as possible. For example our earlier reports did not have a point in time 

estimate and lacked the comprehensive data now collected by HUD. The methods 

used to arrive at the number of homeless veterans in the Nation, employ the following elements: 

1. Each VA local point of contact (POC) for Project CHALENG are tasked to develop the best estimate of homeless veterans locally in their service areas 

based on a variety of data available. 

2. Each POC was directed to use as a standardized reference the local HUD Continuum of Care count, with specific reference to the percentage of homeless veterans. 3. For the CHALENG estimates, POCs adjusted the HUD numbers, if needed, by 

taking into account input from community sources, local surveys, community 

leaders, and their own knowledge of veterans not covered within their service 

area by the HUD count. 

Question 7(c): Is the decline indicative of the percent of formerly homeless veterans who now have jobs and are productive citizens? 

Response: The 2007 CHALENG Report estimates that on any given night, approximately 154,000 veterans were homeless. This figure is a decrease of 21 percent 

from the estimate 195,827 given in the 2006 CHALENG report. This decline is in 

part a result of more precise estimates. VA homeless program interventions and 

changing demographics also contributed to this decline. 

Reductions in veteran homelessness are also due in part to the effectiveness of 

VA’s and other community programs that serve homeless veterans reaching more 

veterans than ever before. VA’s Grant & Per Diem (GPD) program, which had just 

begun in the mid-nineties, has over 8500 operational beds today; 15,000 veterans 

were provided homeless residential services and an additional 5000 plus veterans 

were treated in specialized VA homeless domiciliary residential care programs in FY 

2007. These programs have demonstrated remarkable success at placing and keeping veterans in community housing. Some of which have employment and others are 

receiving government financial assistance. 

The overall population of veterans continues to decline as the World War II; Korean and Vietnam veterans’ age. In 1990, there were 27.5 million veterans, a total 

that has decreased to 24 million today. Similarly, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of poor veterans, decreasing from 3 million in 1990 to 1.8 

million in 2000. 

Questions for the Record 

From the Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez 

Question 1: Why did the Department of Veterans Affairs recently change its 

methodology for counting homeless veterans? 

Response: Counting the number of homeless people, specifically the number of 

homeless veterans, is a difficult task. There have been few systematic, national efforts to count the homeless. Prior to 2005, the most highly regarded effort took place 

in 1996, the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients 

(NSHAPC). In 2005, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began organizing 

comprehensive, national counts of homeless persons. This year, for the first time, 

Community Homeless Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups for Veterans (CHALENG) points of contact (POCs) were asked to provide a point-in-time 

estimate of the homeless veterans in their service area on any day during the last 

week of January 2007. This time period was selected so CHALENG estimates would 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

167 

coincide with the homeless point-in-time counts executed by HUD Continuums of 

Care nationwide. It is believed that CHALENG should make every effort to base 

their estimates on the local point-intime count, as it is the only nationwide homeless 

count conducted on an ongoing basis. In response to your inquiry about the methods 

used to arrive at the number of homeless veterans in the Nation, the following are 

the elements employed. Each VA local POC for Project CHALENG each year is 

tasked to develop the best estimate of homeless veterans locally in their service 

areas based on a variety of data available. 

1. Each POC was directed to use as an important reference the estimated local 

HUD Continuum of Care count, with specific reference to the percentage of 

homeless veterans. 

2. For the CHALENG estimates, POCs adjusted the HUD numbers, if needed, by 

taking into account input from community sources, local surveys, community 

leaders, and their own knowledge of veterans not covered within their service 

area by the HUD count. 

Comprehensively using the HUD Continuum of Care counts as a standardized reference has helped to improve our CHALENG estimates. We do not believe that our 

methodology has really changed just incrementally improved. 

Question 2: Is there a possibility that the marked decrease in homeless veterans 

from last year to this year had anything to do with the change in methodology? 

Response: The 2007 CHALENG Report estimates that on any given night, approximately 154,000 veterans were homeless. This figure is a decrease of 21 percent 

from the estimate 195,827 given in the 2006 CHALENG report. We believe that improvements in methodology may a have contributed to the reduction in numbers, 

but we also believe the validity of the numbers has increased. 

VA homeless program interventions and changing demographics also contributed. 

Reductions in veteran homelessness are due in part to the effectiveness of VA’s and 

other community programs that serve homeless veterans reaching more veterans 

than ever before. VA’s Grant & Per Diem (GPD) program, which had just begun in 

the mid-nineties, has over 8500 operational beds today; 15,000 veterans were provided homeless residential services and an additional 5000 plus veterans were treated in specialized VA homeless domiciliary residential care programs in FY 2007. 

These programs have demonstrated remarkable success at placing and keeping veterans in community housing. 

The overall population of veterans continues to decline as the World War II; Korean and Vietnam veterans’ age. In 1990, there were 27.5 million veterans, a total 

that has decreased to 24 million today. Similarly, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of poor veterans, decreasing from 3 million in 1990 to 1.8 

million in 2000. 

Æ 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING