Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
David N. Dtnltlnt
Mayot.,
Andrew M. (uodrd
Chairman .
February 1992
Commissioners
Mary Jo Bane
Malcolm Weiner Professor of Social Policy
Harvard University John F. Kennecfy /
School of Government
Verona Middleton-Jeter
Director
Henry Street Settlement Urban Family Center
Ralph Nunez
President and CEO
Homes For the Homeless
Michael Dowling
Director of Health, Education and Human Services
Office of the Governor
Larry S. Rhodes
Intake Counselor
Ready; Willing and Able
Ronald Gault
Managing Director
The First Boston Corporation
Jack Rudin
Chairman
Rudin Management Company, Inc.
Barbara Sabol
Commissioner
Human Resources Administration
Victor A. Kovner
Partner
Lankenau Kovner & Bickford
Jerry I. Speyer
President
Tishman Speyer Properties
James Krauskopf
Dean of the Graduate School of Management and
Urban Policy, New School for Social Research
Victor Marrero
Partner
Brown & Wood
Jane Velez
President
Project Return Foundation, Inc.
George McDonald
President
The Doe Fund, Inc.
Felice Michetti
Commissioner
Department of Housing, Preservation and
Development
-~
Nancy Wackstein
Executive Director
Lenox Hill Neighborhood Association
Frank G. Zarb
Chairman, President and CEO
Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. , Inc.
John Zuccotti
President and CEO
Olympia and York Companies (USA)
Mary Jo Bane
Andrew Cuomo
Michael Dowling
Jerome Goldsmith
Victor Kovner
James Krauskopf
Felice Michetti
....
Verona Middleton-Jeter
Ralph Nunez
Barbara Sabol
Bishop Joseph Sullivan
Jane Velez
Nancy Wackstein
Single Adults
Andrew Cuomo
Michael Dowling
Jerome Goldsmith
George McDonald
Felice Michetti
Larry Rhodes
Barbara Sabol.
.i
Permanent Housing/Finance
Alexander Cooper
Andrew Cuomo
Ronald Gault
George McDonald
Felice Michetti
Ralph Nunez
Jack Rudin
Barbara Sabol
Jerry Speyer
Frank Zarb
John Zuccotti
Legal
Andrew Cuomo
Victor Kovner
Victor Marrero
Barbara Sabol
John Zuccotti
Drafting*
Andrew Cuomo
Victor Kovner
George McDonald
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
'
'
Marsha Martin
Jean Norton
Sczerina Perot
Tasha Rogers
Eric Roth
William Shapiro
William Spiller
Nancy Travers
Brookdale Hospital Medical Center
City University of New York
Xerox Corporation
The Commission also would like to extend its thanks to the foliowing
individuals whose testimony guided the deliberations of the
Commission :
Attorney,
Legal Aid
Society's
Coordinator
for
Emergency
CONTENTS
PREFACE........... ................................ .. .................. ... ........ ........ 1
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION........... ... .. ....... ................... ..... .. 3
THE PROBLEM ..... .............. .. ....... ..... .. ... ......... ....... ............ 3
GOALS FOR POLICY REFORM ................................ ............. 11
POLICY REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 13
CHAPTER TWO - A BLUEPRINT FOR HOMELESS SINGLE ADULTS ... 1 9
BACKGROUND ............. .. ........... ...... .. ... .......................... ... 19
The Growing Reliance on the Not-for-Profit Sector ......... 19
Homeless Single Adults as a Forgotten Population ..... .... 21
Current System ..................................... ........... ... ...... 29
The Five Year Plan ... .... .. .. ........ .. .............. ..... .... ..... ... . 29
PROPOSED REFORM ....... .. ... ....... .. ... ..... .. ....... ...... .. .. ....... ... 31
Capability of the Not-for-Profit Sector .... .. ... ... .............. 34
Phase I - Reception ...... ... ............................... ............ 37
Phase II - Transitional. .... .... ... ......................... ....... .. ... 39
Persons with Mental Illness ......................... .... ... 39
Substance Abusers ............. ................. ............. 41
The Unemployed and Undereducated ...... ....... ...... 46
Persons with HIV/AIDS ....... .. .................. .... ...... . 54
Homeless People Residing in Public Spaces .......... 57
Phase Ill - Permanent Housing .. .. .. ............................... 63
CHAPTER THREE- A BLUEPRINT FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES ... ..... .. 65
BACKGROUND ....... .. .. ... .... ................ .... ....... ......... ............ 65
The Current System ................. ... ....... ... ...... ...... ... ...... 72
PROPOSED REFORM ....... .. ............... ................................ .. 76
Phase I - Reception .... ................ ................. : ...... ... ..... 80
Phase II - Transitional ................ ..... ...................... ...... 84
Phase Ill - Permanent Housing ..................................... 86
CHAPTER FOUR - PERMANENT HOUSING ...... ... ........................... 87
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ....................................... 90
PRIVATE SECTOR PROPOSAL. ....... .. ... ... .. ............... ... ....... .. 91
CREATIVE GOVERNMENT ......... ............. ........................ .... 93
Glossary
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix 8
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Selected Bibliography
4
6
20
23
25
27
36
42
44
51
66
67
'"7A
~--:1 : --
raiiiiiiC:> , . . . . , , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , . . .
IV
PREFACE
On September 12, 1991, Mayor David N. Dinkins, responding to the
growing crisis of homeless New Yorkers, appointed an independent
Commission on the Homeless. The Commission was directed to review, in
an advisory capacity, New York City's existing and proposed policies and
programs for addressing the problem of homelessness. The Commission's
mandate was to make specific recommendations for the future direction of
these efforts by formulating a blueprint for action.
The direction for progressive policy reform was set forth by Mayor
Dinkins, when he stated:
Since the release of the Five Year Plan and the beginning of the
Cuomo Commission hearings, the issue of homelessness has
been very much on everyone's mind. Of the many difficulties
that urban America must confront, few are more tragic and
discouraging than homeless ness . . . . I have a commitment to
fashion a shelter system that works better, a system that uses
smaller facilities with targeted social services, a system that
will really begin tq solve the problem of homelessness.
Mayor Dinkins was well aware of the challenge he had presented to
Commission members. His concern for, knowledge of, and actions on
behalf of the homeless pre-date his time as Mayor. He knew we would
have to wrestle with complex and troubling social issues, byzantine
procedures, and a bureaucracy that was 20 years in the making.
In the space of a few short months, we have interviewed experts,
held extensive public hearings (see Appendix A), reviewed the research
literature on homelessness, and conducted one of the most comprehensive
surveys of shelter residents undertaken in the nation. This substantial data
gathering effort informed the necessarily complex deliberations of the
members of the Commission about a problem that touches not only the
poorest of the poor, but all New Yorkers.
The United States Conference of Mayors , Raymond L. Flynn, Mayor of Boston, President, "A Status
Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 1991 (A 28-City Survey)".
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
THE PROBLEM
New York City has long been a national leader in providing assistance
to homeless families and individuals. Food programs, emergency shelter, a
growing array of transitional living programs and associated services, as
well as permanent housing targeted to homeless people, all reflect the
commitment of New Yorkers and their government to address this tragic
problem. In its expense budget alone, New York City now spends more
than $200 million a year on the problem of homelessness, while the State
contributes almost as much and the federal government contributes barely
half that amount. This does not even include the hundreds of millions of
capital dollars invested by the City and State with, alas, virtually no capital
contribution from the federal government.
Over the past decade, a
remarkable $2 billion in government funds have been directed toward the
problem of New Yorkers without homes. In addition, uncounted, but not
unnoticed, are the heroic efforts of volunteers and the substantial charitable
contributions of both businesses and average citizens. New York has not
looked the other way in the face of obvious human need.
500 .
0
198,983.
1984.
198~986..
1987 988
1
1989
S ingles
19901991
19921993
Note: Amount includes funding received from N.Y.S. and the Federal Government
D~spite
Introduction
within to reform
were added to
was expanded.
that much more
Our work began with rigorous, systematic analysis. Despite the fact
that homelessness has been recognized as a problem for over a decade -and that it exists in cities and towns throughout the nation -- there is
remarkably little useful data on the characteristics of those without a place
to live. While there have been several studies of considerable quality, most
are dated and insufficient to support informed recommendations capable of
easing this crisis. Commission members have been struck by how much of
the discussion about homelessness may be ill-informed and misguided.
This dearth of current, reliable information about the causes of
homelessness is at least partially responsible for the superficiality of the
public debate on the issue, and has allowed discussion to be driven
primarily by ideology and politics rather than by facts.
