Name of Report: Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve-Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients
Organizational Affiliation: Interagency Council on the Homeless
Authors: The Urban Institute, Martha R. Burt, Laudan Y. Aron, Toby Douglas, Jesse Valente, Edgar Lee, Britta Iwen
Contact Information: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington , DC 20410-6000
Date: December 1999
Pages: 88
Content Summary
The 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients is a national study that was conducted to provide updated information about the providers of homeless assistance and the characteristics of homeless persons who use the services offered. Because the Urban Institute had conducted the last study of this nature in 1987, federal agencies felt the necessity to collect more current information to assist program administrators with the management of their programs. When using the term "homeless" the authors refer to the definition provided in the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987.
The data in the survey was collected between October 1995 and November 1996 and is based on a statistical sample of 76 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The survey was formulated and funded by 12 federal agencies in collaboration with the Interagency Council on the Homeless, a working group of the White House Domestic Policy Council. While the U.S Bureau of the Census was responsible for collecting the data, the Urban Institute was in charge of analyzing the data. Information was gathered from 16 types of homeless assistance programs, facilities that focused primarily on serving homeless people, through the use of telephone interviews and a mail survey. The type of homeless assistance program found the most frequently was food pantries followed by emergency shelters and transitional housing programs. Overall, representatives from 11,909 programs were interviewed. Moreover, 4, 207 of the clients that utilize the services were interviewed face to face. Of the clients contacted, 54 % were homeless at the time of the interview.
The report begins by offering highlights on the purpose of the study, how it was conducted, and many of the major findings. The remainder of the report is separated into five chapters that go more in depth about the highlights of the study. These chapters discuss many of the characteristics and backgrounds of the homeless assistance programs and the homeless clients. Comparisons are also made between the homeless clients, those formerly homeless, as well as other service users that utilize the programs included in the study. Each chapter in the report incorporates a multitude of charts, tables, and graphs that help to elaborate findings.
Major Findings
Homeless clients were separated into two categories, single homeless clients whom represented 85 % of the homeless population and then homeless families, which accounted for the remaining 15 percent. Of the homeless families, a disproportionate amount were families of color. Forty-three percent are black non-Hispanic families, 15% Hispanic, and 3% Native American. In terms of single homeless clients, 40 % are black non-Hispanic, 10 % are Hispanic, and 8 % are Native American. In a comparison done between the 1996 and 1987 study looking at homeless shelters and soup kitchens, findings demonstrated that clients are currently less likely to be white and more likely to be black. Findings also displayed that homeless clients are more likely to be in central cities then in suburbs and rural areas. Of the clients interviewed, 66% reported indicators of alcohol, drug, and/ or mental health problems. A substantial amount of the homeless clients reported having experienced victimization and violence while homeless. Moreover, many clients reported having childhood experiences that included physical abuse, sexual abuse, foster care, and/or homelessness.
Extreme poverty defined many of the circumstances of the homeless clients. Almost half of the clients reported having experiences within the last month where they had gone hungry during the month because they could not afford food. The inability of clients to afford food was a problem that many faced on a continuous basis. The mean income of single homeless clients was $348. This amount accounted for the 30 days previous to when the interview was being conducted. In homeless family households, the average income was approximately $475. Both of these figures fall drastically short of the 1996 poverty level. In terms of receiving federal assistance, the most widely used support system was Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a rate of 52% of homeless households receiving benefits. Another interesting finding was that 55% of clients reported having no medical insurance. About half of the homeless clients stated that it was their first instance of being homeless. Of these clients, 30% reported that their homelessness had lasted for over two years.
Unaddressed issues or concerns
As noted in the content of the report, the findings of the study do not include data that explicitly depict the national count of homeless people and families in the U.S. Moreover, the report does not break down the findings into local, city, or state subsets. While the intent of the report was not to do these things, it would prove beneficial for local communities if information is collected that attempts to describe the major characteristics of homelessness for the various regions within the U.S. It is also important to note that much of the gathered data was obtained through interviews; therefore it becomes difficult to verify the legitimacy of much of the evidence. Furthermore, because the study does not encompass all homeless assistance agencies and clients, it is important to look at the collected data as a sample that may not represent all communities. While the report summarizes many of the issues that homeless clients are custom to, not too much attention is paid towards the correlation between homelessness and incarceration. As researcher for the Urban Institute, Caterina Roman notes, "Restrictions create a legal, political, and social environment that is undeniably inhospitable to efforts to establish linkages between released prisoners and permanent or service-enriched transitional housing, especially for those with few resources.We have a prison system reentry system that is disconnected from the housing and homeless services systems and from the neighborhoods to which prisoners return." When little attention is paid towards the often prevalent relationship between homelessness and incarceration, a dangerous cycle continues to repeat itself.
Reference List
Roman, Caterina Gouvis. "A Roof is Not Enough: Successful Prisoner Reintegration Requires Experimentation and Collaboration." Criminology and Public Policy, 3.2 (2004): 161-168
How to Access Report
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington , DC 20410-6000