Homelessness: A Common Vocabulary Could Help Agencies Collaborate and Collect More Consistent Data
Published: 2010-06-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Multiple federal programs provide homelessness assistance through programs targeted to those experiencing homelessness or through mainstream programs that broadly assist low-income populations. Programs' definitions of homelessness range from including primarily people in homeless shelters or on the street to also including those living with others because of economic hardship. GAO was asked to address (1) the availability, completeness, and usefulness of federal data on homelessness, (2) the extent to which research identifies factors associated with experiencing homelessness, and (3) how differences in definitions and other factors impact the effectiveness of programs serving those experiencing homelessness. GAO reviewed laws, agency regulations, performance and planning documents, and data as well as literature on homelessness, and spoke with stakeholders, such as government officials and service providers, about potential barriers.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal agencies, including the Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), collect data on homelessness. However, these data are incomplete, do not track certain demographic information well over time, and are not always timely. HUD collects data and estimates the number of people who are homeless on a given night during the year and the number who use shelters over the course of the year; these estimates include the people who meet the definition of homelessness for HUD's programs, but do not include all of those who meet broader definitions of homelessness used by some other agencies' programs. For example, HUD's counts would not include families living with others as a result of economic hardship, who are considered homeless by Education. Data from federally-funded mainstream programs such as HHS's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families could improve agencies' understanding of homelessness, but these programs have not consistently collected or analyzed information on housing status because this is not their primary purpose. Because research studies GAO reviewed often used different definitions of homelessness, relied on data collected at a point-in-time, and focused narrowly on unique populations over limited geographical areas, the studies cannot be compared or compiled to further an understanding of which factors are associated with experiencing homelessness. Furthermore, although researchers GAO interviewed and most studies noted the importance of structural factors such as area poverty rates, and those that analyzed these factors found them to be important, few studies considered them. Most of the studies analyzed only the association of individual-level factors such as demographic characteristics, but these studies often did not consider the same individual-level factors or agree on their importance. Many of the government officials, service providers, advocates, and researchers GAO interviewed stated that narrow or multiple definitions of homelessness have posed challenges to providing services for those experiencing homelessness, and some said that having different definitions made collaborating more difficult. For example, some said that persons in need of services might not be eligible for programs under narrower definitions of homelessness or might not receive services for which they were eligible because of confusion created by multiple definitions. Different definitions of homelessness and different terminology to address homelessness have made it difficult for communities to plan strategically for housing needs and for federal agencies such as Education, HHS, and HUD to collaborate effectively to provide comprehensive services. As long as agencies use differing terms to address issues related to homelessness, their efforts to collaborate will be impeded, and this in turn will limit the development of more efficient and effective programs. Commenting on a draft of this report, HHS and HUD raised concerns about its treatment of homelessness data. We characterize and respond to those comments within the report.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that Education, HHS, and HUD (1) develop a common vocabulary for homelessness; and (2) determine if the benefits of collecting data on housing status in targeted and mainstream programs would exceed the costs. To the extent that the agencies explicitly addressed the recommendations in their comments, they agreed with them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For some time, the federal government and the nation at large have been  concerned about the number of people who are experiencing  homelessness, but approaches to solving the problem have varied over  time. In part because of the financial crisis that began in 2007, concerns  about homelessness have come to the fore again. Multiple federal agencies  administer programs designed to address the needs of those experiencing  homelessness, but the programs use different definitions of homelessness  to determine eligibility. These differences in definitions were an important  part of the discussions leading to the enactment in 2009 of the Homeless  Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH  Act). The HEARTH Act reauthorized the McKinney-Vento Homeless  Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act), which contained different  definitions of homelessness for the federal programs it authorized. For  programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD), the McKinney-Vento Act generally defined  homelessness as being on the street or in an emergency or transitional  shelter, while for programs administered by the Department of Education  (Education), the McKinney-Vento Act defined homelessness more broadly  to include homeless children and youths who are sharing the housing of  other persons due to loss of housing or economic hardship and those  living in motels or camping grounds due to the lack of adequate alternative  accommodations. Any discussion of homeless definitions is further  complicated by programs using other definitions. For example, the  Runaway and Homeless Youth Act authorizes programs administered by  the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that define  homelessness as lacking a safe living arrangement. In part because of  these differences in definitions, concerns also have been raised about  whether existing data on homelessness provide a complete picture of its  extent and nature.
Previously, we reported on agency coordination and evaluation of  homelessness programs and the barriers faced by those experiencing  homelessness in using mainstream programs. In response to your request,  this report updates some of that earlier information and specifically  addresses (1) the availability, completeness, and usefulness of data on  homelessness collected by federal programs; (2) the extent to which  research identifies factors associated with homelessness; and (3) how  differences in the definitions of homelessness and other factors, such as  the level of agency collaboration, may impact the effectiveness of  programs serving those experiencing homelessness.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and  government reports across a number of programs specifically targeted to  address issues related to homelessness as well as mainstream programs— programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Head  Start, and Public Housing—that are generally designed to help low-income  individuals and families achieve or retain their economic self-sufficiency  and often provide services to people experiencing homelessness. We also  interviewed officials at HUD, HHS, and Education; the U.S. Interagency  Council on Homelessness (Interagency Council); and the Departments of  Justice (DOJ) and Labor (DOL). We conducted in-depth interviews with a  variety of stakeholders, including advocates and researchers, as well as  service providers, state and local government officials, and HUD field staff  that had extensive experience with homeless programs. To gather  perspectives on our objectives, we conducted four site visits to large and  medium-sized urban areas that were geographically distributed across the  United States. These areas were in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and  South Carolina. To determine the availability, completeness, and  usefulness of data, we reviewed the methodologies and reliability of  program data collected by HUD, HHS, and Education and interviewed  stakeholders about their use of the data. We also analyzed estimates of the  extent of homelessness that were derived from federal data systems such  as the American Community Survey. To determine the extent to which the  research identifies factors associated with homelessness, we reviewed  studies published from 1998 to 2009; selected 45 studies that we judged to  be sufficiently rigorous; and systematically reviewed their methodologies,  findings, and limitations. We chose 1998 as a starting point because  welfare reform—which impacted some homeless families—had been  implemented by that date and may have affected research findings. To  determine what factors create barriers to serving those experiencing  homelessness, we developed a list of potential barriers from the literature  and discussions with researchers and asked government officials, service  providers, advocates, and researchers who represented a range of  activities and views related to homelessness to select the three most  important barriers from that list. We determined the relative importance of  the barriers chosen by summing the number of times an item was selected.  Finally, we asked these stakeholders to describe how federal agencies  collaborate with regard to homelessness and reviewed joint program and  agency planning and performance documents. See appendix I for more  detailed information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to June 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Definitions of Homelessness
paragraphs: Congress first provided a general definition of homeless individuals in  1987 in what is now called the McKinney-Vento Act. In 2002, Congress  added a definition for homeless children and youths to be used in  educational programs. Prior to the enactment of the HEARTH Act, the  McKinney-Vento Act generally defined a homeless individual (McKinney- Vento Individual) as someone who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate  nighttime residence and has a nighttime residence that is a supervised  shelter designed to provide temporary accommodations; an institution  providing a temporary residence for individuals awaiting  institutionalization; or a place not designed for, nor ordinarily used as, a  regular sleeping accommodation. However, in the provisions on  education of children and youths, the McKinney-Vento Act also  specifically included children and youths who are sharing the housing of  other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar  reason (that is, are doubled up); living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or  camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations awaiting foster care placement; or living in substandard housing  (McKinney-Vento Children and Youth).
For its homeless assistance programs, HUD has interpreted the McKinney- Vento Act definitions so that a homeless individual is someone who  resides in places not meant for human habitation, such as in cars,  abandoned buildings, housing that has been condemned by housing  officials, or on the street, in an emergency shelter or transitional or  supportive housing, or any of these places, but is spending a short time (up  to 30 consecutive days) in a hospital or other institution. Additionally,  individuals are considered homeless if they are being evicted within a  week from a private dwelling and no subsequent residence has been  identified and the person lacks the resources and support networks  needed to obtain housing; discharged within a week from an institution in  which the person has been a resident for 30 or more consecutive days and  no subsequent residence has been identified; or fleeing a domestic  violence situation.
The HEARTH Act includes changes in the general definition of  homelessness, but the new definition and associated regulations had not  taken effect by June 2010. The HEARTH Act broadened the general  definition and provided greater statutory specificity concerning those who  should be considered homeless but did not change the McKinney-Vento  Children and Youth definition. For example, the HEARTH Act definition  includes individuals and families that will be evicted in, or who can  otherwise demonstrate that they will not be able to remain in their current  living place for more than, 2 weeks. The HEARTH Act definition includes  some individuals, families, and youths who would have been considered  homeless under the McKinney-Vento Children and Youth definition but not  under the prior individual definition.
Some federal programs that were authorized outside of the McKinney- Vento Act use other definitions of homelessness. For example, the  Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, first introduced as the Runaway Youth  Act of 1974, defined a homeless youth as being generally from the ages of  16 to 22, unable to live in a safe environment with a relative, and lacking  any safe alternative living arrangements.
Within various programs, the definition of homelessness determines  whether individuals are eligible for program benefits. For the Education of  Homeless Children and Youth program, meeting the definition entitles the  student to certain benefits; however, in other cases, such as HUD’s  homeless assistance programs or HHS’s Runaway and Homelessness  Youth programs, benefits are limited by the amount of funds appropriated  for the program. For these programs, meeting the definition of  homelessness does not necessarily entitle individuals or families to  benefits. In addition, programs have other eligibility criteria, such as  certain income levels, ages, or disability status.
section_title: Numerous Federal Programs Address Homelessness
paragraphs: As illustrated in table 1, programs that provide targeted assistance  primarily to those experiencing homelessness have different purposes,  definitions of homelessness, and funding levels. One of these programs,  HUD’s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program, was created  under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of  2009, and many others received additional funding under that act.
HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs comprise a number of individual  programs. These include the Emergency Shelter Grant Program, under  which funding is provided on a formula basis, and competitive programs  funded under the umbrella of the Continuum of Care (Continuum). The  latter include the Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, and Single Room  Occupancy Programs. A Continuum is a group of providers in a  geographical area that join to provide homeless services and apply for  these grants. The Continuum is also responsible for planning homeless  services, setting local priorities, and collecting homelessness data.
Additionally, many federally-funded mainstream programs provide  services for which those experiencing homelessness may be eligible. Some  of these programs are required to provide services to those experiencing  homelessness and may define it, others allow local providers to choose to  target certain services to those experiencing homelessness or provide  homelessness preferences using locally determined definitions, and still  other programs do not distinguish between those experiencing  homelessness and those not experiencing it (see table 2).
The McKinney-Vento Act also authorized the creation of the U. S.  Interagency Council on Homelessness (Interagency Council). Initially,  the main functions of the Interagency Council revolved around using  public resources and programs in a more coordinated manner to meet the  needs of those experiencing homelessness. The McKinney-Vento Act  specifically mandated the council to identify duplication in federal  er  programs and provide assistance to states, local governments, and oth public and private nonprofit organizations to enable them to serve those  experiencing homelessness more effectively. In the HEARTH Act, the  council, which includes 19 agencies, was given the mission of coordinat the federal response to homelessness and creating a national partnersh at every level of government and with the private sector to reduce and end  ip  homelessness. This act also mandates that the Interagency Council  develop and annually update a strategic plan to end homelessness.
section_title: Some Agencies Collect Data on Those Experiencing Homelessness
paragraphs: Several agencies overseeing targeted homelessness programs are required  to collect data on segments of the homeless population. As illustrated in  table 3, HUD, HHS, and Education all have met their requirements through  their own data collection and these sources differ in housing data  collected and level of aggregation. In addition, the data collected  necessarily reflect the definitions of homelessness included in the statutes  that govern the relevant programs.
