A Report on Homeless Assistance Policy and Practice in the Nation's Five Largest Cities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
-------- A REPORT ON HOMELESS ASSISTANCE POLICY AND PRACTICE IN THE NATION'S FIVE LARGEST CITIES August 1989 u.s. Department of HOUSing and Urban Development Office of Polley Development and Research DIVISion of Polley Studies PREFACE Addressing the tragedy of homelessness policypreferences and practices arenotalways has become a national priority. Through in consistent This has placed considerablestress come transfer and m-kind programs that offer on local systems. There is certainly a role for basic assistance, the Federal government has the McKinney Act to play in relieving some of traditionally proVIded aid to low-mcome per this stress, and. we look to our Supportive sons, more recently, Federal funds have been HousmgandSection 8single-room-occupancy directly targeted to the homeless through the programs,amongothers, to helpinthis regard. Stewart B. McKinney Act. However, it 18 the Although there are similarities among local communIties of the Nahon thatfor many places, each CIty'S homeless ass18tance efforts years have been dealing firsthand with the has a distinctive character, reflecting unique problem of homelessness. Collechvely, their local condItions and histories, which lead to policies and practices provide the core of the variations m the kinds and levels of assistance Nation's response, anditisto their experiences provided. For example, communities place thatwemust h1rn to understandbetterwhat 18 different relative emphas18 on providmg shel beingdoneand,consequently, whatremains to ter through not-for-profit organlZations, city be done. government agencies, for-profit entities, or Many' reports have characterized the voucher-type programs. Other examples of homeless ass18tance actlvitles of particular noteworthy variations among the CIties in states and localities, but there 'are relatively volve: approaches used to assess the extent of few systematic efforts that compare trends m homelessness; sources and amountS ofmoney local pohey and practice across places Such targeted to the homeless, the numbers and compaTlSons arenecessaryuweasa Nationare kinds offacilities used to shelterthe homeless; to continue to improve on our efforts to assist the amounts of shelterdesIgnated fordifferent the homeless. As an initial step in developmg groups, the division ofresponsibility between a comparative mformatlOn base, a research the public and private sectors; the extent of team from the U.S. Department of Housmg shelterentitlementproVIded;andthedegreeof and UrbanDevelopmentstudiedthe homeless coordination among diverse homeless assis assistance activities ofthe Nation'sfrve largest tance achvities. Clearly, no single model ap Clhes - New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, phes to all of these cities. Houston and Phlladelpma. The variety of community strategies and Some of the things we observed transcend systems have lInportant consequences for city and regional boundaries For example, Federal homeless assistance imhatives. This local officials andservice providersinall ofthe became clear when speaking with local ob places expressed a desire to place increased servers about likely near-term effects of the emphasis onassistance to families and special McKinney Act. DespIte broad support for need populatlOns, and to provide more transi Federal assistance, several observers sug tional and preventive programs. However, gested that the mix of categorical programs given existing demands for emergency ser established bythe Act did notalways result in vices, existing homeless assistance facilities, reinforcement of their community's priorities. and traditional means of delivering services, Others were concerned that the Act's multl- channeled system for delivering funds to Frnally, this srodymakesclear the need for states, counties, cities, and private organiza better infonnation about critical aspects of tions was complicating the already difficult homelessnessupon whichtobasebothFederal task of coordinating diverse programs and and local policy. For example, despite consid building community consensus. It may be erable effort todeterminetheamountofmoney time to look at whether the McKinney Act, being spent on homeless assistance activities notwithstanding its current requIrements for through bothtargeted anduntargeted Federal, Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plans, is state, local and private programs, it is still not sensItive enough to local needs and pnorities. entirely clear how much is being spent, how An additlOnal observation drawn from many people are being assisted, and where, if comparing the five largest cities involves the any, duplications or gaps exist Another ex impacts of right-to-shelter policies. This ample involves estimates of the extent of the