Homelessness: Grant Applicants' Characteristics and Views on the
Supportive Housing Program (Letter Report, 08/12/1999, GAO/RCED-99-239).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Supportive Housing
Program, focusing on the: (1) characteristics of Supportive Housing
Program applicants; (2) types of programs and services for homeless
people that this program supports; (3) importance of Supportive Housing
Program grants to applicants' programs for the homeless; and (4) various
funding sources, in addition to Supportive Housing Program grants, that
applicants rely on for their programs and services for homeless people.
GAO noted that: (1) about 90 percent of the applicants for Supportive
Housing Program grants in 1997 are nonprofit organizations; (2) almost
70 percent of the applicants have been in existence for between 10 and
50 years; (3) however, most of the applicants have generally offered
services to the homeless only during the last 20 years; (4) about 64
percent of the applicants serve fewer than 500 homeless people each
year, and the types of homeless people they most often serve include
adults with dependent children, individuals with physical and mental
disabilities, and persons with substance abuse problems; (5) the
majority of the Supportive Housing Program grants support programs that
provide transitional housing with supportive services or supportive
services only; (6) on the basis of applicants' responses, GAO estimates
that about 59 percent of the requests for Supportive Housing Program
grants in 1997 were for programs that provide transitional housing with
supportive services and 30 percent were for programs that provide
supportive services only; (7) the remaining 11 percent were requests for
programs that provide permanent housing for persons with disabilities
and innovative supportive housing projects; (8) the types of supportive
services that applicants most often provide to homeless people include
case management, instruction in life skills; (9) Supportive Housing
Program grants provide a significant portion of the funding available
for some applicants' homeless assistance programs, and applicants
generally believe that these grants are an important source of funding
for their programs; (10) on the basis of applicants' responses, GAO
estimates that Supportive Housing Program grants represent about 45
percent of the resources that applicants receive from all sources to
support their programs for the homeless; (11) the importance of the
Supportive Housing Program is evident from the negative consequences
that applicants often faced when they did not receive an award; (12)
GAO's survey results indicate a widespread belief among applicants that
the Supportive Housing Program is an important and unique source of
funding for homeless assistance programs and that receiving an award
from the program confers legitimacy on the applicants' efforts; and (13)
in addition to Supportive Housing Program Grants, applicants request and
receive funds from a variety of other federal and nonfederal sources to
support their homeless assistance programs.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-99-239
TITLE: Homelessness: Grant Applicants' Characteristics and Views
on the Supportive Housing Program
DATE: 08/12/1999
SUBJECT: Disadvantaged persons
Federal aid for housing
Federal grants
Homelessness
Housing programs
Surveys
State-administered programs
IDENTIFIER: HUD Supportive Housing Program
HUD Continuum of Care Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
August 1999
HOMELESSNESS - GRANT APPLICANTS'
CHARACTERISTICS AND VIEWS ON THE
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROGRAM
GAO/RCED-99-239
Supportive Housing Program
(385756)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOL - Department of Labor
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
SHP - Supportive Housing Program
VA - Department of Veterans Affairs
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-281481
August 12, 1999
Congressional Requesters
Many homeless people in America have multiple personal, social, and
economic problems that prevent them from obtaining permanent housing.
Research has shown that housing alone is often not a solution to
homelessness for many people. A comprehensive set of supportive
services--such as substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment,
child care services, and employment assistance--is also needed. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Supportive
Housing Program was established in 1992 to address this need.
Organizations such as state and local government agencies and
nonprofit agencies can apply to HUD for Supportive Housing Program
grants, which they can use to provide housing and certain kinds of
supportive services to homeless people to help them live as
self-sufficiently as possible. In 1997 and 1998, HUD awarded over
$620 million and $724 million, respectively, in Supportive Housing
Program grants to organizations that serve the homeless.\1
Because many of the supportive services funded by the Supportive
Housing Program mirror services provided by federal mainstream social
service programs and could potentially be funded by them, there is
some concern that this program may be taking scarce resources away
from HUD's core mission of providing housing. As a result, you asked
us to review the Supportive Housing Program. Specifically, you asked
us to provide information on (1) the characteristics of Supportive
Housing Program applicants, (2) the types of programs and services
for homeless people that this program supports, (3) the importance of
Supportive Housing Program grants to applicants' programs for the
homeless, and (4) the various funding sources, in addition to
Supportive Housing Program grants, that applicants rely on for their
programs and services for homeless people. You also asked us to
provide, to the extent possible, information on the percentage of
veterans served by this program. This report is the third in a
series of reviews you asked us to conduct on issues related to
homelessness.\2
To provide the information that you requested, we surveyed 1,174
applicants for Supportive Housing Program grants in 1997. We
surveyed applicants that requested grants for previously funded
projects (renewals) as well as new projects. Some of these
applicants were awarded grants, while others were not. Our results
can be generalized, with a sampling error of plus or minus 5 percent,
to the entire group of applicants for funds in 1997; however, our
results cannot be generalized to those agencies that did not submit
applications that year. Furthermore, our results are based on the
information reported by the applicants; we did not verify the
accuracy of this information. Appendix I provides a more detailed
description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
--------------------
\1 These awards require applicants to provide HUD with additional
information about their projects, such as documentation to show that
the projects are financially feasible, before their grants can
receive final approval and funding.
\2 Homelessness: Coordination and Evaluation of Programs Are
Essential (GAO/RCED-99-49, Feb. 26, 1999); Homelessness: State and
Local Efforts to Integrate and Evaluate Homeless Assistance Programs
(GAO/RCED-99-178, June 29, 1999).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
About 90 percent of the applicants for Supportive Housing Program
grants in 1997 are nonprofit organizations. Almost 70 percent of the
applicants have been in existence for between 10 and 50 years;
however, most of the applicants have generally offered services to
the homeless only during the last 20 years. About 64 percent of the
applicants serve fewer than 500 homeless people each year, and the
types of homeless people they most often serve include adults with
dependent children, individuals with physical and mental
disabilities, and persons with substance abuse problems.
The majority of the Supportive Housing Program grants support
programs that provide transitional housing with supportive services
or supportive services only. On the basis of applicants' responses,
we estimate that about 59 percent of the requests for Supportive
Housing Program grants in 1997 were for programs that provide
transitional housing with supportive services and 30 percent were for
programs that provide supportive services only. The remaining 11
percent were requests for programs that provide permanent housing for
persons with disabilities and innovative supportive housing projects.
The types of supportive services that applicants most often provide
to homeless people include case management,\3 instruction in life
skills such as budgeting and parenting, outreach, employment
assistance, and transportation.
Supportive Housing Program grants provide a significant portion of
the funding available for some applicants' homeless assistance
programs, and applicants generally believe that these grants are an
important source of funding for their programs. On the basis of
applicants' responses, we estimate that Supportive Housing Program
grants represent about 45 percent of the resources that applicants
receive from all sources to support their programs for the homeless.