Under the McKinney-Vento Act, HUD is to develop an estimate of homeless  persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a 1-day point in time, so  HUD requires Continuums to conduct a count of the sheltered and  unsheltered homeless in their jurisdictions in January of every other year.  Additionally, pursuant to the 2001 amendments to the McKinney-Vento Act,  HUD was to develop a system to collect and analyze data on the extent of  homelessness and the effectiveness of McKinney-Vento Act programs. As a  result, HUD developed a set of technical data standards for the Homelessness  Management Information System (HMIS), which sets minimum privacy,  security, and technical requirements for local data collection on the  characteristics of individuals and families receiving homelessness services.  HMIS data standards allowed communities to continue using locally  developed data systems and adapt them to meet HUD standards. Local  Continuums are responsible for implementing HMIS in their communities,  and Continuums can choose from many HMIS systems that meet HUD’s data  standards. HUD officials said that by allowing Continuums to choose from  multiple systems, more service providers participate and Continuums and  service providers can modify existing systems to meet HUD standards and the  community’s goals. Continuums report aggregated data to HUD annually.  Results from analysis of the point-in-time count and HMIS data are reported  in HUD’s Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress.
Pursuant to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, HHS requires all  service providers to collect data on youths who receive services through  the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. Grantees submit these data  every 6 months to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Management  Information System (RHYMIS), a national database that includes  unidentified individual-level data.
To demonstrate compliance with the Elementary and Secondary  Education Act of 1965, Education requires states to complete  Consolidated State Performance Reports that include data on homeless  children and youths being served by Elementary and Secondary Education  Act programs and the Education of Homeless Children and Youth  Program, as amended. The McKinney-Vento Act requires local school  districts to have homelessness liaisons, who work with other school  personnel and those in the community to identify homeless children and  youths, provide appropriate services and support, and collect and report  data. States aggregate local data and report to Education annually  cumulative numbers of homeless students enrolled in public schools by  grade and primary nighttime residence.
As part of its decennial population and housing census, the U.S. Census  Bureau has programs designed to count people experiencing  homelessness. The Census counts people at places where they receive  services (such as soup kitchens or domestic violence shelters), as well as  at targeted nonshelter outdoor locations. While the Census makes an  effort to count all residents, including those experiencing homelessness,  the 2010 Census does not plan to report a separate count of the population  experiencing homelessness or a count of the population who use the  services.
section_title: Shortcomings in Federal Data Have Limited the Understanding of the Extent and Nature of Homelessness
subsections: section_title: Homelessness Data of Federal Agencies Have Shortcomings
paragraphs: Although federal agencies collect data on those experiencing  homelessness, these data have a number of shortcomings and  consequently do not capture the true extent and nature of homelessness.  Some of these shortcomings derive from the difficulty of counting a  transient population that changes over time, lack of comprehensive data  collection requirements, and the time needed for data analysis. As a result  of these shortcomings, the data have limited usefulness. Complete and  accurate data are essential for understanding and meeting the needs of  those who are experiencing homelessness and to prevent homelessness  from occurring. According to HUD, communities need accurate data to  determine the extent and nature of homelessness at a local level, plan  services and programs to address local needs, and measure progress in  addressing homelessness. HUD needs accurate data to fulfill its reporting  obligations to Congress and to better understand the extent of  homelessness, who it affects, and how it can best be addressed.
HUD’s point-in-time count is the only data collection effort designed to  obtain a national count of those experiencing homelessness under the  McKinney-Vento Individual definition, and approximately 450 Continuums  conduct a point-in-time count in January of every other year. However,  service providers and researchers we interviewed expressed concerns  about the ability of HUD’s point-in-time count to fully capture many of  those experiencing homelessness for reasons including the following:    People experiencing homelessness are inherently difficult to count. They  are mobile, can seek shelter in secluded areas, and may not wish to attract  the notice of local government officials.
Point-in-time counts do not recognize that individuals and families move in  and out of homelessness and can experience it for varying lengths of time.  These counts more likely count those experiencing homelessness for long  periods rather than those experiencing it episodically or for short  periods.
Although homelessness can be episodic, the count is done biennially in  January, which might lead to an undercount of families because landlords  and others may be reluctant to evict families when the weather is cold or  school is ongoing.
Count methodologies vary by Continuum, can change from year to year,  and might not be well implemented because counters are volunteers who  may lack experience with the population.
Large communities do not necessarily attempt to count all of those  experiencing homelessness but rather may use estimation procedures of  varying reliability.
HUD provides technical assistance to communities, which helps them to  develop and implement point-in-time count methodologies, and HUD  officials said that methodologies and the accuracy of the count have  improved. Additionally, HUD officials said that as part of their quality  control efforts, they contacted 213 Continuums last year to address errors  or inconsistencies in their data from fiscal year 2008. A communitywide  point-in-time count demands considerable local resources and planning,  and communities rely on volunteers to conduct counts of the unsheltered  population. Continuums do not receive any funding from HUD to conduct  the point-in-time counts, and using professionals or paid staff to conduct  the count could be costly.
Other federal data collected on those experiencing homelessness primarily  or only captures clients being served by federally-funded programs. As a  result, federal data do not capture some people seeking homeless  assistance through nongovernmental programs, or others who are eligible  for services but are not enrolled. For instance, while HUD grantees are  required to participate in HMIS, participation is optional for shelters that  do not receive HUD funding. HUD can use the annual Continuum funding  application to assess the extent to which those shelters not receiving HUD  funding participate in HMIS. In their funding applications Continuums  provide an inventory of shelter beds in their community and also provide  the percentage of those beds that are located in shelters that participate in  HMIS. HMIS participation rates vary widely across communities and  shelter types. For example, one of the locations we visited reported data  for less than 50 percent of its beds for transitional shelters, while another  reported data for more than 75 percent of its beds. HUD officials said that  while some Continuums have been slower to implement HMIS and receive  full participation from their providers than others, according to HUD’s   2009 national housing inventory data of homeless programs, 75 percent of  all shelter beds were covered by HMIS, including programs that do not  receive HUD funding. The Violence Against Women Act prohibits service  providers from entering individual-level data into HMIS for those in  domestic violence shelters. Similarly, RHYMIS collects data on those  clients using its residential systems, but these serve only a small  percentage of the estimated number of youths experiencing homelessness.  HHS officials stated that nationwide, they only fund approximately 200  transitional living centers for young adults. Education also does not fully  capture the extent of homelessness among school-aged children because  all of the districts we visited used a system of referrals and self-reporting  to identify those children. In one of the school districts we visited, an  official said that, based on estimates of the number of children  experiencing homelessness under the McKinney-Vento Children and Youth  definition, the district was serving about half of those students. Many of  the school officials and advocates with whom we spoke said the term  homelessness carried a stigma that made people reluctant to be so  identified, and two school systems had removed the word from the name  of their programs.
Additionally, federal data systems on homelessness may count the same  individual more than once. HUD designed HMIS to produce an  unduplicated count—one that ensures individuals are counted only once— of those experiencing homelessness within each Continuum. Providers in  the same Continuum use the same HMIS system and some Continuums  have designed an open system, where providers can view all or part of an  individual’s record from another provider within the Continuum. This is  useful to providers because it helps them to understand an individual or  family’s service needs. It also allows them to produce an unduplicated  count of those using services in the Continuum because every person  receiving services in the Continuum has a unique identifier in HMIS.  However, it is difficult to share data across Continuums and this can be  done only if Continuums have signed agreements that protect privacy and  are using the same HMIS system. Thus, clients may be entered into HMIS  in more than one Continuum and counted more than once. Nonetheless,  some states have constructed statewide HMIS systems to help avoid  duplication in the data. Because RHYMIS has individual data on all  program recipients in a single database, HHS can obtain an accurate count  on the number of youths served by its residential programs. Education  data also may be duplicative. Because students generally are counted as  homeless if they experience homelessness at any point during the school  year, if they change school districts during the year, they could be counted  as homeless in both systems. While each agency makes efforts to avoid  duplication in its data, it is not possible to determine how many total  unique individuals federal homelessness programs have served because  HUD, HHS, and Education data systems generally do not interface or share  data.
Further, the data in HMIS may not always accurately reflect the  demographic information on families and individuals seeking shelter. For  example, HMIS provides data for individuals and families but the system  may not accurately identify family members and track the composition of  families over time. Using HMIS, service providers associate individuals  entering into a shelter with a family if family members enter the shelter  together. However, some families split up to obtain shelter, so the system  would not track all families over time. In one of our site visit locations, we  met a mother and son who were split up and placed in separate shelters.  Because the mother was in an individual shelter, and the son was in a  youth shelter, HMIS would not associate these two as a family. Further,  one service provider we spoke with said that HMIS may not always  accurately track demographic information on individuals seeking  emergency shelter.
Some researchers and advocates told us that HMIS’s design limited its  usefulness, and the extent to which service providers found that the HMIS  system their Continuum had implemented was useful varied across the  four locations we visited. For example, a researcher who has extensively  used HMIS told us that if service providers used the data they collected for  HMIS to manage their programs, they would implement processes to help  ensure data quality. But in three of the four locations we visited, many  providers said they were unable to use HMIS for program administration  and client case management. Many providers noted that they often had to  enter information in several different databases, and they generally used  their own database to administer their programs. Additionally, we found  only two providers who developed data export tools that allowed their  private systems to upload data to HMIS, and in both cases, the providers  were unable to use their new tools after the Continuum switched HMIS  software. HHS officials told us that they support providers’ development  of tools to link data systems, but they do not provide funding for this  endeavor. In contrast, service providers in one location we visited  reported that the HMIS system they had adopted had options that allowed  them to conduct comprehensive case management for clients and produce  all of the reports required by the various organizations funding their  programs and operations. HUD officials said that a community’s success in  using HMIS for program administration and client case management  depends on a variety of factors including staff capability and the quality of  the HMIS software that they chose to purchase or develop.
HUD and Education data also have shortcomings and limited usefulness  because of the time lag between initial data collection and the reporting of  the data. HUD published the most recent report to Congress, which  provided data for October 2008–September 2009, in June 2010. Education  expected to publish data for the 2008–2009 school year in June 2010.  Because of the time lag in availability of HUD and Education data, they  have limited usefulness for understanding current trends in homelessness  and the ongoing effects of the recession. However, HUD officials report  that they have made progress in reducing the time it takes to analyze data  and publish its annual report to Congress. The time lag from data  collection to report issuance has decreased from almost 2 years to less  than 1 year, but collecting data on homelessness and producing national  estimates takes time, and HUD officials said there will always be some  time lag. Additionally, in recognition of these shortcomings, HUD recently  introduced the Homeless Pulse Project, which collects quarterly homeless  shelter data from nine communities. These communities volunteered to  submit data on a more frequent basis, but they are not representative of  Continuums nationwide. HUD plans to expand the Pulse Project and add  approximately 30 Continuums that have volunteered to participate. HHS’  RHYMIS data are more timely because grantees submit data every 6  months, and HHS makes the data available online approximately 1 month  after the end of the reporting period.