repeatedly emerged as having powerful and homeless problem in any locality. Different far-reaching consequences on local homeless definitions, sources of infonnation, and es assistancepohcyandpractice. Two ofthecities tim!lting procedures are used in different guaranteeunrestrictedshelterentitlement, one localities to assess the scope of homelessness, ofthem provideslimited entitlement to certain and the resulting estimates sometimes reflect persons, and two providenosuch entitlement. differentconcepts ofhomelessness. In general, Entitlement cities have more shelter beds per lack of complete orconsistent rnfonnation has capita .and utilize voucher-type programs implications not onlyfor local planningefforts moreextensIvelythantheothers; theyalsorely but also for anyattempt to design appropriate more extensively on public-sector funds and and equitable allocations of State or Federal devote relatively greater amounts of local resources. revenues to the problem than non-entitlement Knowledge of howthe five largest cities of cities thatutilizehigherproportions ofprivate the Nation are meeting the challenge ofhome sector and McKinney Act funds. While the lessnessshouldstrengthenalloureffortsinthis ultimate effects of right-to-shelter policies on area. We atHUDhopethat the readerwillfind helping to alleviate homelessness are not the descriptions and analyses furnished inthis known, this is an area that 'deserves further report both infonnative and useful. inquiryin these cities as wellasin other places throughout the Nation. ., ii TABLE OF ., CONTENTS z 1· iii ... r. ...' tit X'ii" .. ".i. ,.iW PREFACE . i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION - THE COMMUNITY SETTING 1 , Study Design 2 The Five Cities .. 3 The Policy Setting 3 Shared Views About Homeless Assistance .'. 4 HomelessnessAs A Priority Concern . .4 The Need To Serve More Families . And Hard-To-Serve Homeless Persons .5 The Need To BreakThe Cycle OfHomelessness .6 ConcernAbout The Limits OfLocal Resources .6 Distinguishing Features OfLocal Homeless Assistance Efforts' 7 Shelters For Different Groups . .7 The Roles OfThe Public And Private Sectors .. .7 The Extent OfShelter Entitlement . .8 The Extent To Which Homeless AsSIStance Is Coordrnated .9 PreliminaryThoughts On The Effects OfThe McKinney Act .10 Organization OfThe Report . .11 CHAPTER TWO UNDERSTANDING THE SCOPE OF THE HOMELESS PROBLEM . .13 Different Perspectives On Homelessness .13 Vantage Pornt .... .13 Definitions . .14 Sources Of Infonnation · 15 What Is Reported AboutThe Size OfThe Homeless Population .16 New York City · 17 Philadelphia · 17 Chicago .18 Los Angeles · 18 Houston .. · 19 CHAPTER THREE FUNDING FOR HOMELESS ASSISTANCE 21 Funding Sources And Beneficiaries 21 Government Assistance SpecifiCally TargetedTo The Homeless · 22 Government Income-Support AssIStance Not SpectficallyTargeted To The Homeless .,24 Other Government AsSIStance Not Specifically TargetedTo The Homeless .. · 24 Pnvate AssIstance Targeted To The Homeless · 26 Summary . · 26 Shifts In The Levels ofPublic And Private Funding Over Tnne: The Case Of Chicago 27 What Accounts For City-By-City Differences In Levels OfFunding For Homeless Assistance? 27 The Costs OfProviding A "Rrght-To-Shelter" ..... · 28 The Costs OfEmphaslzmg More Than Emergency Shelter · 29 The Costs OfEmphasIZing SpeCial-Need Populations . · 29 Funding Patterns Per Sheltered Homeless Person 29 Funding For Shelter Vs. Services . 30 'CHAPTER FOUR LOCAL CAPACITY TO SHELTER THE HOMELESS 33 Different Modes Of Sheltering The Homeless 33 Bed Capacity . 34 The Number OfShelter Beds Avarlable . · 34 The Number OfBedsAvailable Through Voucher-Type Progranrs · 34 Other Modes OfShelteringThe Homeless . '. '36 The Total Bed CapacIty InThe Natron's Largest Cltres · 36 Reasons For DIfferences Across Cities .... · 37 The Growth In Local Shelter Capacity . 38 Reasons ForThe Growth In Shelter Capacity . .. · 39 The Role OfThe McKinneyAct In Increasmg Shelter.,. Capacity 39 Occupancy Levels ..'" 40 Iv CHAPTER FIVE SPONSORSHIP, TYPES, LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF HOMELESS SHELTERS . .41 Sponsorship: Who Operates And Who Funds Shelters For The Homeless . .41 Shelter Types: Emergency Vs. Longer-Term Facilities . .42 Increases InTransitIonal Shelters . .44 The Effect OfThe McKinney Programs OnThe Development OfTransitional Shelters . .45 Beds For Different Groups: Families, Single Women, And Those With Special Needs .45 The Development OfShelters For Families .45 Shelters For Unaccompanied Women .47 ShelterFor Special-Need Populations .48 The Locations OfShelters: Concentrated Versus Dispersed .49 Shelter Sizes .... .50 Suburban Shelter Systems . .51 Length Of Stay ... .52 CHAPTER SIX PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO ASSIST THE HOMELESS . • • .53 Non-Targeted Assistance .53 Non-Entitlement Services .54 Welfare Entitlements . .54 Entitlement