In 1997, the average grant requested by applicants was about
$450,000, and the average grant awarded was about $440,000. The
importance of the Supportive Housing Program is evident from the
negative consequences that applicants often faced when they did not
receive an award. For example, our survey results indicate that
almost a third of the applicants had to reduce the programs and
services they provided to the homeless or reduce the number of
homeless people they served because they did not receive Supportive
Housing Program grants. In addition, over 70 percent of the
applicants that were denied Supportive Housing Program grants were
unable to either expand existing programs or implement new programs
to serve homeless people. Similarly, about 78 percent of these
applicants were unable to obtain funding from other sources to
replace the Supportive Housing Program funds they had applied for but
not received. Finally, our survey results indicate a widespread
belief among applicants that the Supportive Housing Program is an
important and unique source of funding for homeless assistance
programs and that receiving an award from the program confers
legitimacy on the applicants' efforts.
In addition to Supportive Housing Program grants, applicants request
and receive funds from a variety of other federal and nonfederal
sources to support their homeless assistance programs. However, the
majority of applicants requested and received funds for their
homeless assistance programs from nonfederal rather than other
federal sources. For example, on the basis of applicants' responses,
we estimate that about 74 percent of the applicants requested funds
from state and local governments, private donors, and foundations.
In contrast, about 25 percent of the applicants requested funds from
federal sources other than the Supportive Housing Program. This
relatively low reliance on other federal sources is consistent with
applicants' responses that a lack of knowledge about other federal
programs was their main reason for not applying for other federal
funds.
--------------------
\3 Case management involves assessing the needs of homeless
individuals and linking them to appropriate housing and supportive
services.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Authorized by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, as
amended, the Supportive Housing Program (SHP) is designed to promote
the development of supportive housing and services that help people
make the transition from being homeless to living as independently as
possible. Program funds may be used to provide (1) supportive
services only, such as substance abuse treatment, education,
employment assistance, nutritional counseling, life skills training,
and case management; (2) transitional housing with supportive
services for a period of up to 24 months; (3) permanent housing with
supportive services for persons with disabilities; and (4) innovative
special projects that enable agencies to design supportive housing
for homeless people that is not included in the other three
categories.\4 Agencies that receive SHP grants may use the funds to
acquire facilities; build, rehabilitate, or lease facilities; meet
some of the day-to-day operating costs of their facilities; and pay
for new or higher levels of supportive services for the homeless
people they serve. Agencies that use SHP grants to acquire,
rehabilitate, or construct facilities for homeless people were
required to match these funds with equal amounts of funds from other
sources, such as state and local governments or private contributors.
Funding for SHP is provided under HUD's �Continuum of Care� strategy.
In 1993, HUD established this strategy to encourage and enable states
and localities to develop a coordinated and comprehensive
community-based approach for providing programs and services that
homeless people need. The strategy, which is designed to build
partnerships among states, localities, nonprofit organizations, and
the federal government, encourages the development of long-term
solutions for addressing homelessness. A locality's Continuum of
Care planning effort brings together local housing stakeholders in
order to (1) identify the size and scope of the local homelessness
problem; (2) inventory the assets available in the community to
alleviate homelessness; (3) rank the community's needs in order of
priority; (4) strategically plan the range of services and programs
that should be implemented to address homelessness, and (5) identify
leveraging resources, including other federal, state, local, and
private funds, for addressing concerns about homelessness in the
locality. Agencies applying for SHP funds for their homeless
assistance programs are generally required to submit requests to the
local Continuum of Care development body, which reviews and ranks all
requests on the basis of the needs and priorities established in the
locality's Continuum of Care plan. Communities then submit their
Continuum of Care plans along with agencies' applications for SHP
funding to HUD.
In reviewing communities' Continuum of Care plans and agencies' SHP
applications, HUD conducts two types of reviews. One review involves
an assessment of each community's Continuum of Care plan and need for
housing and services for homeless people. The second review involves
an assessment of each SHP application to ensure that the projects for
which funds have been requested meet all of HUD's eligibility
requirements and that the application is complete. Funding awards
are based on a combination of scores for the community's Continuum of
Care plan and each individual project. Those projects with the
highest scores receive �conditional awards,� after which awardees
must provide additional technical information to HUD before they can
obtain final approval and funding.
In 1997, HUD received 3,011 SHP applications.\5 Almost half of these
applications were submitted by agencies in eight states; agencies in
two states alone--California and New York-- submitted over 20 percent
of the applications. About 81 percent of all 1997 SHP applications
requested funding for new projects, while about 20 percent requested
funding for existing projects. HUD conditionally awarded over $620
million in SHP grants in 1997 for about half of all the applications
that it received. Appendix II provides additional information on the
geographical distribution of SHP applications and of the awards HUD
made for 1997.
--------------------
\4 SHP funds may also be used to provide �safe havens� for
hard-to-reach homeless persons who have severe mental illness, are on
the streets, and have been unwilling to participate in supportive
services. Safe havens are authorized under title IV, subpart D, of
the McKinney Act; however, because the Congress has not funded them
as a separate program, HUD has elected to provide funding for these
efforts under SHP.
\5 For this study, we used information for 1997, because this was the
latest year for which complete information was available at the time
we conducted our survey. In 1998, HUD received 2,644 applications
for SHP grants and awarded $724 million, according to a HUD official.
MOST SHP APPLICANTS ARE
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT
SERVE A WIDE RANGE OF HOMELESS
CLIENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
SHP applicants are generally nonprofit organizations that are
involved in the development of their community's Continuum of Care
plan. In addition, on the basis of applicants' responses, we
estimate that almost 70 percent of SHP applicants have been in
existence for between 10 and 50 years, and about half have been
serving homeless people for between 10 and 20 years. The majority of
the applicants serve fewer than 500 homeless people annually.
However, many of the applicants serve a wide range of clients,
including adults with dependent children, individuals with physical
and mental disabilities, and individuals with substance abuse
problems.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SHP
APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
According to our survey results, agencies that apply for SHP funds
have the following characteristics:
-- About 90 percent of SHP applicants are nonprofit organizations
with or without a religious affiliation, as illustrated in
figure 1.1. The remaining applicants are either state or local
government agencies or other types of organizations, such as
public housing authorities.
Figure 1.1: SHP Applicants, by
Organizational Type
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.
-- Almost 70 percent of SHP applicants have been in existence for
between 10 and 50 years, and about 48 percent have served the
homeless for between 10 and 20 years. As indicated in table
1.1, SHP applicants have generally been in existence for longer
than they have served homeless people, and over a third of the
applicants have been serving homeless people for 10 years or
less.
Table 1.1
Number of Years SHP Applicants Have Been
in Existence and Have Served Homeless
People
Percentage of applicants that have Percentage of applicants that have
been in existence for this length served the homeless for this
Range of years of time length of time
----------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Under 10 17 36
10 to 20 32 48
21 to 50 36 13
51 to 100 10 2
Over 100 6 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.
-- The annual budgets of the nonprofit organizations in our survey
ranged from $2,500 to over $414 million. About 25 percent of
the organizations had an annual budget of $616,000 or less, and
about 25 percent had an annual budget of $5.5 million or more.
On the basis of applicants' responses, we estimate that the
average annual budget of the nonprofit organizations that apply
for SHP grants is about $5.8 million. Similarly, the annual
budgets of the state and local government agencies in our survey
ranged from $160,000 to about $5 billion. About 25 percent of
these agencies had an annual budget of $3.1 million or less, and
about 25 percent had an annual budget of $67 million or more.