Although a researcher with special expertise in HMIS and several  advocates we interviewed cited some examples of incompleteness or  inaccuracy in HMIS data, agencies and Continuums have been trying to  improve the completeness and accuracy of their data. For example, HUD  provides incentives for Continuums to increase HMIS participation rates.  In its competitive grant process, HUD evaluates the level to which  Continuums participate in HMIS. HUD officials have also provided  technical assistance to Continuums to assist them in increasing local HMIS  participation rates. HMIS rates have increased over time. Several  Continuums we contacted have been conducting outreach to private and  faith-based providers to encourage them to use HMIS to improve data on  homelessness. Additionally, according to HUD officials, HMIS data have  been used to conduct research on the prevalence of homelessness, the  costs of homelessness, and the effectiveness of interventions to reduce  homelessness. Further, HUD supplements HMIS data with point-in-time  data to enhance the information available on those experiencing  homelessness. HHS has begun a project to get some of its homelessness  programs to use HUD’s HMIS system. For example, as discussed in more  detail further on, in December 2009, HHS established an agreement with  HUD requiring PATH providers to use HMIS. To address the issues faced  by emergency shelters in quickly collecting and entering data on  individuals, some Continuums issue identification cards containing  demographic information to clients during their initial intake into the  shelter system. Clients can swipe the cards as they enter a facility, and  HMIS automatically captures the data.
section_title: HUD and Others Have Used Data to Estimate the Extent of Homelessness, but Estimates Have Limitations
paragraphs: Despite the limitations discussed above, HUD uses data from point-in-time  counts to estimate the number of those experiencing homelessness on a  single night in January. HUD reported that approximately 660,000  individuals and persons in families experienced sheltered and unsheltered  homelessness on a single night in January 2008. However, this estimate does  not include people who do not meet the definition of homelessness for  HUD’s programs but do meet definitions of homelessness for other  programs. For example, HUD’s counts would not include families living with  others as a result of economic hardship, who are considered homeless by  Education. Figure 1 shows the count of sheltered and unsheltered persons  s  experiencing homelessness on a single night in January for the past 4 years.  experiencing homelessness on a single night in January for the past 4 years.
HUD also samples a number of communities and uses their HMIS data to  estimate those experiencing homelessness in shelters during the year.  HUD estimated that in 2008, 1.18 to 2 million people met HUD’s definition  of homelessness and were sheltered at some time in the year. The  estimate has a broad range because HUD uses a sample of 102  communities and not all of those communities can provide usable data.  For those Continuums related to the communities that can provide data on  at least half of the beds in their inventory, HUD assumes that the  remaining beds would be occupied in similar ways to estimate shelter use  for those Continuums that cannot provide such data. HUD officials noted  that response rates have been steadily improving and the estimate’s range  has decreased. For example, in 2008, 87 of the 102 communities in HUD’s  sample provided usable data and another 135 communities voluntarily  submitted data; while in 2005, 55 communities in a sample of 80  communities provided usable data and another 9 communities contributed  data voluntarily. HUD estimates that individuals without children make up  about two-thirds and families with children under 18 about one-third of the  estimate. However, HMIS only captures individuals and families who are  defined as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Individual definition.  Additionally, as previously noted, concerns exist about HMIS’s ability to  accurately record family status.
HUD, HHS, and Education also report on other populations experiencing  homelessness. HUD estimated that over the course of 2008,  unaccompanied youths accounted for 2 percent of the sheltered homeless  population, or approximately 22,000 unaccompanied youth who were  homeless and sheltered. According to HHS, over the course of fiscal year  2008, approximately 48,000 youths experienced homelessness and  received services from HHS’ Basic Center Program or Transitional Living  Program, which have different eligibility criteria from HUD’s programs.  Some youths may be in shelters funded by both HHS and HUD, and  therefore be counted in both HMIS and RHYMIS, while others might be in  shelters funded only by HUD or only by HHS and only included in the  corresponding database.
As shown in figure 2, Education reported that more than 770,000 homeless  children received services in the 2007–2008 school year, but less than one  quarter of these children—about 165,000—were living in shelters. HUD  reported for that same year that approximately 150,000 children aged 6 to  17 were in shelters.
section_title: Data from Mainstream Programs Could Improve Understanding of Homelessness, but Programs Have Not Consistently Collected Information on Housing Status
paragraphs: Federally-funded mainstream programs, whose primary purpose is to  provide a range of services and funds to low-income households, often  provide these services and funds to those who are experiencing or have  experienced homelessness or to those defined as being at risk of becoming  homeless. Thus, while homelessness is not the primary focus of these  programs, data collected by them could be useful for understanding the  nature of homelessness. Further, several researchers and advocates with  whom we spoke noted that they could better understand the dynamics of  homelessness if these programs collected individual client-level data on  homelessness and housing status as part of their routine data collection  activities. However, these programs have not consistently collected data  on homelessness and housing status. A few programs have collected  individual data, some have collected aggregate data, and others collect no  data on housing status at all.
We identified several federally-funded mainstream programs that collect  or are beginning to collect and report client-level data on persons  experiencing homelessness to the federal agency overseeing the  mainstream program. Public Housing Authorities (PHA) collect data on  homelessness status of households at the time the PHA admits the  household to a housing assistance program, which includes both Public  Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs; they report these data to  HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing. HHS’s Substance Abuse  Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program requires grantees to  report participants’ living arrangements at entry and exit. DOL’s WIA Adult  and Youth grantees also collect and report individual-level data on  enrolled participants including whether the client is homeless. HHS’s John  H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program has developed a survey that  states must begin using by October 2010 to gather data for the National  Youth in Transition Database—a data collection required by the Foster  Care Independence Act of 1999. States are required to survey foster care  youths at ages 17, 19, and 21 to collect data on the services provided to,  and outcomes of, youths in the foster care system. The survey includes a  question asking youths if they have experienced homelessness over the  relevant time period; however, as previously noted, the social stigma  attached to the word homeless often limits self-identification. States  administer USDA’s SNAP program, document if a person or family is  homeless, and report a sample of data to USDA, which uses the data to  assess the accuracy of eligibility decisions and benefit calculations.
A number of other programs require that grantees report aggregate data to  their funding agency on the number of persons experiencing homelessness  that they served:    Head Start grantees report the number of homeless families served  annually to HHS.
Health Center Program grantees collect limited data on the homelessness  status of program participants and report the total number of participants  known to be homeless to HHS.
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant grantees collect and  submit data to HHS on persons served by the program, including  “homeless or shelter.”
The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program collects and reports to HHS limited  aggregate data on the living arrangements (permanent, homeless,  transient, or transitionally housed) of clients served.
HHS has numerous other mainstream programs that provide funds to  states to provide services to certain low-income populations, including  those experiencing homelessness, but data collection and reporting on  homelessness or housing status varies by program and across states.  Medicaid and TANF are the two largest programs, but states are not  required to collect or submit information to HHS on the number of  individuals or families experiencing homelessness that they served. States  determine eligibility requirements and develop program applications for  TANF and Medicaid. A recent HHS study that surveyed all the states found  that all states collected minimum housing status data on their Medicaid  and TANF applications, such as home address and if the applicant resides  in public or subsidized housing, a long-term care facility, or a medical or  rehabilitation facility. Twenty eight states collected indicators of  homelessness—such as whether an individual resides in a shelter, stays in  a domestic violence shelter, or has a permanent home—on their  applications. Thirteen states collected information on risk factors often  associated with homelessness—such as whether an individual lives with  friends or relatives, or has an eviction notice—on their applications.  However, these states did not collect this information using consistent  definitions and used the data in limited ways. According to the HHS  report, most states responding to HHS’s survey said that they did not know  whether they had procedures in place to improve the quality of the items  collected and thus how complete their homelessness data were.  Additionally, while data on homelessness indicators and risk factors  resided in statewide databases in many states, the data were not routinely  confirmed or verified, making it unclear how reliable the data might be for  analysis of homelessness. Further, as previously discussed, homelessness  status changes over time, and data collected at one point in time may not  accurately capture these changes. Nonetheless, in Michigan, New York  City, and Philadelphia, researchers and state officials have been able to  use identifying data in mainstream databases to match data in HMIS, and  have thus been able to identify patterns in mainstream service usage for  homeless populations.
Several other mainstream programs provide services for persons  experiencing homelessness, but do not provide aggregate or individual- level data on homeless clients served. The Community Services Block  Grant, Social Services Block Grant, Maternal and Child Health Block  Grant, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program all provide HHS with  regular program reports. However, these reports do not include data on  the number of clients experiencing homelessness or other housing status  data. Although child welfare agencies often collect data on housing status  and stability in the process of reviewing family reunification cases, this  information is not reported to HHS. Community Development Block  Grants often fund services that may benefit those experiencing  homelessness, but grantees do not track the number of homeless served  by the program. Additionally, local PHAs can give preferences to  individuals and families experiencing homelessness; however, PHAs do  not have to submit data on these preferences to HUD. HUD sampled  Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Program to determine how  many of them have a preference for those experiencing homelessness. The  analysis showed that in 2009, approximately 27 percent of all PHAs had a  homeless preference.
Finally, agencies have not always consistently collected or analyzed data  on housing stability or homelessness because these are not the primary  purposes of their programs. In addition, data collection may be expensive,  and agencies must weigh the costs and benefits of getting more detailed  information. Collecting data on homelessness or housing status for  programs such as TANF and Medicaid could be further complicated by the  need to work with 50 different state offices to implement a new data  collection effort. However, HHS recently reported that of the 28 states that  do collect homelessness data, almost all of them indicated that it is not  burdensome or costly to collect such data, and about half of the states that  collect data said they would comply with requests to make some  homelessness data available to HHS for research purposes. Yet even  among the willing states, there were some concerns about resource  constraints for responding to such requests and concerns about the  reliability of the data. However, not having complete and accurate data  limits the understanding of the nature of homelessness—a better  understanding of which could be used to inform programs and policies  designed to improve housing stability and thus reduce homelessness.
section_title: Definitional Differences and Data and Methodological Issues in Research Studies Hinder Development of Comprehensive Understanding of Factors Associated with Homelessness
subsections: section_title: Definitional Differences and Measurement Issues in Research Studies Make Analysis of Factors Associated with Homelessness Difficult
paragraphs: The 45 research studies analyzing factors associated with homelessness  that we reviewed used different definitions or measurements of  homelessness, although many of the studies used definitions or measures  that were more closely affiliated with the McKinney-Vento Individual  definition than with the broader McKinney-Vento Children and Youth  definition (see appendix II for a list of the 45 studies). As a result, study  findings are difficult to compile or compare. In the absence of a consistent  definition and measurement, “homelessness” can mean or designate many  conditions. For example, homelessness can refer to long-term  homelessness, short stays in shelters, living in nontraditional housing, or  living with relatives, friends, or acquaintances. These definitional  differences especially limited research on some specific populations, such  as “runaway or homeless” youths.
The research we reviewed also varied in how it defined and measured the  factors that may be associated with the likelihood of experiencing  homelessness. For instance, studies that examined families and youths  used different definitions or, in some cases, failed to clearly define what  they meant by families and youth. Several studies measured variables such  as marital status, social or family support, or domestic violence differently.  For example, in assessing relationships between family structure and  homelessness, one study examined whether a father of a child was  cohabitating with a woman, while another study looked at whether the  individual was presently married, although it is possible the two categories  overlapped. Studies also used various age categories to define youths,  including under 17, from 14 to 23, or from 12 to 22. In addition, some  studies did not consider factors that figured prominently in other studies,  such as the economic conditions of the surrounding area or how  childhood experiences influenced later episodes of homelessness.
section_title: Data Limitations and Other Methodological Issues Limit What Overall Body of Research Can Say about the Factors Associated with Homelessness
paragraphs: To contribute to a broad-based and reliable understanding of what factors  are associated with the likelihood of experiencing homelessness, studies  we reviewed and experts with whom we spoke noted research would need  to use data that accurately reflect the population studied, track the same  individuals or families over time, and consider a broad population over  diverse locations. Further, such studies would need to consider a range of  both structural factors, such as area poverty level, and individual factors,  such as a person’s age. However, the majority of the studies we reviewed  did not meet these criteria. As a result, the body of literature we reviewed  cannot be used to predict with accuracy who among those at risk of  homelessness would likely experience it.
Studies we reviewed used samples from several types of data, such as  providers’ administrative databases or surveys, but were not always able  to ensure that data accurately reflected the population they studied.  Approximately half of the studies used information from administrative  records or other service-oriented data, such as standardized self- assessments. The remaining studies used information collected in  interviews, surveys, or questionnaires. Studies using administrative data  may be especially vulnerable to biased sampling or undercounting of  street homeless populations because of the myriad issues described  previously, such as collecting data only on those receiving services. Some  researchers noted that data from secondary sources such as  administrative data may be less accurate than data collected by research  staff and targeted for research purposes. However, survey data collected  for research purposes also are subject to undercounting and biased  sampling, because populations experiencing homelessness are difficult to  reach.