We further estimate that the average annual budget was about
$925 million for the state government agencies that apply for
SHP grants and about $36 million for the local government
agencies.
-- Approximately 62 percent of the funding for an SHP applicant's
average annual budget in 1997 was provided by public sources
that include local, state, and federal governments. The
remaining funds were provided by private sources, such as (1)
donors and contributors, including individuals, corporations,
and foundations such as the United Way; (2) self-generated
income, such as sales, rents, and investments; (3) fees for
services that agencies provide for federal programs such as
Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplementary Security Income;\6 and (4)
other sources. The composition of an SHP applicant's average
annual budget is illustrated in figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2: Sources of Funding
for an SHP Applicant's Average
Annual Budget, 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
-- About 69 percent of SHP applicants identified themselves as
highly involved in the development of their local Continuum of
Care plan, and another 26 percent identified themselves as
somewhat involved.
-- The majority of SHP applicants serve fewer than 500 homeless
clients annually. As figure 1.3 illustrates, about 26 percent
of SHP applicants serve fewer than 100 homeless people annually,
while about 5 percent serve 5,000 or more homeless people
annually.
Figure 1.3: Number of Homeless
People SHP Applicants Serve
Annually
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.
--------------------
\6 Some of the fees for services that applicants receive may come
from federal and state funding sources.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIENTS
SERVED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
SHP applicants serve a variety of clients. For example, more than 80
percent of SHP applicants serve adults with dependent children,
adults without children, and individuals with substance abuse
problems; about 67 percent serve veterans; and about 38 percent serve
unaccompanied or emancipated children and/or adolescents.\7 Table 1.2
shows the types of clients served by SHP applicants and the
percentage of applicants that serve each type.
Table 1.2
Types of Clients and the Percentage of
SHP Applicants That Serve Them
Percentage of SHP applicants
Type of clients that serve these clients
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Adults with dependent children 84
Adults without children 83
Individuals with substance abuse 81
problems
Individuals with physical or mental 75
disabilities
Battered women 69
Pregnant women 69
Mentally ill individuals 69
Adults aged 60 and older 68
Individuals with HIV/AIDS 67
Individuals involved with the criminal 67
justice system
Veterans 67
Unaccompanied or emancipated children 38
and/or adolescents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to veterans, from our analysis of applicants' responses,
we estimate that almost 30 percent of SHP applicants could not tell
us how many veterans they serve.\8 For SHP applicants that serve
veterans, about 1 percent serve veterans exclusively, while about 53
percent serve a homeless population in which the proportion of
veterans is 25 percent or less, and about 11 percent indicated that
none of the homeless they serve are veterans.
Finally, SHP applicants generally believe that (1) most of the
homeless people they serve need programs that provide supportive
services in conjunction with housing and (2) a smaller number of
homeless people need only housing with no supportive services.
Figure 1.4 shows the types of housing and supportive service programs
that SHP applicants believe homeless people most often need.
Figure 1.4: Types of Housing
and Supportive Services That
SHP Applicants Believe Homeless
People Need
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\7 Emancipated children/adolescents are those who have dissociated
themselves from their parents or guardians and for whom no adult is
willing to take responsibility.
\8 We did not ask applicants whether they verify the veteran status
of the homeless people they serve. This kind of verification would
require proof of discharge or confirmation through an official
military service database.
MOST SHP FUNDS SUPPORT
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAMS
AND A VARIETY OF SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Although SHP applicants provide a variety of programs to serve
homeless people, the majority of them sought and received SHP funding
for two types of programs--those that provide transitional housing
with supportive services and those that provide supportive services
only. Through their supportive service programs, SHP applicants
offer several kinds of assistance to homeless people, such as case
management, life skills instruction, and employment assistance.
TYPES OF SHP GRANTS
REQUESTED AND AWARDED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
SHP grants can be used to fund three of the six types of programs
that are most often offered to homeless people by the agencies that
serve them--transitional housing with supportive services, permanent
housing for people with disabilities, and supportive services only.
(Table 1.3 identifies the six types of programs.) Our survey results
indicate that the majority of SHP applicants offer programs that
provide transitional housing with supportive services and supportive
services only. Consistent with these results, these were the two
types of programs for which applicants most often requested SHP
grants. On the basis of applicants' responses, we estimate that
about 59 percent of the SHP applications submitted in 1997 were
requests for funds for transitional housing programs with supportive
services and about 30 percent were requests for funds for programs
that provide supportive services only.
Table 1.3
Types of Programs Agencies Often Provide
to Homeless People and the Percentage of
SHP Applicants That Offer These Programs
Percentage of SHP
Type of program offered to Description of applicants that
homeless people program offer program
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Transitional housing with Temporary housing 80
services assistance and
supportive
services.
Generally, the
maximum stay is 2
years.
Supportive services without Services that 70
housing address the
special needs of
the homeless
(e.g., referrals,
education, health
care).
Emergency shelter Short-term 50
housing. Beds are
not guaranteed and
are provided only
for a limited
time.
Permanent housing with Long-term housing 38
services assistance and
supportive
services.
Food bank/food pantry Uncooked food 37
distributed in
boxes or bags
directly to low-
income people,
including the
homeless.
Soup kitchen Food lines and 20
programs that
distribute
prepared
breakfasts,
lunches, or
dinners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1.5 shows the types of programs for which SHP applicants
sought grants in 1997.
Figure 1.5: Types of Programs
for Which SHP Applicants Sought
Grants in 1997
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.
TYPES OF SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
OFFERED TO HOMELESS PEOPLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
SHP applicants generally offered a wide range of supportive services
to homeless people, directly or indirectly, through contractual
arrangements. For example, about 93 percent of SHP applicants
provided case management; 84 percent provided instruction in life
skills such as parenting and budgeting; and about three-fourths
offered outreach, employment assistance, and transportation to the
homeless that they serve. In contrast, fewer than one-third of SHP
applicants provided legal services and AIDS-related treatment. Table
1.4 shows the different types of supportive services and the
percentage of SHP applicants that offered each type.
Table 1.4
Types of Supportive Services and the
Percentage of SHP Applicants That
Provide These Services
Percentage of applicants
Types of supportive services that provide these services
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Case management (including referrals) 93
Instruction in life skills, including 84
parenting classes
Employment assistance 77
Outreach 76
Transportation 75
Follow-up with transitional housing 74
Clothing 70
Case management for clients living in 61
permanent housing
Education 61
Alcohol/drug abuse treatment 57
Financial assistance 53
Mental health treatment 52
Communication services (telephone, voice 46
mail, e-mail, Internet access)
Child care 45
Health care (medical, dental, vision, 43
and pharmaceutical)
Legal services 31
AIDS-related treatments 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About 62 percent of SHP applicants provide supportive services
directly to their homeless clients and did not contract for any
services with other providers, while 4 percent contract with other
agencies to provide these services and do not provide any services
themselves. The remaining 34 percent of SHP applicants provide a mix
of direct and contracted services.
SHP IS AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF
FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT SERVE
HOMELESS PEOPLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
SHP grants provide applicants with a significant and important
portion of the funding that supports their programs for homeless
people. According to our survey results, most applicants that did
not receive an SHP grant could not obtain funding from other sources
to replace the funds they did not receive from SHP, and they were
unable to expand existing programs or implement new programs for
their homeless populations. In addition, according to our survey
results, most applicants agree that SHP grants are an important and
unique source of funding for their programs that serve homeless
people.