Because people move in and out of homelessness and experience it for  different periods, studies we reviewed and experts with whom we spoke  noted that data would need to be collected on the same individuals or  families over time to more clearly identify which factors could lead to an  episode of homelessness or help determine homelessness experiences  over longer periods. Like HUD’s point-in-time homeless counts, these  studies more likely captured those individuals or families who had been  homeless for long periods as opposed to those who experienced it  episodically or for short periods, and thus do not give a clear  understanding of factors associated with homelessness. These studies also  could not determine whether factors associated with being homeless at a  point in time caused homelessness. For example, one study found an  association between poor physical health and homelessness, but could not  say whether poor physical health contributed to experiencing  homelessness or whether homelessness contributed to or worsened  physical health. Nineteen studies in our review used data that did follow  individuals or families over time. However, several of these used  administrative data that suffered from the shortcomings described  previously, followed individuals or families for relatively short periods, or  considered populations in narrow geographic locations. A few studies also  used national databases such as the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing  Study and one used the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that  annually tracks a sample of youth and their parents over time.
In addition, most of the studies we reviewed defined their target  populations—or the group of people to whom findings can be  generalized—narrowly, making it difficult to generalize results to broader  populations or to compare or compile them. Much of the research we  reviewed focused on small subsets of the population experiencing  homelessness in smaller geographic regions, such as those with mental  illness or substance abuse problems in a single shelter or city. For  example, one study published in a journal on Community Mental Health  focused on African Americans admitted to a state psychiatric hospital in  New York, and another study published in a journal on youth and  adolescence looked at youths aged 14 to 21 years who needed the services  of a homeless drop-in center. In part, the target groups studied reflected  the wide variety of disciplines—psychology, public policy, public health,  and economics—of those conducting the studies.
Although researchers have argued that it is necessary to consider  structural or macro-level factors (such as employment rate, surrounding  poverty level, and availability of affordable housing) as well as individual- level factors to arrive at a full understanding of which factors are  associated with the likelihood of experiencing homelessness, only about  one-third of the studies we reviewed considered these factors. Structural  factors help to explain the prevalence of homelessness across a wider  setting, while individual-level factors may explain the immediate  circumstances surrounding an episode of homelessness. In addition, over  three quarters of the service providers, researchers, advocates, and  government agency officials we interviewed identified a structural  factor—the lack of affordable housing—as a major barrier to serving those  experiencing homelessness. However, most of the studies did not look at  structural factors and focused on individual-level factors such as  demographic characteristics, individual income, the presence of a mental  illness, or substance abuse. Because the majority of the studies that we  reviewed examined populations in one or a few cities, it was not possible  for them to examine the role played by structural factors, such as  unemployment rates and surrounding poverty levels, in a wider context.
section_title: Despite Limitations in the Body of Literature, Studies Identified Factors That May Be Associated with Homelessness
paragraphs: Although limitations in the studies we reviewed posed challenges for  drawing comparisons and often focused on narrow populations in smaller  areas, we identified two that tracked homeless families over time and  considered structural and individual-level factors across wide  geographical areas.
One study that defined homelessness as living in a shelter, on the street, or  in an abandoned building or automobile, but also considered the  population that was doubled up, examined factors associated with  individual and family homelessness using nationwide data from the Fragile  Families and Child Wellbeing database, which was collected over several  years. The study analyzed data on mothers when their children were one  and three years old. One hundred and twenty-eight mothers reported  experiencing homelessness at the one-year birthday, while 97 reported  being homeless when their child turned three. A larger number of mothers  reported being doubled up—343 at their child’s one-year birthday and 223  when their child turned three. The study found that the availability of  affordable housing—a structural factor—reduced the odds of families  experiencing homelessness and doubling up. A number of individual-level  factors were associated with experiencing homelessness or doubling up.  Specifically, access to small loans and childcare, having a strong family  and friend support network, and living longer in a given neighborhood  were associated with lowered odds of experiencing homelessness.
Additionally, receiving public assistance reduced the likelihood that  someone would live doubled up.
Another study considered families homeless if they were living on the  street, in temporary housing, or in a group home, or had spent at least one  night in a shelter or other place not meant for regular housing in the past  12 months. This study, which used the Fragile Families and Child  Wellbeing database found that families with higher incomes who received  housing assistance had a reduced likelihood of experiencing  homelessness. Physical and mental health problems, reports of domestic  violence, and substance abuse issues appeared to place them at greater  risk for homelessness. Receipt of TANF and poorer surrounding economic  conditions—a structural factor—also were positively related to the  likelihood of experiencing homelessness but, according to the authors,  likely were proxies for individual need and lack of income rather than  directly associated with homelessness.
Two other studies looked at the association of structural factors and rates  of homelessness across geographical areas over time, but did not track  specific individuals or families:    One nationwide study that tracked homelessness rates over time primarily  examined how structural factors affected rates of homelessness. The  study found that relatively small changes in housing market conditions  could have substantial effects upon rates of homelessness or the numbers  of persons in shelters. Their results imply that relatively small increases in  housing vacancy rates, combined with small decreases in market rents,  could substantially reduce homelessness.
Another study that focused on the impact of structural factors on  homelessness in 52 metropolitan areas found that poverty levels strongly  related to the number of persons experiencing homelessness in an area.  No other structural factors—such as unemployment rates, the number of  government benefit recipients, or availability of affordable housing in the  area—were found to be statistically significant predictors of  homelessness.
Together, the four studies underlined the importance of structural factors  and identified some individual factors associated with homelessness;  however, they did not address some issues of importance. None addressed  the extent to which childhood experiences were associated with adult  homelessness, and only one examined those living in doubled up  situations.
We reviewed 11 other studies that examined how childhood experiences  were associated with experiencing homelessness in adulthood; however,  these studies generally relied on people’s recollections. While the studies  used varying methodologies and definitions of homelessness and other  factors, most highlighted the influence of early childhood experiences on  the likelihood of later experiencing homelessness. Results varied by study,  but several studies found that factors such as running away from home,  being in foster care, having a dysfunctional family, or being sexually  molested as a child increased the odds an adult would experience  homelessness. Similarly in 1996, the National Survey of Homeless  Assistance Providers and Clients found that homeless adults reported  many significant adverse childhood experiences. That survey did not  compare those experiencing homelessness with those that were not.  However, the findings from the studies we reviewed that did compare the  two groups generally were consistent with the survey’s findings.  Conversely, another study found that a range of childhood experiences  (including residential stability: adequacy of income; dependence on public  assistance; family violence; and parental criminality, mental illness, or  substance abuse) were not significantly associated with adult  homelessness.
Recognizing that the relationships between living doubled up or in shelters  or on the street are important to understanding homelessness, we  identified a few studies that analyzed whether doubling up could predict  future time spent in a shelter or on the street, or that measured differences  at a point in time between those living doubled up and those living in  shelters or on the street. However, the results of the studies were  inconclusive. Of the two that examined how doubling up affects later  homelessness in a shelter or on the street, one found that it was significant  and the other found it was not significant. Of the four studies that  compared persons on the street or in a shelter with those doubled up, two  found few differences in demographic characteristics or backgrounds. A  third found some differences between the two groups. For example,  receiving public assistance lowered the chance of doubling up but was not  significantly associated with homelessness. The fourth study found  significant differences between doubled up and homeless mothers.  Doubled up mothers were more likely to be younger and working and to  have high school degrees, fewer children, and more relatives who could  help with finances, housing, and child care.
section_title: Definitional Issues Have Posed Challenges for Service Providers and Make Collaborating at Local and Federal Levels More Difficult
subsections: section_title: Definitional Differences Limited Providers’ Ability to Serve Certain Populations Effectively
paragraphs: Among the majority of the advocates, government officials, service  providers, and researchers we interviewed that identified differences in  definitions of homelessness as an important barrier to providing services,  several noted that families and youths living in some precarious situations  were not eligible for federal assistance under a narrow definition of  homelessness. Some said that families and youths who were doubled up or  living in hotels because of economic hardship often had similar or greater  needs for services than those who met narrower definitions, but were  being excluded from receiving government-funded services. For example,  those working in educational programs that have broader federal  definitions of homelessness noted that those who do not meet the narrow  definition have difficulty accessing housing services. One of the school  liaisons we visited described visiting a house with a caved-in floor and no  front door. This family met the criteria of substandard housing under the  McKinney-Vento Children and Youth definition of homelessness, but it is  unclear whether the house would have been considered abandoned or  condemned, and if the family would have qualified as homeless under the  narrower individual definition prior to the HEARTH Act. According to a  research study presented at the HUD-HHS homelessness research  symposium in 2007, a formal condemnation process for substandard  properties does not typically exist in rural areas, and, as a result,  properties that would meet the HUD definition of abandoned because they  have been condemned in urban areas may not meet that definition in rural  areas. HHS provides grants for Head Start programs to collaborate with  others in the community to provide services for children and their  families; however, officials noted that in the 2009 program year, less than  half of the families in Head Start who experienced homelessness acquired  housing. HHS has attributed this to a lack of affordable housing and long  waiting lists for housing assistance. However, officials for at least one  service provider said that the waiting list for housing assistance in their  city was much longer for those that do not meet the narrow definition of  homelessness.
Many of those involved in homeless programs with whom we spoke were  particularly concerned about the exclusion of families and youths from  programs that addressed the needs of chronically homeless individuals— those unaccompanied individuals who have disabilities and have been  continuously homeless for a year or homeless four times in the last 3  years. Before the passage of the HEARTH Act, families that otherwise met  the criteria for chronic homelessness programs were not able to  participate because chronic homelessness was defined to include only  unaccompanied individuals. People in all of the categories we  interviewed noted that the emphasis on funding programs for chronic  homelessness has meant that families have been underserved. A youth  service provider further noted that youths effectively were excluded from  programs for those experiencing chronic homelessness because youths  generally did not live in shelters or keep records of where they had been  living or for how long.
Those that cited differences in definitions as a barrier said that families  and youths with severe shelter needs had to be on the street or in shelters  to access some federally-funded homeless assistance, but shelters were  not always available or appropriate for them. Researchers we interviewed  noted that families have to obey a number of rules to stay in a shelter and  families with the greatest challenges might be less able to follow those  rules. Additionally, some facilities do not provide shelter for males above a  certain age, so that couples or families with male teenage children may not  be able to find shelter together. Similarly for youths, a researcher and a  service provider suggested that adult shelters were not appropriate for  unaccompanied youths or young adults, and shelters specifically for them  were very limited.
Some of the people we interviewed also noted that some narrow  definitions of homelessness limited services that could be provided to  individuals experiencing homelessness. For example, getting one service  sometimes precluded individuals from getting another service for which  they would otherwise have qualified. Officials at DOL told us that if  veterans obtain housing vouchers through HUD-VASH, they no longer  meet the narrow statutory definition of homelessness under which they  would be eligible for job training funded by the Homeless Veterans  Reintegration Program (HVRP). However, if veterans first apply for HVRP  and then for vouchers, they can qualify for both programs. Similarly, those  in transitional housing programs cannot be considered eligible for  programs serving those experiencing chronic homelessness even if they  meet the other requirements, such as being homeless for a year and having  a disability. In addition, although HUD has recognized in its documents  that helping people make successful transitions to the community as they  are released from foster care, jails, prisons, and health care, mental health,  or substance abuse treatment facilities requires systems to work together  to ensure continuity of care and linkages to appropriate housing and  community treatment and supports, the definitions of homelessness may  hinder these transitions. In August 2009, one advocate noted that HUD’s  definition of homelessness includes those that spend 30 days or less in  prison if they had been homeless prior to entering prison, but those  spending more than 30 days cannot be considered homeless until the week  before their release. The advocate said that this limits the incentive for  prison staff to work with homeless service providers to allow for a smooth  transition from prison to housing and that if an individual leaving prison  spends time on the street or in an emergency shelter, the likelihood of  recidivism increases.