RELATIONSHIP OF SHP GRANTS
TO OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING
FOR HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Our survey results indicate that SHP grants represent about 45
percent of the total funds that applicants received from all sources
to provide services and programs for homeless people. Figure 1.6
illustrates the relationship of SHP grants to other federal and
nonfederal sources of funding for applicants' homeless assistance
programs. (Nonfederal sources include state and local governments,
private corporations, and nonprofit organizations and foundations.)
Figure 1.6: Relationship of
SHP Grants to Other Sources of
Funding for Applicants'
Homeless Assistance Programs
(See figure in printed
edition.)
According to the information provided in responses to our survey, in
1997, applicants requested SHP grants ranging from about $7,000 to
almost $7,500,000. The average amount requested by applicants that
year was about $450,000, and the average award for projects was about
$440,000.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT
RECEIVING AN SHP GRANT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
The importance of SHP funding for programs that serve homeless people
is demonstrated by the negative consequences applicants faced when
they did not receive a grant. On the basis of applicants' responses,
we estimate that over 70 percent of the applicants that did not
receive an SHP grant were unable to expand existing programs or were
unable to implement new programs for homeless people because they did
not receive these funds. In addition, over 30 percent of these
applicants identified other negative consequences of not receiving
SHP funds, including reductions in programs and services provided to
the homeless and reductions in the number of homeless individuals
served. In contrast, only about 4 percent of SHP applicants
indicated that no changes were made to their programs or services
when they did not receive a grant. We estimate that about 78 percent
of the applicants that did not receive a grant were unable to obtain
funding from other sources to replace the SHP funds they did not
receive. Moreover, according to our survey results, almost all of
the applicants that were able to obtain funding from other sources
received less than they had requested from SHP.
Despite the importance they assign to SHP grants, about half of the
applicants that had previously applied for SHP grants did not apply
for a grant in 1998. The reason most often cited by the agencies
that did not apply for an SHP grant in 1998 was that they were
currently implementing prior SHP grant awards. Some applicants that
did not apply for 1998 funds also said (1) they believed they were
unlikely to receive funding from HUD, (2) they found the application
process too difficult and/or time-consuming, or (3) their staff did
not have the time or technical expertise to fill out the application.
IMPORTANCE OF SHP FUNDING TO
APPLICANTS' HOMELESS
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
Our survey asked applicants to agree or disagree with a series of
statements about the importance of SHP funding to their homeless
assistance programs. We developed these statements through
discussions with some homeless assistance providers and advocates for
the homeless. Our objective was to determine whether applicants
nationwide held similar opinions about the importance of SHP. Our
survey results indicate that the majority of SHP applicants agree
with the following statements about the importance of SHP funds:
-- About 43 percent of SHP applicants agree and another 26 percent
strongly agree with the statement that SHP grants provide
legitimacy to their programs, making it easier for them to
obtain funds from other sources.
-- About 47 percent of SHP applicants agree and another 36 percent
strongly agree with the statement that SHP funding is unique
because it explicitly links housing and supportive services for
the homeless.
-- About 26 percent of SHP applicants agree and another 59 percent
strongly agree with the statement that their agencies need to
receive SHP funding to provide services and programs for
homeless people.
IN ADDITION TO SHP GRANTS,
APPLICANTS RELIED PRIMARILY ON
NONFEDERAL FUNDING FOR THEIR
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
In addition to applying for SHP grants, most applicants tried to
obtain funds from several nonfederal and other federal sources to
support their homeless assistance programs. However, of these
sources, SHP applicants relied more on nonfederal than on other
federal sources. This greater reliance on nonfederal sources is, in
part, attributable to SHP applicants' lack of knowledge about other
federal programs that would fund programs and services for homeless
people.
NONFEDERAL FUNDING FOR SHP
APPLICANTS' HOMELESS
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
In addition to applying for SHP grants, about 74 percent of SHP
applicants applied for funds from a variety of nonfederal sources to
finance their programs and services specifically targeted to homeless
people. These sources included state and local governments, private
corporations, and nonprofit organizations and foundations. On the
basis of applicants' responses, we estimate that SHP applicants that
applied to nonfederal sources received, at a minimum, about $576
million in funding from them. Specifically, they received a minimum
of about $251 million from state governments, $185 million from local
governments, $69 million from nonprofit organizations and
foundations, $28 million from private corporations, and over $43
million from other sources, such as donations from individuals and
other fundraising efforts. However, the amounts that applicants
reported receiving from state and local governments may include some
federal funds. This is because some federal programs, such as HUD's
Emergency Shelter Grants and the Department of Health and Human
Services' Projects for Assistance in Transition From Homelessness,
provide funds to state and local governments that these governments
then distribute as grants to public and private nonprofit
organizations. Organizations that receive funds from their state and
local governments generally do not know what portion of the total
comes from federal sources. Table 1.5 identifies the various
nonfederal funding sources from which SHP applicants requested and
received funds, together with our estimates of the percentage of
applicants requesting funding from these sources and the total amount
of funding they may have requested and received.
Table 1.5
Estimates of Nonfederal Funding
Requested and Received by SHP Applicants
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage
of
applicants Total amount Total amount
requesting of funding of funding
Type of nonfederal funding funding requested\a received\a
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
State government 72 $253,286,344 $250,995,786
Local government 62 196,533,580 185,485,302
Private corporation 37 38,761,357 27,560,125
Nonprofit organization/ 62 90,357,740 69,080,561
foundation
======================================================================
Total $578,939,021 $533,121,774
\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The estimated totals in this table do not account for the
applicants that failed to respond to our questionnaire.
Additionally, we eliminated survey respondents that did not
consistently answer the series of financial questions we asked them.
We chose not to impute values for those eliminated from the analysis.
For these reasons, the estimates should be viewed as minimum
estimates of the totals.
\b In addition, about 18 percent of the applicants received over $43
million in funds from other sources, such as private donors.
OTHER FEDERAL SOURCES OF
FUNDING FOR SHP APPLICANTS'
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
Our survey results indicate that few applicants seek funding from
federal sources other than SHP for their homeless assistance
programs. On the basis of applicants' responses, we estimate that
about 25 percent of the SHP applicants applied for, at a minimum,
about $148 million in funding from other federal sources and
received, at a minimum, about $100 million. Almost half of the
funding that applicants received from other federal sources came from
other HUD programs, including the Shelter Plus Care, Section 8
Single-Room Occupancy, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With
AIDS programs.\9 In addition, some SHP applicants requested funds
from the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and
Veterans Affairs. SHP applicants that did not seek federal funding
from other sources most often reported that they did not do so
because they were unfamiliar with other federal programs that would
provide money for their homeless assistance programs. Table 1.6
estimates how much federal funding from non-SHP sources SHP
applicants may have requested and received.
Table 1.6
Estimates of Non-SHP Federal Funding
Requested and Received by SHP Applicants
Total amount of
funding Total amount of
Non-SHP federal funding source requested\a funding received\a
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
HUD programs other than SHP $61,334,769 $46,192,826
Department of Health and Human 15,118,372 12,463,781
Services
Department of Labor 27,271,041 9,867,453
Department of Veterans Affairs 5,083,369 2,562,422
Other federal sources\b 38,778,669 28,771,772
======================================================================
Total $147,586,220 $99,858,254
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The estimated totals in this table do not account for the
applicants that failed to respond to our questionnaire.