Some of those arguing for a broader definition also have said that the  definition of homelessness should not depend on available funding.  Officials at one large service provider said that broadening the definition  would not necessarily spread a fixed amount of resources across a larger  group. Instead, targeting resources to specialized populations more  effectively and concentrating on earlier intervention and prevention could  lower the cost of serving individual clients. However, they also noted that  this might require a better understanding of the needs of particular  subgroups experiencing homelessness.
Some local officials, homeless service providers, and researchers noted  that choosing between a narrow or a broad definition of homelessness was  less important than agreeing on a single definition, because multiple  definitions made it more difficult or costly to provide services and created  confusion that sometimes led to services not being provided to those  legally eligible for them. Many researchers, government officials, and  advocates with whom we spoke noted the importance of combining  services and housing to meet the needs of those experiencing  homelessness, and some of these noted that this was more difficult and  costly when programs defined homelessness differently. They also noted  that obtaining funding for services from sources other than HUD has  become more necessary because the proportion of HUD funding for  services has declined. Officials at HUD noted that this was a result of HUD  having provided incentives to communities to increase the ratio of housing  activities to supportive service activities in their funding applications to  encourage the development of more housing resources for individuals and  families experiencing homelessness.
Not only do some targeted programs that provide services use different  definitions of homeless, but some state and local grantees receiving  federal funds under mainstream programs that can be used to provide  certain services for those experiencing homelessness (such as TANF)  develop their own local definitions of homelessness. Officials at a lead  Continuum agency said that having these different definitions makes  putting together funding for permanent supportive housing—the best  solution for ending chronic homelessness—especially difficult. Officials at  two entities that provide service to and advocate for those experiencing  homelessness noted that, given the multiple definitions, scarce resources  that could have been used to provide services instead went to eligibility  verification. Furthermore, many of those involved in activities related to  homelessness said that having multiple definitions created confusion, and  government officials overseeing programs that use a broader definition  and a service provider in one of these programs noted that this confusion  could lead to services not being provided to those that are eligible for  them. A school liaison and a youth service provider said that school  administrative personnel often apply a narrower definition of  homelessness than McKinney-Vento Children and Youth and thus may  deny students access to services to which they are entitled. Additionally,  Education has cited a state education agency for the failure of local  education agencies’ to identify, report, and serve eligible homeless  children and youths including youths in doubled-up situations that meet  the broader definition of homelessness. Similarly, officials at HHS  acknowledged that Head Start programs across the country sometimes  were not using the appropriate definition of homelessness to identify  children who qualified for those services. As a result, some homeless  families would not be receiving Head Start services.
However, some government officials, researchers, advocates, and service  providers thought that having multiple or narrow definitions of  homelessness had certain benefits. Some HHS officials in programs that  address homelessness and others noted that having multiple definitions of  homelessness allowed programs to tailor services and prioritize them for  specific populations. HUD officials and some researchers and advocates  said that having a narrow definition for homeless programs that provide  shelter for specific populations and broader definitions for programs such  as those designed to serve the educational needs of children and youths  allowed programs to meet their goals best. HUD officials noted that having  a broader definition for certain education programs is appropriate because  those that meet the definition are entitled to the service, and the program  does not provide housing. Alternatively, it is appropriate for programs  such as HUD’s to have a narrower definition because its services are not  entitlements and must target those most in need, such as those that are  chronically homeless. HUD, HHS, VA, and DOL began redirecting  resources to this narrowly defined group in 2003, and according to HUD  point-in-time data, chronic homelessness fell by approximately 27 percent  from the January 2005 count to the January 2008 count. HUD, HHS, and VA  focused on this group, in part, because a research study had shown that  they used an inordinate amount of shelter resources. One researcher  noted that having a precise definition was essential to ensure that the  same kinds of people are being counted as homeless in different locations,  which would be important for measuring program outcomes. Supporters  of a narrow definition also said that if the definition were broadened,  limited resources might go to those who were easier to serve or had fewer  needs, specifically to those families with young children who were  doubled up rather than to those identified as chronically homeless. Finally,  some advocates for those experiencing homelessness and government  officials overseeing programs targeted at those experiencing homelessness  noted that if the definition of homelessness were broadened for some  programs without an increase in resources, many of those that would  become eligible for services would not get them.
In the HEARTH Act, Congress provided a broader definition of  homelessness for those programs that had been serving individuals and  families and using the McKinney-Vento Individual definition; however, it is  still not as broad as the McKinney-Vento Children and Youth definition, so  different definitions will still exist when the HEARTH Act is implemented.  In addition, the HEARTH Act mandated that the Interagency Council  convene experts for a one-time meeting to discuss the need for a single  federal definition of homelessness within 6 months of the issuance of this  report. However, having one definition of homelessness would not  necessarily mean that everyone who met that definition would be eligible  for all homeless assistance programs or that those not defined as homeless  would be ineligible. Some of the people we interviewed suggested  alternatives—one based on a narrow definition of homelessness and  others based on a broader definition. For example, one local official  suggested defining homelessness using the narrow McKinney-Vento  Individual definition and defining another category called “temporarily  housed” that would include those who are doubled up or in hotels. While  some programs might only be open to those experiencing homelessness,  others such as the Education of Homeless Children and Youth program  could be open to both groups. Alternatively, one researcher directed us to  a classification scheme developed by the European Federation of National  Associations Working with the Homeless. Under that classification  scheme, homelessness was defined broadly as not having a suitable home  or one to which a person was legally entitled, but then a typology was  created that defined subcategories of living situations under headings such  as “roofless” or “inadequate” that could be addressed by various policies.
Officials at a large service provider we interviewed made similar  distinctions saying that it is best to think of people as experiencing  functional homelessness—that is, living in situations that could not be  equated to having a home—rather than to think of them as literally  homeless or doubled up. However, these officials said that subcategories  of need would have to be developed based on a better understanding of  homelessness, because all persons experiencing homelessness should not  be eligible for the same services. In 2007, HHS convened a symposium to  begin discussing the development of a typology of homeless families, and  in May 2010, they convened about 75 federal and nonfederal participants  to discuss issues related to children experiencing homelessness.
section_title: Those Experiencing Homelessness Have Faced Other Barriers, Especially the Lack of Affordable Housing and Difficulty Accessing Mainstream Programs
paragraphs: The lack of affordable housing (whether housing was not available or  people’s incomes were not high enough to pay for existing housing) was  the only barrier to serving those experiencing homelessness cited more  frequently by researchers, advocates, service providers, and government  officials we interviewed than definitional differences. Some researchers  have shown that more housing vouchers could help eradicate  homelessness, but a research study also has shown that generally federal  housing subsidies are not targeted to those likely to experience  homelessness. Those with certain criminal records or substance abuse  histories may not be eligible for federal housing assistance, and these  factors sometimes are associated with homelessness. Although certain  federal programs target vouchers to those who are most difficult to house,  local service providers may still refuse to serve those who have been  incarcerated or have substance abuse problems. For example, while the  HUD-VASH program is to be available to many of these subpopulations,  HUD officials and others told us that local service providers still refuse to  serve them. In addition, while HUD estimates that 27 percent of PHAs have  preferences for those experiencing homelessness, many of them restrict  these programs to those who may be easier to serve.
Service providers, advocates, researchers, and government officials that we  interviewed also cited eligibility criteria for mainstream programs as a main  barrier to serving those experiencing homelessness. In 2000, we reported on  barriers those experiencing homelessness faced in accessing mainstream  programs, and this is a continuing issue. To obtain benefits, applicants  need identification and other documents, which those experiencing  homelessness often do not have. Without documentation, they sometimes  cannot enter federal and state buildings where they would need to go to get  documentation or obtain benefits. Those that cited access as a barrier  particularly noted difficulties with SSI/SSDI programs. Service providers  and government officials noted that those experiencing homelessness may  not receive notices about hearing dates or other program requirements  because they lack a fixed address. At least one researcher told us that an  initiative, SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access and Recovery (SOAR), has improved  performance. The initiative’s Web site says that those experiencing  homelessness normally have a 10–15 percent chance of receiving benefits  from an initial application, but that SOAR has increased success to 70  percent in areas it serves. However, one local agency in an area served by  SOAR told us in January 2010 that most applicants were rejected initially.  Some of those we interviewed also noted that Medicaid applicants have  some similar problems. For example, one advocate noted that it is difficult  for those experiencing homelessness to get through the application process  and, when necessary, prove disability; however, because Medicaid is a state- run program, these problems are worse in some states than in others.  Another provider noted that Medicaid requires that information be  periodically updated, and those experiencing homelessness may not receive  notices of this. As a result, they may lose their benefits and be required to  travel a long distance to get them reinstated. Finally, service providers said  that PHAs often restrict federal housing assistance to those without  substance abuse issues or certain criminal records and that programs  generally have long waiting lists.
section_title: Definitional Issues Make Collaboration at Local and National Levels More Difficult
paragraphs: Because homelessness is a multifaceted issue and a variety of programs  across a number of departments and agencies have been designed to  address it, collaborative activities are essential to reducing homelessness  in a cost-effective manner. In prior work, we have determined that certain  key activities, such as setting common goals, communicating frequently,  and developing compatible standards, policies, procedures, and data  systems, characterize effective interagency collaboration. In addition, we  found that trust is an important factor for achieving effective  collaboration.
Efforts to address homelessness often have stressed the need for local,  communitywide collaboration. For instance, entities applying to HUD for  Homeless Assistance Grants have to come together as a Continuum to file  applications. Other agencies or individuals, such as the school systems’  homeless liaisons, also are required to coordinate activities in the  community. In addition, from 2002 to 2009, Interagency Council staff  encouraged government officials, private industry, and service providers  to develop 10-year plans to end homelessness or chronic homelessness  and provided tools to communities to assist with the development of these  plans. Many communities have developed these plans, but whether plans  have been implemented or have been achieving their goals is unclear. The  Interagency Council reports that 332 of these plans have been drafted. All  of the locations we visited had drafted plans at the state or local level,  however, in two of the four sites—California and South Carolina—plans  that had been drafted had not been adopted by appropriate local or state  government entities and thus had not been implemented.
Some of the people with whom we spoke said that differences in  definitions of homelessness limited their ability to collaborate effectively  or strategically across communities. Local officials or researchers in three  of the four locations we visited noted that certain elements of  collaboration were difficult to achieve with different definitions of  homelessness. In one location we visited, local agency officials who had  extensive experience with a broad range of homelessness programs and  issues noted that multiple definitions impeded those involved in  homelessness activities from defining or measuring a common problem  and were a major obstacle to developing measures to assess progress in  solving the problem. Further, they noted that the trust of the local  community in officials’ ability to understand the problem of homelessness  was eroded when recent point-in-time counts showed that numbers of  families experiencing homelessness under one definition declined while  the number of families receiving homeless services in other programs that  defined homelessness more broadly increased. In two other locations,  local government officials and a researcher involved in evaluating local  programs said that having multiple definitions of homelessness impeded  their ability to plan systematically or strategically for housing needs or  efforts to end homelessness at the community level.
Congress also recognized the importance of federal interagency  collaboration when it authorized the Interagency Council in the original  McKinney-Vento Act and reauthorized it in the HEARTH Act. Some of the  people we interviewed further noted that collaboration among federal  programs was essential because addressing homelessness required that  those in need receive a holistic package of services that might encompass  the expertise and programs of a number of agencies. They also said that  collaboration was necessary to prevent people from falling through gaps  created by certain events, such as entering or leaving hospitals or prisons,  aging out of foster care or youth programs, or otherwise experiencing  changes in family composition. Further, they noted that, with HUD’s  emphasizing housing rather than services in its funding priorities, the need  for effective collaboration was greater now than in the past. Finally,  officials at HUD, HHS, and Education noted that at a time of budget  austerity collaboration among agencies was an effective way to leverage  scarce resources.