Additionally, we eliminated survey respondents that did not
consistently answer the series of financial questions we asked them.
We chose not to impute values for those eliminated from the analysis.
For these reasons, the estimates should be viewed as minimum
estimates of the totals.
\b Other federal sources include the Department of Agriculture, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Federal Home Loan Bank.
--------------------
\9 A detailed description of each of these programs is provided in
our report entitled Homelessness: Coordination and Evaluation of
Programs Are Essential (GAO/RCED-99-49, Feb. 26, 1999).
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We provided HUD with a draft of this report for review and comment.
In its comments, HUD stated that the Supportive Housing Program is an
integral part of the Department's Continuum of Care approach to
addressing homelessness. According to HUD, the Supportive Housing
Program is so popular because it enables housing and service
providers to develop a package application that includes a request
for funding for both housing assistance and supportive services. HUD
also provided us with technical comments that have been incorporated
throughout the report as appropriate. (App. III includes the full
text of HUD's comments and our detailed responses.)
We also provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with a draft of
this report for review and comment. The Associate Chief Consultant
for Homeless Veterans told us that the Department had no comments or
concerns about the information included in the report and stated that
the report provided useful information on the types of programs and
services provided to homeless people.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; interested Members of Congress; the Honorable Andrew
Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and other
interested parties. Copies will be made available to others on
request. If you have any questions about this report, please call
Anu Mittal or me at (202) 512-7631. Key contributors to this report
include Lynn Musser, Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Hattie Poole, and John
Vocino.
Judy A. England-Joseph
Director, Housing and Community
Development Issues
List of Requesters
The Honorable Phil Gramm
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
Chairman, Committee on Budget
United States Senate
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable Arlen Specter
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Christopher S. Bond
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD
and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Wayne Allard
Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing
and Transportation
Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Bill Frist
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Public Health
Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions
United States Senate
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
We conducted a nationwide survey of 1,174 agencies that applied in
1997 for grants from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) Supportive Housing Program (SHP). Our survey was
designed to obtain information on the (1) characteristics of agencies
that apply for SHP grants, (2) types of programs and services for
homeless people that SHP grants support, (3) importance of SHP grants
to agencies' programs for the homeless, and (4) various funding
sources that applicants rely on in addition to SHP funds for their
programs and services for homeless people. In addition to conducting
the survey, we interviewed HUD officials and homeless assistance
providers in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and we
reviewed documents and legislation related to programs that serve the
homeless. We conducted our review from September 1998 through June
1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
We developed a questionnaire for mailing to a sample of agencies
nationwide that applied for one or more SHP grants in 1997. The
questionnaire asked for general information about each agency and
specific information about the agency's programs for the homeless.
We also asked for information about a specific grant application
submitted by each agency in 1997. For example, we asked applicants
how much money they received for the grant and how they would
categorize the grant. Each agency received only one questionnaire,
no matter how many applications it submitted to HUD.
To aid in designing our survey, we obtained input on the content of
the questionnaire from officials of the Interagency Council on the
Homeless and organizations that either represent or provide services
to the homeless, such as the National Alliance to End Homelessness,
the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, and U.S.
Catholic Charities. We pretested the questionnaire with officials of
11 agencies in New York, Texas, and Florida. Each pretest consisted
of a visit by GAO staff to an agency that had applied for an SHP
grant in 1997. During these visits, we simulated the actual survey
experience by asking agency officials to fill out the questionnaire.
We also interviewed agency officials after they had completed the
questionnaire to ensure that (1) the questions were readable and
clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) completing the
questionnaire did not place an undue burden on agency officials, and
(4) the questionnaire was independent and unbiased.
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
To identify agencies that submitted SHP applications in 1997, we
obtained a list from HUD of the total number of applications it
received that year. This list contained 3,011 applications from
various state, local, and nonprofit agencies nationwide. We
eliminated 351 applications that HUD did not consider for funding
because they were technically incomplete or otherwise ineligible for
consideration. We divided the remaining 2,660 applications into four
categories: (1) applications for new projects that were funded, (2)
applications for new projects that were not funded, (3) applications
for existing (renewal) projects that were funded, and (4)
applications for renewal projects that were not funded. From these
four categories, we selected a sample of 1,174 applications using the
following process:
-- We included all agencies that submitted a renewal application
that was not funded in our sample. We did this because we
wanted to survey as many agencies as we could with experience in
requesting but not receiving SHP grants for their projects.
However, if an agency had more than one nonfunded renewal
application, we randomly selected one application so that the
agency would receive only one questionnaire. If an agency
submitted applications for both renewal and new projects, we
randomly selected one renewal application that was not funded
for our sample and deleted the other applications. We mailed
questionnaires to 120 agencies that submitted applications for
renewal projects that were not funded.
-- We also included all agencies that submitted a renewal
application that was funded unless the agencies had submitted a
renewal application that was not funded (these agencies were
already part of our sample). For agencies that submitted
multiple renewal applications that were funded, we randomly
selected one application so that the agency received only one
questionnaire. If an agency (1) submitted applications for both
renewal and new projects and (2) had no nonfunded renewal
applications, we randomly selected one renewal application that
was funded for our sample and deleted the other applications.
We sent questionnaires to 268 agencies that submitted renewal
applications that were funded.
-- For agencies that submitted only new applications, we randomly
selected one application for each agency and deleted the others.
This left 1,546 applications for new projects, of which 704 were
funded and 842 were not funded. We then randomly selected a
sample of 400 applications from each group. However, we
identified additional duplicate agencies after drawing the
sample and therefore mailed questionnaires to only 391 agencies
with applications for new projects that were funded and 395
agencies with applications for new projects that were not
funded.
This three-step process yielded a sample of 1,174 applicants. Of
these, 953 applicants returned completed, useable questionnaires,
which yielded an applicant response rate of 81 percent. For each
sampled application category, table I.1 shows the number of
applications considered for funding by HUD, the number of
questionnaires we mailed to applicants, and the number of completed,
useable questionnaires returned to us.
Table I.1
Type of Application, Number of
Applications Received by HUD, and Number
of Questionnaires Mailed and Returned
for the Sample Population
Number of
applications Number of
considered Number of questionnair
for funding questionnair es completed
Type of application by HUD es mailed and returned
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Nonfunded renewal 152 120 100
Funded renewal 410 268 227
Nonfunded new 1,095 395 292
Funded new 1,003 391 334
======================================================================
Total 2,660 1,174 953
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Of the 3,011 applications that were received, 351 were
�dropped� by HUD because they were incomplete, did not target the
appropriate population, or were otherwise ineligible for funding.
Our results are based on the information reported by the agencies.
We did not verify the accuracy of the information that the surveyed
agencies provided.
SAMPLING ERRORS AND CONFIDENCE
INTERVALS OF ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
Since we used a sample (called a probability sample) of 1,174 of the
2,660 SHP applications that were considered for funding in 1997 to
develop our estimates, each estimate has a measurable precision, or
sampling error, which may be expressed as a plus/minus figure. A
sampling error indicates how closely we can reproduce from a sample
the results we would have obtained if we had sent a questionnaire to
every SHP applicant and asked about each one of the grant
applications. By adding the sampling error to and subtracting it
from the estimate, we can develop upper and lower bounds for each
estimate. This range is called the confidence interval. Sampling
errors and confidence intervals are stated at a certain confidence
level�in this case, 95 percent. For example, a confidence interval
at the 95-percent confidence level means that in 95 out of 100
instances, the sampling procedure we used would produce a confidence
interval containing the value we are estimating. Table I.2 lists the
sampling errors and confidence intervals for selected information
from our survey of SHP applicants.
Table I.2
Sampling Errors of Estimates From
Information in the Project Questionnaire
Confidence interval
----------------------------------
Description Estimate Sampling error From To
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Background information about the agencies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which of the following best describes your agency?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonprofit agency 79.32% 1.76% 77.56% 81.08%
Nonprofit agency 11.14% 1.39% 9.75% 12.53%
with religious
affiliation
Local government 6.14% 1.04% 5.10% 7.18%
agency
State government 1.22% 0.47% 0.75% 1.69%
agency
Other 2.17% 0.61% 1.56% 2.78%
Approximately how long has your agency been in existence?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 10 years 16.73% 1.71% 15.02% 18.44%
10 to 20 years 32.05% 2.04% 30.01% 34.09%
21 to 50 years 35.50% 2.10% 33.40% 37.60%
51 to 100 years 9.63% 1.29% 8.34% 10.92%
Over 100 years 6.10% 1.02% 5.08% 7.12%
What types of clients does your agency serve?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults with 84.42% 1.59% 82.83% 86.01%
dependent
children
Adults without 83.44% 1.57% 81.87% 85.01%
children
Unaccompanied or 37.57% 2.12% 35.45% 39.69%
emancipated
children and/or
adolescents
Battered women 69.06% 2.02% 67.04% 71.08%
Pregnant women 69.09% 2.02% 67.07% 71.11%
Adults aged 60 or 68.37% 2.04% 66.33% 70.41%
older
Veterans 67.15% 2.02% 65.13% 69.17%
Individuals with 75.05% 1.86% 73.19% 76.91%
physical or
mental
disabilities
Mentally ill 68.84% 2.04% 66.80% 70.88%
individuals
Individuals with 66.74% 2.06% 64.68% 68.80%
HIV/AIDS
Individuals with 80.97% 1.69% 79.28% 82.66%
substance abuse
problems
Individuals 66.80% 2.04% 64.76% 68.84%
involved with
the criminal
justice system
What is the total budget for your agency for calendar year 1998?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonprofit agency $5,795,423 $644,356 $5,151,067 $6,439,779
Local government $35,668,981 $9,427,275 $26,241,706 $45,096,256
agency
State government $925,323,271 $609,067,913 $316,255,358 $1,534,391,184
agency
Please indicate the approximate percentage of your agency's annual budget that comes from
each of the following sources:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local, state, and 61.82% 1.35% 60.47% 63.17%
federal
government
funding
Private funding 21.07% 1.12% 19.95% 22.19%
Fees for service 7.14% 0.71% 6.43% 7.85%
Self-generated 9.02% 0.82% 8.20% 9.84%
income
Other 0.89% 0.22% 0.67% 1.11%
Programs and services for the homeless
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which of the following programs and services does your agency offer to the homeless?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency shelter 50.12% 2.18% 47.94% 52.30%
Transitional 79.88% 1.84% 78.04% 81.72%
housing with
services
Permanent housing 37.68% 2.10% 35.58% 39.78%
with services
Food bank/food 37.42% 2.14% 35.28% 39.56%
pantry
Soup kitchen 19.55% 1.78% 17.77% 21.33%
Supportive 69.96% 1.94% 68.02% 71.90%
services without
housing
Approximately how long has your agency had programs or services that are specifically
targeted to serve the homeless?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 10 years 35.88% 2.14% 33.74% 38.02%
10 to 20 years 47.62% 2.20% 45.42% 49.82%
21 to 50 years 12.70% 1.47% 11.23% 14.17%
50 to 100 years 2.33% 0.71% 1.62% 3.04%
Over 100 years 1.47% 0.53% 0.94% 2.00%
Which of the following best describes your agency's delivery of services to the homeless?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provides services 62.09% 2.12% 59.97% 64.21%
directly to the
homeless--does
not contract for
any services
Provides some 33.42% 2.08% 31.34% 35.50%
services
directly to the
homeless and
contracts
(provides
indirectly) for
some services
(excluding
affiliation or
linkage
agreements)
Does not provide 4.49% 0.88% 3.61% 5.37%
any services
directly--all
services are
contracted out
to other
agencies
Which of the following supportive services does your agency offer, directly or
indirectly, to the homeless?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outreach 75.51% 1.86% 73.65% 77.37%
Case management 93.03% 1.20% 91.83% 94.24%
(including
referrals)
Case management 61.17% 2.14% 59.03% 63.31%
for clients who
are living in
permanent
housing
Education 61.29% 2.14% 59.15% 63.43%
Instruction in 83.80% 1.71% 82.09% 85.51%
life skills,
including
parenting
classes
Employment 77.25% 1.84% 75.41% 79.09%
assistance
Alcohol/drug 57.12% 2.18% 54.94% 59.30%
abuse treatment
Mental health 52.37% 2.20% 50.17% 54.57%
treatment
AIDS-related 30.87% 2.02% 28.85% 32.89%
treatment
Health care 42.72% 2.14% 40.58% 44.86%
Follow-up with 74.1% 1.96% 72.14% 76.06%
transitional
housing
Child care 44.86% 2.16% 29.44% 33.48%
Legal services 31.46% 2.02% 29.44% 33.48%
Clothing 70.09% 2.02% 68.07% 72.11%
Transportation 74.75% 1.92% 72.83% 76.67%
Communication 46.14% 2.18% 43.96% 48.32%
services
Financial 53.34% 2.20% 51.14% 55.54%
assistance
Approximately how many homeless individuals (nonduplicated) does your agency serve each
year?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 percent 25.67% 1.94% 23.73% 27.61%
100-250 20.56% 1.80% 18.76% 22.36%
250-500 16.85% 1.63% 15.22% 18.48%
500-1,000 13.79% 1.47% 12.32% 15.26%
1,000-5,000 17.92% 1.65% 16.27% 19.57%
Over 5,000 5.21% 0.92% 4.29% 6.13%
Approximately what percentage of the homeless whom you serve are veterans?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 percent 0.99% 0.43% 0.56% 1.42%
1 to 25 percent 52.93% 1.96% 50.97% 54.89%
26 to 99 percent 5.96% 0.96% 5.00% 6.92%
None 10.81% 1.14% 9.67% 11.95%
Did not answer 29.31% 1.82% 27.49% 31.13%
the question
What percentage of the homeless whom you serve need housing plus supportive services,
supportive services only, or housing only?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals who 80.96% 1.10% 79.86% 82.06%
need housing
plus supportive
services
Individuals who 13.64% 0.96% 12.68% 14.60%
need supportive
services but no
housing
Individuals who 5.40% 0.57% 4.83% 5.97%
receive housing
but no other
supportive
services
Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grant application identified on questionnaire cover
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please indicate
the category of
your SHP grant
application:
Transitional 58.91% 2.20% 56.71% 61.11%
housing with
supportive
services
Permanent housing 8.78% 1.27% 7.51% 10.05%
for persons with
disabilities
Supportive 29.72% 2.08% 27.64% 31.80%
services only
Innovative 2.59% 0.71% 1.88% 3.30%
supportive
housing
Consequences of not receiving the Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you receive any funding from other source(s) to replace funds not received from the
SHP grant?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No 78.10% 3.39% 74.71% 81.49%
Yes 21.90% 3.39% 18.51% 25.29%
How did the money you received from other sources compare with the amount you requested
in your 1997 HUD SHP grant application?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money received 3.55% 2.59% 0.96% 6.14%