While we noted in 1999 and again in 2002 that homeless programs could  benefit from greater interagency coordination, many of the government  officials, researchers, advocates, and service providers we interviewed  who were knowledgeable about multiple federal agencies said that  collaboration among federal programs and agencies had been limited or  did not exist at all. Generally, those we interviewed in our current work  said that, from 2002-2009, the Interagency Council had focused on that  part of its mission that required it to foster local collaboration rather than  on that part that required it to foster collaboration among federal agencies.  In addition, some of those we interviewed said that federal program staff  had focused largely on their own requirements and funding streams rather  than on collaborative approaches to addressing homelessness.
In 1994, the Interagency Council issued an interagency plan to address  homelessness that called for federal agencies to streamline and  consolidate programs, when appropriate, and introduced the concept of a  Continuum of Care, but did not include any longer-term mechanism to  promote interagency collaboration, such as joint funding of programs.  Following issuance of this plan, the Interagency Council did not again  receive funding until 2001, although it did undertake some joint activities  including coordinating and funding a survey of service providers and  persons experiencing homelessness. In 2002, an executive director was  appointed and, according to some of those involved with the Interagency  Council, the council turned its attention largely to helping communities  draw up 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness. In the HEARTH Act,  Congress called on the Interagency Council to develop a strategic plan to  end homelessness that would be updated annually, and in November 2009,  a new executive director took office. In preparation for the strategic plan  and in response to new staffing and funding at the Interagency Council  and elsewhere, agencies and the Council appear more focused on  interagency coordination. The Interagency Council issued its strategic plan  on June 22, 2010. The plan says that it is designed to neither embrace nor  negate any definition of homelessness being used by a program.
Federal agencies have also not collaborated effectively outside the  Interagency Council. Those we interviewed noted that agencies have  focused on their own funding streams and have not coordinated dates for  applying for grants that could be combined to provide housing and  services for those experiencing homelessness. Service providers must  apply for grants at different times, and grants run for different periods and  have different probabilities of being continued. A provider might receive  funding to build permanent housing but might not receive funding needed  for certain support services, or vice versa. One group knowledgeable  about an array of housing programs said that recently an HHS grant tried  to link its funding to HUD’s, but a lack of full collaboration between the  agencies created confusion and discouraged some service providers from  applying for the HHS grant. The HHS grant required that applicants have  an executed grant from HUD when they applied for the HHS grant.  However, HHS applications were due before HUD had executed any of its  grants. HHS officials then relaxed their grant criteria, saying that they  would evaluate the lack of an executed grant contract with HUD on a case- by-case basis. HUD officials said that the grant criteria were relaxed to  include recognition of HUD’s conditional grant award letters. Two groups  with whom we spoke also noted that funding from multiple agencies often  focused on demonstration projects and that grant processes for these also  were not well coordinated and funding ended abruptly. Officials at HUD  noted that lack of coordination on grants across agencies is likely the  result of the statutes that authorize programs and agency regulations that  implement them.
Some of the service providers, advocates, and government officials we  interviewed cited specific examples of successful programmatic  collaboration, such as the HUD-VASH program, and federal agency  officials directed us to a number of initiatives that illustrate a greater  emphasis on interagency collaboration. HUD officials noted that they  have been partnering with HHS and VA to improve and align their data  collection and reporting requirements for federally-funded programs  addressing homelessness. For example, HUD and HHS announced in  December 2009 plans to move toward requiring that HHS’s PATH program  use HMIS for data collection and reporting for street outreach programs.  They noted that the agencies had agreed to align reporting requirements  by establishing common outputs and performance outcomes. The plan  called for HHS to begin providing technical assistance and training  activities for PATH programs on individual-level data collection and  reporting and alignment with HMIS in 2010, and to seek approval for a  revised annual report to include HMIS data in 2011. In February 2010,  officials from HUD, HHS, and Education—key agencies for addressing  homelessness for nonveterans—outlined proposals on homelessness  included in the proposed FY 2011 budget. These included a demonstration  program that combines 4,000 HUD housing vouchers with HHS supportive  services and another program that calls for HUD, HHS, and Education to  be more fully engaged in stabilizing families. The latter proposal calls for  HUD to provide 6,000 housing vouchers on a competitive basis.
We also found that federal agency staff did not effectively collaborate  within their agencies. For example, in January 2010, staff at one of HUD’s  field offices told us that while collaboration between those involved in the  Homeless programs and those involved in Public Housing programs would  be beneficial, any coordination between these two HUD programs was  “haphazard.” In February 2010, the Assistant Secretaries for the Offices of  Public and Indian Housing and Community Planning and Development,  which includes homeless programs, reported that they are meeting weekly  and looking for ways to better coordinate programs. In another example,  staff at HHS who developed the National Youth in Transition Database,  which includes looking at experiences with homelessness, had not  consulted with staff in the Family and Youth Services Bureau, who  administer the Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs and generally  were recognized as having some expertise on youths experiencing  homelessness.
Finally, we observed that while coordination has been limited, it was more  likely to occur between those parts of agencies that were using a common  vocabulary. For example, state McKinney-Vento education coordinators  and local education liaisons are required to coordinate with housing  officials and providers in a number of ways; however, the McKinney-Vento  Homeless Education Program coordinator in one of the states we visited  said that while she has coordinated locally with staff from Head Start, an  HHS program that also uses the McKinney-Vento Children and Youth  definition of homelessness, she has found it very hard to coordinate with  local HUD staff that use a different definition of homelessness, because  they did not see how the education activities relate to their programs. In  addition, those agencies that have agreed on a definition of chronic  homelessness—HUD, HHS, DOL, and VA—have engaged in some  coordinated efforts to address the needs of those that met the definition.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: For many years, the federal government has attempted to determine the  extent and nature of homelessness. As part of this effort, Education, HHS,  and HUD have systems in place that require service providers involved in  the homelessness programs they administer to collect data on those  experiencing homelessness and report these data in various ways to the  agencies. However, while the data currently being collected and reported  can provide some useful information on those experiencing homelessness,  because of difficulties in counting this transient population and changes in  methodologies over time, they are not adequate for fully understanding the  extent and nature of homelessness. In addition, the data do not track  family composition well or contribute to an understanding of how family  formation and dissolution relate to homelessness. Further, because of  serious shortcomings and methodologies that change over time, the  biennial point-in-time counts have not adequately tracked changes in  homelessness over time. While these data systems have improved, it still is  difficult for agencies to use them to understand the full extent and nature  of homelessness, and addressing their shortcomings could be costly. For  example, one shortcoming of HUD’s point-in-time count is that it relies on  volunteer enumerators who may lack experience with the population, but  training and utilizing professionals would be very costly.
In part because of data limitations, researchers have collected data on  narrowly defined samples that may not be useful for understanding  homelessness more generally or do not often consider structural factors,  such as area poverty rates, which may be important in explaining the  prevalence and causes of homelessness. In addition, because complete  and accurate data that track individuals and families over time do not  exist, researchers generally have not been able to explain why certain  people experience homelessness and others do not, and why some are  homeless for a single, short period and others have multiple episodes of  homelessness or remain homeless for a long time.
However, those who have experienced or might experience homelessness  frequently come in contact with mainstream programs that are collecting  data about the recipients of their services. While homelessness is not the  primary focus of these programs, if they routinely collected more detailed  and accurate data on housing status, agencies and service providers could  better assess the needs of program recipients and could use these data to  help improve the government’s understanding of the extent and nature of  homelessness. Researchers also could potentially use these data to better  define the factors associated with becoming homeless or to better  understand the path of homelessness over time. Collecting these data in  existing or new systems might not be easy, and agencies would incur costs  in developing questions and providing incentives for accurate data to be  collected. Collecting such data may be easier for those programs that  already collect some housing data on individuals, families, and youths who  use the programs and report those data on an individual or aggregate basis  to a federal agency, such as HHS’s Substance Abuse Treatment and  Prevention Block Grant program or Head Start. For those mainstream  programs that do not currently report such data, collecting it may be a  state or local responsibility, and the willingness of states to collect the  data may vary across locations. For example, HHS has reported that about  half of the states that do collect homelessness data do not consider it  burdensome to do so through their TANF and Medicaid applications, and  would be willing to provide data extracts to HHS for research purposes.  States or localities and researchers could find these data useful even if  they are not collected on a federal or national level. However, concerns  exist about resource constraints and data reliability. Therefore, the  benefits of collecting data on housing status for various programs would  need to be weighed against the costs.
Federal efforts to determine the extent and nature of homelessness and  develop effective programs to address homelessness have been hindered  by the lack of a common vocabulary. For programs to collect additional  data on housing status or homelessness or make the best use of that data  to better understand the nature of homelessness, agencies would need to  agree on a common vocabulary and terminology for these data. Not only  would this common vocabulary allow agencies to collect consistent data  that agencies or researchers could compile to better understand the nature  of homelessness, it also would allow agencies to communicate and  collaborate more effectively. As identified in 2011 budget proposals,  Education, HHS, and HUD are the key agencies that would need to  collaborate to address homelessness, but other agencies that also belong  to the Interagency Council—a venue for federal collaborative efforts— such as DOL and DOJ might need to be involved as well. However, agency  staff may find it difficult to communicate at a federal or local level when  they have been using the same terms to mean different things. For  example, agencies might want to avoid using the term homelessness itself  because of its multiple meanings or the stigma attached to it. Instead, they  might want to list a set of housing situations explicitly. The agencies could  begin to consider this as part of the proceedings Congress has mandated  that the Interagency Council convene after this report is issued. Once  agencies have developed a common vocabulary, they might be able to  develop a common understanding of how to target services to those who  are most in need and for whom services will be most effective. In addition,  with a common vocabulary, local communities could more easily develop  cohesive plans to address the housing needs of their communities.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve their understanding of homelessness and to help mitigate the  barriers posed by having differences in definitions of homelessness and  related terminology, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education,  HHS, and HUD—working through the U. S. Interagency Council on  Homelessness—take the following two actions:  1.  Develop joint federal guidance that establishes a common vocabulary  for discussing homelessness and related terms. Such guidance may  allow these and other agencies on the Interagency Council on  Homelessness to collaborate more effectively to provide coordinated  services to those experiencing homelessness. 2.  Determine whether the benefits of using this common vocabulary to  develop and implement guidance for collecting consistent federal data  on housing status for targeted homelessness programs, as well as  mainstream programs that address the needs of low-income  populations, would exceed the costs.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education, Health  and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Justice  and the Executive Director of the Interagency Council for their review and  comment. We received comments from the Assistant Secretary of the  Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the Department of  Education; the Assistant Secretary for Legislation at the Department of    Health and Human Services; the Assistant Secretary of Community  Planning and Development at the Department of Housing and Urban  Development; and the Executive Director of the Interagency Council.   These comments are reprinted in Appendixes III through VI of this report  respectively. The Departments of Labor and Justice did not provide formal  comments.
Education, HUD, and the Executive Director of the Interagency Council  explicitly agreed with our first recommendation that Education, HHS, and  HUD--working through the Interagency Council--develop federal guidance  that establishes a common vocabulary for discussing homelessness and  related terms. HHS did not explicitly agree or disagree with this  recommendation. Instead, HHS commented extensively on the advantages  of having multiple definitions of homelessness. While we discuss the  challenges posed by, and the advantages of, having multiple definitions of  homelessness in this report, our report recommends a common  vocabulary rather than either a single or multiple definitions. In their  interagency strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness issued on June  22, 2010, the agencies acknowledge the need for a common vocabulary or  language when they say that a common language is necessary for the  interagency plan to be understandable and consistent and that this  language does not negate or embrace the definitions used by different  agencies.
Education explicitly addressed our second recommendation that agencies  consider the costs and benefits of using a common vocabulary to develop  and implement guidance for collecting consistent federal data on housing  status for targeted homelessness and mainstream programs in their  written response. Education wrote that a discussion of such costs and  benefits of using more of a common vocabulary, as it relates to data  collection, should be an agenda item for the Interagency Council.  The  Executive Director of the Interagency Council also supported further  exploration of how to accurately and consistently report housing status in  mainstream programs. Although we recommend that the agencies work  through the council to address this recommendation, decisions about  individual program data collection will necessarily be made by the agency  overseeing the program. Although HHS did not comment explicitly on our  second recommendation, they did provide comments on data collection.  They commented that GAO appears to assume that programs identify  people who are homeless only to have a total count of the homeless  population. We do not make that assumption. We recognize that programs  collect data specifically for the program’s use; however, data collected for  programs also can contribute to a broader understanding of the extent and  nature of homelessness. For example, while HMIS has certain  shortcomings described in the report, service providers collect HMIS data  in some cases to better manage their programs, and HUD also uses those  data to attempt to understand the extent and nature of homelessness. HHS  also noted that homelessness data systems are costly and complicated to  develop and linking them presents challenges. We acknowledge that while  collecting more consistent data on housing status for targeted and  mainstream programs would have benefits, there would be  implementation costs as well.
Additionally, HHS, HUD, and the Executive Director of the Interagency  Council raised other concerns about this report that did not relate directly  to the two recommendations. HHS commented on the history of the  National Youth in Transition Database, developed in response to the  Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. HUD commented that the  report did not present a complete view of HUD’s data collection and  reporting efforts and did not recognize the strides that have been made in  this area, the value of the data currently being collected and reported, or  that their Annual Homeless Assessment Report is the only national report  to use longitudinal data. The Executive Director of the Interagency  Council also wrote that the report did not adequately recognize what is  possible today that was not possible 5 years ago. The objective of this  report was to determine the availability and completeness of data that  currently are collected on those experiencing homelessness, not on the  extent to which these data have improved over time. In addition, HUD’s  data are not longitudinal in that they do not follow specific individuals  over time; rather HUD collects aggregated data that track numbers of  homeless over time. Nonetheless, in the report we discuss actions that  HUD has taken to improve its homelessness data over time and note the  inherent difficulties of collecting these data. The report also notes that  HUD’s point-in-time count represents the only effort by a federal agency to  count all of those who are experiencing homelessness, rather than just  those utilizing federally-funded programs.
HUD made a number of other comments related to their data and the  definition of homelessness. HUD commented that the report did not  recognize that data collection is driven by statutory definitions or that  HUD’s point-in-time and HMIS systems are in some sense complementary.  We have addressed this comment in the final report by making it clearer  that data collected necessarily reflect the definitions included in the  statutes that mandate data collection. We also added a footnote to show  that while point-in-time counts focus on those who are homeless for long  periods of time, HMIS may capture those who are homeless for shorter  periods of time or move in and out of homelessness. HUD also commented  that the report did not adequately describe the statutory history of  homelessness definitions. We do not agree; the report describes the  statutory history to the extent needed to address our objectives.  Additionally, HUD commented that the report did not provide proper  context about HMIS development and implementation at the local level,  adding that a community’s success in using HMIS to meet local needs  depends on a variety of factors, such as staff experience and the quality of  software selected. We revised the report to acknowledge that a  community’s success in using HMIS depends on these other factors.  Further, the report acknowledges that in setting HMIS data standards, HUD  allowed communities to adapt locally developed data systems or to choose  from many other HMIS systems that meet HUD’s standards.
Finally, HUD wrote that we attribute the lack of collaboration among  federal agencies solely to differences in definitions. Similarly, the  Executive Director of the Interagency Council wrote that many greater  obstacles to effective collaboration exist than the definitional issue—such  as “siloed” departmental and agency structures, uncoordinated incentives  and measures of effectiveness, difficulties communicating across very  large bureaucracies, and different program rules for releasing and  administering funds. The report does not attribute the lack of  collaboration solely to the differences in definitions. Instead we note that  agencies have not collaborated and that having a common vocabulary  could improve collaboration. The report focuses on definitional  differences, in part, because it was a key objective of our work and an  issue frequently raised in discussions of barriers to effectively providing  services to those experiencing homelessness.
Education, HHS, and HUD also provided technical comments which we  addressed as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education,  Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and  Justice; the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council on  Homelessness; and relevant congressional committees. This report will  also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our report were to (1) assess the availability,  completeness, and usefulness of data on homelessness collected by  federal programs; (2) assess the extent to which research identifies factors  associated with homelessness; and (3) analyze how differences in the  definitions of homelessness and other factors, such as the level of agency  collaboration, may impact the effectiveness of programs serving those  experiencing homelessness.
To address all of our objectives, we reviewed relevant laws such as the  McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended, and the HEARTH  Act, as well as a range of prior GAO reports that addressed homelessness  or related issues such as reviews of the Social Security Administration’s  Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Supplemental Security Disability  Income (SSDI) programs. We also reviewed regulations and government  reports across a number of programs specifically targeted to address  issues related to homelessness as well as mainstream programs, such as  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Head Start, and Public  Housing, that often provide services to people experiencing homelessness.  Finally, we reviewed research on homelessness retrieved during a wide- ranging search of the literature.
During our review, we conducted interviews with at least 60 entities,  including officials of six federal government agencies, representatives of at  least 15 state and local government entities, staff and officials at 27 service  providers, 11 researchers, and officials at 10 groups that advocated for  positions related to homelessness. These sum to more than the 60  interviews because some entities fall into more than one category.  Specifically, we interviewed officials at the Departments of Education  (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban  Development (HUD), Justice (DOJ), and Labor (DOL), and the U.S.  Interagency Council on Homelessness (Interagency Council). We also  conducted in-depth interviews with advocates and researchers, as well as  service providers, state and local government officials, and HUD field staff  that had extensive experience with homeless programs. Many of our  interviews were conducted as part of four site visits to large and medium- sized urban areas that were geographically distributed across the United  States. We visited these locations to determine the extent to which views  on homelessness were specific to particular locations or regions because  of local laws, population concentration, or weather. We chose locations to  represent each of the major regions of the United States—the Midwest,  Northeast, South, and West—and to reflect differences in population  concentration and weather. We chose specific urban areas in part because  they had reported recent large changes in homelessness among families— two had seen a marked increase, while a third had noted a decrease. In the  fourth location, homelessness had been relatively stable. Using these  factors, we chose cities in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and South  Carolina. Generally, we did not consider issues specific to rural areas  because Congress had mandated a separate study of them. We chose the  specific organizations we interviewed to include a range of activities and  views, but did not seek to interview a given number of agencies or  individuals in each area or to develop a sample from which we could  generalize our findings.
We also undertook a number of activities specific to each objective:  To address the first objective on the availability, completeness, and  usefulness of data on homelessness collected by federal programs, we  reviewed statutes, regulations, guidance, technical standards, and reports  on federal data from targeted homelessness programs. We focused our  review of federal data on the Housing and Urban Development  Department’s (HUD) Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)  and point-in-time counts, Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Runaway and  Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS), and data  submitted to the Department of Education through Consolidated State  Performance Reports. We interviewed selected service providers to learn  about the data systems they use to collect and store information on the  homeless populations they serve, the procedures they use to ensure data  reliability, and the usefulness of existing data systems for program  management and administrative purposes. In addition, we interviewed  selected federal, state, and local officials to identify the data used in their  oversight of programs for families and individuals that are experiencing  homelessness, the procedures they use to verify data reliability, and the  extent to which existing data provide sufficient information for program  management. Further, we spoke with researchers, individuals with special  expertise with federal data systems, and government contractors, to  determine the reliability and usefulness of existing data sources on the  homeless, as well as to identify potential areas for improvement in data on  the homeless. We also analyzed estimates of the extent of homelessness  that were derived from federal data systems. In determining the reliability  of the data for this report, we identified several limitations with the data– namely, that persons experiencing homelessness are hard to identify and  count; that other than the point-in-time count, the three federal data  sources for targeted homelessness programs primarily capture data on  program participants; and that duplication can exist because the  population is mobile and dynamic–which are noted in the report.  Nevertheless, because these are the only available data and the relevant  departments use them to understand the extent and nature of  homelessness, we present the data with their limitations.
We also reviewed two HHS reports on homelessness and housing status  data collected from federal mainstream programs, to determine the  availability of such data. We reviewed research that estimated the size of the  population that is doubled up with family and friends. We used data from  the 2008 American Community Survey to develop our own estimate of the  number of people who were experiencing severe to moderate economic  hardship and living with an extended family or nonfamily member in 2008.  The survey is conducted annually by the U.S. Census Bureau, and it asks  respondents to provide information for housing information and  employment income for households. We made several assumptions about  what comprises severe or moderate economic hardship. Severe economic  hardship was assumed to mean that households had housing costs of at  least 50 percent of household income and that household income was below  50 percent of the federal poverty line and moderate economic hardship was  assumed to mean that the households had housing costs that were at least  30 percent of household income and household income was below the  federal poverty line. We also made assumptions about what comprises  extended family; we assumed that extended family households were those  where some people in the household were not part of the head of  household’s immediate family, and we included spouse, live-in partners,  children, grandparents, and grandchildren in our definition of immediate  family members. We cannot determine from the available data whether the  individuals that are living with extended family or nonfamily members and  experiencing severe or moderate economic hardship would meet the  McKinney-Vento Children and Youth definition of homelessness, which  requires that individuals be doubled up because of economic hardship.  Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections,  our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have  drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we  express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as  a 95-percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the  actual population values for 95 percent of the samples we could have  drawn. As a result, we cannot determine whether the people in our estimate  would be eligible for the benefits if the McKinney-Vento Individual  definition of homelessness were expanded to include those doubled up  because of economic hardship.
To address the second objective, we conducted a literature review to  identify research studies that considered factors associated with the  likelihood that families, youths, and individuals would experience  homelessness. We also used various Internet search databases (including  EconLit, ERIC, Medline, and Proquest) to identify studies published or  issued after 1998. We chose 1998 as a starting point because welfare  reform—which impacted some homeless families—had been implemented  by that date and may have affected research findings. We sought to  identify additional studies with persons we interviewed (that is,  government officials, researchers, and advocacy groups) and from studies’  bibliographies. In this initially broad search, we identified more than 600  studies, although we cannot be certain that we captured all relevant  research that met our screening criteria. We screened the papers we  identified using a multilevel process to gauge their relevance and evaluate  their methodology. We excluded papers that did not specifically focus on  our objective, were published or issued before 1998, lacked quantitative  analysis, had a target population sample size of less than 25, did not  conduct some form of statistical testing, did not use a comparison or  control group or some other means to compare the target population (or  group of persons to whom the research hopes to generalize findings) such  as regression analyses, focused on homeless populations outside of the  United States, or were dissertations. We retained 45 studies after screening  and reviewed their methodologies, findings, and limitations. Nine GAO  staff (four analysts and five methodologists) were involved in the  systematic review of each of the 45 studies selected, which were  determined to be sufficiently relevant and methodologically rigorous.  More specifically, two staff members—one analyst and one  methodologist—reviewed each study and reached agreement on the  information entered in the database.
As noted in this report, many of these studies are subject to certain  methodological limitations, which may limit the extent to which the  results can be generalized to larger populations. In some cases, studies did  not discuss correlation among the factors and are thus limited in their  ability to explain which factors might lead to homelessness. In addition, at  least four studies used data that were more than 10 years old from the date  of publication. Findings based on such data may be limited in explaining  the characteristics and dynamics of current homeless populations.  Further, collecting comparable information from individuals who have not  been homeless (a comparison group) is important in determining which  variables distinguish those experiencing homelessness from those that do  not, and is essential in determining whether certain at-risk individuals and  families experience homelessness and others do not. Although we  generally excluded studies that did not use a comparison or control group  to test their hypotheses, several studies in our literature review used a  comparison group that was another homeless population rather than a  nonhomeless control group. In addition to the literature review, we  gathered opinions from researchers, advocates, service providers, and  government officials on the factors associated with the likelihood of  experiencing homelessness.