was equal to
amount requested
from HUD
Money received 94.62% 3.63% 90.99% 98.25%
was less than
amount requested
from HUD
Money received 1.83% 2.59% -0.76%\a 4.42%
was more than
amount requested
from HUD
How were your agency's programs and services for the homeless affected by not receiving
the 1997 SHP grant?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in 18.42% 3.16% 15.26% 21.58%
agency staff
Reduction in 34.74% 4.06% 30.68% 38.80%
programs and/or
services
provided to the
homeless
Reduction in the 31.14% 3.98% 27.16% 35.12%
number of
homeless
individuals
served
Unable to expand 69.62% 3.94% 65.68% 73.56%
existing
programs and/or
services for the
homeless
Unable to 73.16% 3.74% 69.42% 76.90%
implement new
programs and/or
services for the
homeless
Lost other 10.97% 2.70% 8.27% 13.67%
funding that was
contingent on
receiving an SHP
grant
Implemented more 4.72% 1.90% 2.82% 6.62%
fee-for-service
programs
Made no changes 4.47% 1.72% 2.75% 6.19%
in programs or
services
Other funding sources for programs and services for the homeless
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During calendar year 1997, did you apply for nonfederal funding to support programs and
services for the homeless?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No 25.84% 1.98% 23.86% 27.82%
Yes 74.16% 1.98% 72.18% 76.14%
Please indicate where your agency applied for money, the amount of money requested, and
the amount of money received.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where agencies
applied
State government 71.79% 2.29% 69.50% 74.08%
(including
federal pass-
through money)
Local government 62.45% 2.47% 59.98% 64.92%
Private 37.06% 2.43% 34.63% 39.49%
corporations
Nonprofit 62.35% 2.47% 59.88% 64.82%
organizations or
foundations
Other 18.36% 1.92% 16.44% 20.28%
Amount of money
requested
State government $253,286,344 $42,843,578 $210,442,766 $296,129,922
(including
federal pass-
through money)
Local government $196,533,580 $31,167,717 $165,365,863 $227,701,297
Private $38,761,357 $9,641,024 $29,120,333 $48,402,381
corporations
Nonprofit $90,357,740 $15,624,576 $74,733,164 $105,982,316
organizations or
foundations
Other $22,575,658 $8,411,269 $14,164,389 $30,986,927
Amount of money
received
State government $250,995,786 $42,439,585 $208,556,201 $293,435,371
(including
federal pass-
through money)
Local government $185,485,302 $31,416,858 $154,068,444 $216,902,160
Private $27,560,125 $3,181,138 $24,378,987 $30,741,263
corporations
Nonprofit $69,080,561 $9,137,706 $59,942,855 $78,218,267
organizations or
foundations
Other $43,194,626 $16,669,173 $26,525,453 $59,863,799
During calendar year 1997, did you apply directly for any federal funding (in addition to
SHP) to support programs and services for the homeless?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No 74.69% 1.90% 72.79% 76.59%
Yes 25.31% 1.90% 23.41% 27.21%
Which of the following were reasons why your agency did not apply for other federal
funding to support programs and/or services for the homeless?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other federal 21.54% 2.33% 19.21% 23.87%
agencies are not
likely to fund
programs and
services for the
homeless
Not familiar with 53.45% 2.84% 50.61% 56.29%
other federal
agencies that
would provide
money for
homeless
programs and/or
services
Other federal 10.00% 1.69% 8.31% 11.69%
agencies'
deadlines and
time lines are
difficult to
meet
Preparing grant 23.06% 2.45% 20.61% 25.51%
applications for
federal agencies
is too time-
consuming
Past experience 12.24% 1.92% 10.32% 14.16%
with other
federal agencies
has not been
successful
Applying for 10.01% 1.71% 8.30% 11.72%
money to support
homeless
programs and/or
services had a
lower priority
than applying
for money to
support other
agency programs
Had sufficient 14.38% 1.84% 12.54% 16.22%
resources
without
additional
federal funding
Please indicate the federal agencies that you directly applied to for money in 1997 to
support programs and/or services for the homeless, the amount of money you requested, and
the amount of money you received.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount of money requested from
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD $61,334,769 $16,912,103 $44,422,666 $78,246,873
HHS $15,118,372 $3,519,006 $11,599,365 $18,637,378
DOL $27,271,041 $5,167,706 $22,103,335 $32,438,747
VA $5,083,369 $2,923,098 $2,160,271 $8,006,467
Other $38,778,669 $10,598,063 $28,180,606 $49,376,731
Amount of money received from
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD $46,192,826 $15,580,137 $30,612,689 $61,772,963
HHS $12,463,781 $3,098,956 $9,364,825 $15,562,737
DOL $9,867,453 $3,024,533 $6,842,920 $12,891,986
VA $2,562,422 $1,329,282 $1,233,140 $3,891,704
Other $28,771,772 $8,334,955 $20,436,817 $37,106,727
Did your agency submit any new or renewal SHP grant applications to HUD in 1998?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No 48.94% 2.18% 46.76% 51.12%
Yes 51.06% 2.18% 48.88% 53.24%
Please indicate why your agency chose not to submit any SHP applications in 1998.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency is not 2.32% 1.16% 1.16% 3.48%
part of a
Continuum of
Care
Did not receive 7.58% 2.02% 5.56% 9.60%
information
about the 1998
Super NOFA\b
Application 11.53% 2.29% 9.24% 13.82%
process is too
difficult and/
or time-
consuming
Staff did not 12.27% 2.39% 9.88% 14.66%
have time and/
or technical
expertise to
prepare grant
Time frames and/ 8.79% 2.08% 6.71% 10.87%
or deadlines for
grant
application are
difficult to
meet
Technical 6.81% 1.80% 5.01% 8.61%
submission
process is too
difficult and/
or time-
consuming
Agency currently 57.06% 3.21% 53.85% 60.27%
is implementing
SHP grants from
prior year(s)
Agency has 3.97% 1.31% 2.66% 5.28%
adequate funding
from other
sources
Believe receiving 16.69% 2.70% 13.99% 19.39%
funding from HUD
is not likely
Continuum of Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How involved was your agency in the development of the local Continuum of Care?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all 3.45% 0.78% 2.67% 4.23%
involved
Somewhat involved 25.58% 1.90% 23.68% 27.48%
Highly involved 69.48% 2.02% 67.46% 71.50%
Agency is not 1.49% 0.53% 0.96% 2.02%
part of a
Continuum of
Care
Importance of Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grants for your agency's programs and
services for the homeless
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receiving an SHP grant provides �legitimacy� to your agency's programs, which makes it
easier to obtain funds from other sources.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strongly disagree 3.18% 0.80% 2.38% 3.98%
Disagree 3.66% 0.82% 2.84% 4.48%
Neither agree nor 24.56% 1.94% 22.62% 26.50%
disagree
Agree 42.68% 2.16% 40.52% 44.84%
Strongly agree 25.92% 1.88% 24.04% 27.80%
SHP funding is unique because of it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strongly disagree 2.33% 0.69% 1.64% 3.02%
Disagree 3.75% 0.80% 2.95% 4.55%
Neither agree nor 10.11% 1.29% 8.82% 11.40%
disagree
Agree 47.47% 2.20% 45.27% 49.67%
Strongly agree 36.34% 2.10% 34.24% 38.44%
SHP funding is necessary in order for your agency to provide programs and services for
the homeless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strongly disagree 1.39% 0.55% 0.84% 1.94%
Disagree 4.80% 1.06% 3.74% 5.86%
Neither agree nor 9.44% 1.41% 8.03% 10.85%
disagree
Agree 25.72% 1.92% 23.80% 27.64%
Strongly agree 58.65% 2.16% 56.49% 60.81%
GAO's analysis of SHP funds in relationship to federal and nonfederal homeless assistance
funding
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHP grants as a 44.60% 3.14% 41.46% 47.74%
percentage of
agencies' total
funding for
homeless
assistance
programs
Nonfederal funds 47.30% 3.27% 43.58% 51.02%
as a percentage
of agencies'
total funding
for homeless
assistance
programs
Other federal 8.10% 1.57% 6.53% 9.67%
funds as a
percentage of
agencies' total
funding for
homeless
assistance
programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Because the lower bound of this estimate falls below zero, the
sampling error and upper and lower bounds should not be considered
reliable.