To address the third objective, we took several steps to develop a list of  potential barriers to providing services for those experiencing  homelessness. First, we reviewed our prior work on barriers facing those  experiencing homelessness. Second, we held initial interviews with  researchers, service providers, and government officials in our  Massachusetts location where potential barriers were raised. Third, in  conjunction with a methodologist, we developed a list of potential  barriers. The list, which included affordable housing, differences in  definitions of homelessness used by various federal agencies, eligibility  criteria other than income for accessing mainstream programs, the  complexities of applying for grants, and lack of collaboration among  federal agencies as well as a number of other potential barriers, was  included in a structured data collection instrument to be used in the  remaining interviews. We asked those we interviewed to select the three  most important barriers from that list but did not ask them to rank order  their selections. Interviewees were also able to choose barriers not on the  list. To ensure that interviewees were interpreting the items on the list in  the same way that we were interpreting them, we had interviewees  describe the reasons for their choice. We determined the relative  importance of the barriers chosen by summing the number of times an  item was selected as one of the three most important barriers.
When those we interviewed did not choose differences in definitions of  homelessness as one of the three main barriers, we asked them for their  views on definitional issues and asked all those we interviewed about the  advantages of having multiple definitions of homelessness. Similarly, for  collaboration among federal agencies, we asked those we interviewed  about the agencies they worked with and, if they worked with multiple  agencies, about their experiences. We also asked for examples of  successful interaction among federal agencies. collaboration. As  previously noted, lack of interagency collaboration was also on the list of  barriers. In addition, we interviewed the acting and newly appointed  executive directors of the Interagency Council on Homelessness and  reviewed certain documents related to their activities; interviewed agency  officials at Education, HUD, HHS, DOL, and DOJ; and reviewed agency  planning and performance documents to identify coordination with other  agencies.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to June 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Bibliography of Studies GAO Reviewed That Analyze Factors Associated with Homelessness
paragraphs: We conducted a review of 45 research studies that analyzed factors  associated with homelessness. Most of the studies we reviewed examined  factors associated with the likelihood of entering an episode of  homelessness or the rates of homelessness in a given area, while a few  examined factors associated with the duration of homelessness. Twenty- nine studies examined adult individuals, 14 studies examined families, and  7 studies examined only youths. To assess factors associated with  homelessness, studies used a range of analytical techniques—including  measures of association or correlation between single factors and  methods that accounted for some of the interrelationships among factors.  The 45 studies are listed below:  Allgood, Sam, and Ronald S. Warren, Jr. “The Duration of Homelessness:  Evidence from a National Survey.” Journal of Housing Economics 12  (2003): 273-290.
Anderson, Debra Gay, and M. K. Rayens. “Factors Influencing  Homelessness in Women.” Public Health Nursing 21, no. 1 (2004): 12-23.
Bassuk, Ellen L., Jennifer N. Perloff, and Ree Dawson. “Multiply Homeless  Families: The Insidious Impact of Violence.” Housing Policy Debate 12  (2001): 299-320.
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing and Columbia  Population Research Center. “Predictors of Homelessness and Doubling- up Among At-risk Families.” Fragile Families Research Brief, no. 43  (August 2008).
Caton, Carol L. M., Boanerges Dominguez, Bella Schanzer, et al. “Risk  Factors for Long-Term Homelessness: Findings from a Longitudinal Study  of First-Time Homeless Single Adults.” American Journal of Public  Health 95 (2005): 1753-1759.
Caton, Carol L. M., Deborah Hasin, Patrick E. Shrout, et al. “Risk Factors  for Homelessness among Indigent Urban Adults with No History of  Psychotic Illness: A Case-Control Study.” American Journal of Public  Health 90 (2000): 258-263.
Collins, Cyleste C., Claudia J. Coulton, and Seok-Joo Kim. Family  Homelessness in Cuyahoga County. White paper published for the Sisters  of Charity Foundation, Center on Urban Poverty and Community  Development, Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University, 2009.
Cousineau, Michael R. “Comparing Adults in Los Angeles County Who  Have and Have Not Been Homeless.” Journal of Community Psychology  296, no. 6 (2001): 693-701.
Culhane, Dennis P., and Stephen Metraux. “One-Year Rates of Public  Shelter Utilization by Race/Ethnicity, Age, Sex and Poverty Status for New  York City (1990 and 1995) and Philadelphia (1995).” Population Research  and Policy Review (1999): 219-236.
Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, Stephen R. Poulin, and Lorlene M.  Hoyt. “The Impact of Welfare Reform on Public Shelter Utilization in  Philadelphia: A Time-Series Analysis.” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy  Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban  Development, Office of Policy Development and Research 6, no. 2 (2003):  173-185.
Early, Dirk W. “An Empirical Investigation of the Determinants of Street  Homelessness.” Journal of Housing Economics 14 (2005): 27-47.
Early, Dirk W. “The Determinants of Homelessness and the Targeting of  Housing Assistance.” Journal of Urban Economics 55 (2004): 195-214.
Early, Dirk W. “The Role of Subsidized Housing in Reducing  Homelessness: An Empirical Investigation Using Micro-Data.” Journal of  Policy Analysis and Management 17, no. 4 (1998): 687-696.
Eyrich-Garg, Karin M., John S. Cacciola, Deni Carise, et al. “Individual  Characteristics of the Literally Homeless, Marginally Housed, and  Impoverished in a U.S. Substance Abuse Treatment-Seeking Sample.”  Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 43 (2008): 831-842.
Eyrich-Garg, Karin M., Catina Callahan O’Leary, and Linda B. Cottler.  “Subjective Versus Objective Definitions of Homelessness: Are There  Differences in Risk Factors among Heavy-Drinking Women?” Gender  Issues 25 (2008): 173-192.
Fertig, Angela R., and David A. Reingold. “Homelessness among at-Risk  Families with Children in Twenty American Cities.” Social Service Review  82, no. 3 (2008): 485-510.
Fitzgerald, Scott T., Mack C. Shelley II, and Paula W. Dail. “Research and  Homelessness: Sources and Implications of Uncertainty.” American  Behavioral Scientist 45, no. 1 (2001): 121-148.
Folsom, David P., William Hawthorne, Laurie Lindamer, et al. “Prevalence  and Risk Factors for Homelessness and Utilization of Mental Health  Services Among 10,340 Patients with Serious Mental Illness in a Large  Public Mental Health System.” American Journal of Psychiatry 162, no. 2  (2005): 370-376.
Greenberg, Greg A., and Robert A. Rosenheck. “Homelessness in the State  and Federal Prison Population.” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health  18, no. 2 (2008): 88-103.
Gubits, Daniel, Jill Khadduri, and Jennifer Turnham. Housing Patterns of  Low Income Families with Children: Further Analysis of Data from the  Study of the Effects of Housing Vouchers on Welfare Families. Joint  Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2009.
Ji, Eun-Gu. “A Study of the Structural Risk Factors of Homelessness in 52  Metropolitan Areas in the United States.” International Social Work 49,  no. 1 (2006): 107-117.
Johnson, Timothy P., and Michael Fendrich. “Homelessness and Drug Use  - Evidence from a Community Sample.” American Journal of Preventive  Medicine 32 (2007): S211-S218.
Kingree, J. B., Torrance Stephens, Ronald Braithwaite, and James Griffin.  “Predictors of Homelessness among Participants in a Substance Abuse  Treatment Program.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 69, no. 2  (1999): 261-266.
Kuhn, Randall, 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 (1998): 207-232.
Leal, Daniel, Marc Galanter, Helen Dermatis, and Laurence Westreich.  “Correlates of Protracted Homelessness in a Sample of Dually Diagnosed  Psychiatric Inpatients.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 16, no. 2  (1999): 143-147.
Lee, Barrett A., Townsand Price-Spratlen, and James W. Kanan.  “Determinants of Homelessness in Metropolitan Areas.” Journal of Urban  Affairs 25 (2003): 335-355.
Lehmann, Erika R., Philip H. Kass, Christiana M. Drake, and Sara B.  Nichols. “Risk Factors for First-Time Homelessness in Low-Income  Women.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77, no. 1 (2007): 20-28.
Metraux, Stephen, and Dennis P. Culhane. “Family Dynamics, Housing,  and Recurring Homelessness among Women in New York City Homeless  Shelters.” Journal of Family Issues 20, no. 3 (1999): 371-396.
Molino, Alma C. “Characteristics of Help-Seeking Street Youth and Non- Street Youth.” 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, 2007.
O’Flaherty, Brendan, and Ting Wu. “Fewer Subsidized Exits and a  Recession: How New York City’s Family Homeless Shelter Population  Became Immense.” Journal of Housing Economics (2006): 99-125.
Olsen, Edgar O., and Dirk W. Early. “Subsidized Housing, Emergency  Shelters, and Homelessness: An Empirical Investigation Using Data from  the 1990 Census.” Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 2, no. 1  (2002).
Orwin, Robert G., Chris K. Scott, and Carlos Arieira. “Transitions through  Homelessness and Factors That Predict Them: Three-Year Treatment  Outcomes.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 28 (2005): S23-S39.
Park, Jung Min, Stephen Metraux, and Dennis P. Culhane. “Childhood Out- of-Home Placement and Dynamics of Public Shelter Utilization among  Young Homeless Adults.” Children and Youth Services Review 27, no. 5  (2005): 533-546.
Quigley, John M., Steven Raphael, and Eugene Smolensky. “Homeless in  America, Homeless in California.” The Review of Economics and  Statistics 83, no. 1 (2001): 37-51.
Rog, Debra J. C., Scott Holupka, and Lisa C. Patton. Characteristics and  Dynamics of Homeless Families with Children. Final report to the Office  of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of Human  Services Policy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  (Rockville, Md.: Fall 2007).
Shelton, Katherine H., Pamela J. Taylor, Adrian Bonner, and Marianne van  den Bree. “Risk Factors for Homelessness: Evidence from a Population- Based Study.” Psychiatric Services 60, no. 4 (2009): 465-472.
Shinn, Marybeth, Beth C. Weitzman, Daniela Stojanovic, and James R.  Knickman. “Predictors of Homelessness among Families in New York City:  From Shelter Request to Housing Stability.” American Journal of Public  Health 88, no. 11 (1998): 1651-1657.
Slesnick, Natasha, Suzanne Bartle-Haring, Pushpanjali Dashora, et al.  “Predictors of Homelessness among Street Living Youth.” Journal of  Youth Adolescence 37 (2008): 465-474.
Stein, Judith A., Michelle Burden Leslie, and Adeline Nyamathi. “Relative  Contributions of Parent Substance Use and Childhood Maltreatment to  Chronic Homelessness, Depression, and Substance Abuse Problems  among Homeless Women: Mediating Roles of Self-Esteem and Abuse in  Adulthood.” Child Abuse & Neglect 26, no. 10 (2002): 1011-1027.
Sullivan, G., A. Burnam, and P. Koegel. “Pathways to Homelessness among  the Mentally Ill.” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 35  (2000): 444-450.
Tyler, Kimberly A., and Bianca E. Bersani. “A Longitudinal Study of Early  Adolescent Precursors to Running Away.” Journal of Early Adolescence  28, no. 2 (2008): 230-251.
The Urban Institute, Martha 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. 1999.
Vera Institute of Justice, Nancy Smith, Zaire Dinzey Flores, et al.  Understanding Family Homelessness in New York City: An In-Depth  Study of Families’ Experiences Before and After Shelter 2005.
Whaley, Arthur L. “Demographic and Clinical Correlates of Homelessness  among African Americans with Severe Mental Illness.” Community Mental  Health Journal 38, no. 4 (2002): 327-338.
Yoder, Kevin A., Les B. Whitbeck, and Dan R. Hoyt. “Event History  Analysis of Antecedents to Running Away from Home and Being on the  Street.” American Behavioral Scientist 45, no. 1 (2001): 51-65.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Executive Director of the U. S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Paul Schmidt, Assistant  Director; Nancy S. Barry; Katie Boggs; Russell Burnett; William Chatlos;  Kimberly Cutright; Marc Molino; Barbara Roesmann; Paul Thompson;  Monique Williams; and Bryan Woliner made major contributions to this  report.