\b If an agency did not receive the 1998 Super NOFA (Notice of
Funding Availability), it might not know that funds were available
for SHP grants in 1998.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHP
APPLICATIONS FOR 1997
========================================================== Appendix II
Number of Number of Number of Percentage
applicatio Number of applicatio applicatio of
ns applicatio ns ns applicatio
submitted ns not dropped ns Total
Stat to funded by funded by funded by funding
e HUD HUD by HUD HUD\a HUD requested
---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------
Alab 25 8 16 1 32 $11,022,714
ama
Alas 13 6 7 0 46 5,555,398
ka
Ariz 43 20 23 0 47 31,063,833
ona
Arka 17 4 12 1 24 9,085,140
nsas
Cali 403 198 165 40 49 210,495,436
for
nia
Colo 47 16 22 9 34 17,164,987
rado
Conn 29 11 18 0 38 23,825,517
ect
icu
t
Dela 8 0 7 1 0 6,053,963
ware
Dist 34 23 10 1 68 16,735,904
rict
of
Col
umb
ia
Flor 143 50 74 19 35 91,882,161
ida
Geor 75 17 45 13 23 33,973,334
gia
Hawa 16 9 4 3 56 6,925,884
ii
Idah 9 3 6 0 33 3,538,052
o
Illi 147 59 73 15 40 79,301,078
nois
Indi 82 39 30 13 48 23,257,715
ana
Iowa 19 12 7 0 63 9,200,757
Kans 11 2 6 3 18 4,391,774
as
Kent 37 20 12 5 54 17,178,572
ucky
Loui 66 33 26 7 50 17,497,781
sia
na
Main 20 16 4 0 80 3,788,651
e
Mary 91 51 35 5 56 25,702,752
land
Mass 133 68 49 16 51 54,776,938
ach
use
tts
Mich 102 56 34 12 55 49,227,046
igan
Minn 71 42 19 10 59 21,479,555
eso
ta
Miss 5 0 4 1 0 1,329,499
iss
ipp
i
Miss 34 16 14 4 47 18,822,093
ouri
Mont 7 2 5 0 29 1,689,821
ana
Nebr 22 13 8 1 59 5,916,252
aska
Neva 9 2 7 0 22 6,319,999
da
New 18 5 13 0 28 10,653,238
Ham
psh
ire
New 90 27 52 11 30 43,240,143
Jer
sey
New 16 8 5 3 50 6,213,593
Mex
ico
New 207 110 64 33 53 91,717,766
York
Nort 51 22 28 1 43 11,533,082
h
Car
oli
na
Nort 5 1 2 2 20 1,441,469
h
Dak
ota
Ohio 132 97 19 16 74 36,249,787
Okla 40 10 18 12 25 12,474,264
homa
Oreg 40 15 22 3 38 14,260,473
on
Penn 151 65 60 26 43 86,092,129
syl
van
ia
Rhod 24 20 0 4 83 7,373,583
e
Isl
and
Sout 17 8 8 1 47 6,693,075
h
Car
oli
na
Sout 9 0 5 4 0 1,023,405
h
Dak
ota
Tenn 45 19 22 4 42 21,739,147
ess
ee
Texa 150 67 64 19 45 82,885,582
s
Utah 14 1 12 1 7 4,406,576
Verm 20 4 5 11 20 5,451,528
ont
Virg 58 34 15 9 59 22,228,344
inia
Wash 128 73 52 3 57 23,269,906
ing
ton
West 10 1 9 0 10 8,147,289
Vir
gin
ia
Wisc 57 28 21 8 49 26,333,386
ons
in
Wyom 11 2 9 0 18 3,032,115
ing
================================================================================
Tota 3,011\a 1,413 1,247 351 47 $1,333,662,486
l
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Of the 3,011 applications that it received, HUD dropped 351
because they were incomplete, did not target the appropriate
population, or were otherwise ineligible for funding.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
========================================================== Appendix II
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's letter dated July 22, 1999.
GAO'S COMMENTS
1. We revised the report to include the language suggested by HUD.
2. We revised the report to clarify that most SHP applicants are
nonprofit organizations.
3. In response to HUD's comment, we reviewed our data on the
percentage of SHP applicants that did not provide us with information
on the number of homeless veterans they serve. We found that the
draft report sent to HUD misstated this percentage. In fact,
according to our data, almost 30 percent of SHP applicants could not
provide us with this information. We revised the final report
accordingly.
4. The objectives of our report were to provide information on (1)
the characteristics of Supportive Housing Program applicants, (2) the
types of programs and services for homeless people that this program
supports, (3) the importance of Supportive Housing Program grants to
applicants' programs for the homeless, and (4) the various funding
sources, in addition to Supportive Housing Program grants, that
applicants rely on for their programs and services for homeless
people. Consequently, no changes were made in response to this
comment.
5. We modified the report to better distinguish between the most
frequently cited reason and the other reasons cited by SHP applicants
for not applying for 1998 grants.
6. We made no change to the report in response to this comment
because we believe the report adequately acknowledges that funds
provided by state and local governments may include federal
pass-through dollars. While we agree with HUD that it would be
interesting to know how many federal dollars other than pass-through
funds are available to SHP grantees, this information would be
difficult to determine because, as we noted in the report,
organizations generally do not know what portion of their state and
local government funding originally comes from federal sources.
7. We revised the report, as appropriate, to incorporate the changes
suggested by HUD.
*** End of document. ***