Who are the Homeless?
Shelter
Population
7,545
Total
Percent
1.477
31%
6%
6.568
8,569
24,159
36%
100%
27%
Shelter Population
35%
27%
18 Single Females B
Family Adults
Ill
Children
Introduction
Family Shelters
Non Tier II
Tier II
Family Total
46%
10%
14%
27%
12%
37%
9%
28%
22%
17%
Single Shelters
Men
Women
45%
10%
16%
26%
13%
45%
12%
23%
12%
13%
55%
3%
26%
16%
9%
Single Total
47%
11%
24%
12%
12%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Non Tier II
Money
Tier II
Family Total
Drugs/Alcohol
Personal
Men
ffil
Single Total
Women
Housing
Other
Society has always had its "haves" and "have-nots," but poverty in
the past was perceived to be a temporary condition, not a life sentence. In
New York and other large urban centers, this is no longer the case. By the
1990's, New York's manufacturing base, which had offered low-skill jobs
with decent benefits and livable wages, had all but disappeared. In its place
is a service economy that offers the unskilled low-wages and dead-end
positions . This change has had a devastating effect on young, often
minority, males and their families and is often cited as a contributing factor
Introduction
10
mainstream social and economic life, and who now find themselves without
the basic social or economic skills necessary to survive independently.
Dead end benefits, particularly when combined with the torpor of
barracks style shelter, or the degrading charity of a soup kitchen, often
encourage dependency.
The Commission also recognizes the legal structure upon which the
shelter system was constructed during the 1980's when the phenomenon
of the new homeless first confronted New Yorkers. This was at the very
same time that the federal government virtually abandoned its traditional
commitment to the construction of public housing. Following the consent
decree entered into in Callahan v . Carey (Sup . Ct., N.Y. County, Index No.
42582/79) in 1981, and since the First Department's decision in McCain v.
Koch, 117 A.D. 2d 198 (1986), government has, in effect, been obliged to
provide emergency shelter to all eligible persons with no viable housing
alternative .1 Furthermore, although the Commission recognizes the urgent
need for more affordable, permanent housing, there is no statutory or
constitutional entitlement to such housing. In view of the substantial fiscal
implications of any mandate to provide permanent housing, only the
legislative branch is equipped to balance the many competing interests that
would lead to the creation of an entitlement to permanent housing.
To summarize, the shelter system inherited by Mayor Dinkins flat out
does not work. Unsafe and expensive shelters that fail as a housina
resource and provide too few services and too little hope of future
independence make no sense in light of what we now know about
homelessness. The current system must be seen as the failure it is and be
restructured.
Although the issue of the right to shelter has never been finally adjudicated, the Callahan consent
decree does have the force of law. It should be noted, however, that the Callahan consent decree is limited
to New York City.
Introduction
11
2.
The emergency system must provide decent and humane shelter and
work to decrease dependency, not encourage it~
Intelligent
assessment and equitable resource allocation are essential. The goal
must be to remove families from congregate shelters and welfare
hotels and end the use of large, barracks style shelters for homeless
single adults.
While the City does not have a legal obligation to provide permanent housing, the Commission
recommends that permanent housing remain one of the City's highest discretionary priorities.
12
3.
4.
The process for siting facilities needed for those who are homeless
must be workable and intelligent. Siting decisions should be made on
the basis of program needs and accommodate legitimate community
concerns.
The mechanism must address the concerns of the
community and enable programs to be sited in a timely fashion.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction
13
14
Introduction
15
!
I
16
Introduction
17
18
2.
3.
Reception Center
Transitional:
- Mental Health (Transitional Residence)
- Substance Abuse Treatment
- Unemployment and Undereducation (B.A.S.I.C.S.)
- HIV/AIDS
- Outreach to Homeless Persons in Public Places
Permanent:
- Permanent (S .R.O.)
- Permanent/Supported (New York/New York)
Family System
1.
2.
3.
Reception Center
Transitional - Residential Independent Living Program (R.I.L.)
Permanent- Rental Assistance Plan (Housing Now!)
CHAPTER TWO
BACKGROUND
While homelessness in one form or another has always been with us,
in recent years a new type of homelessness has emerged. In the late
seventies, the homeless population dramatically changed. The "new
homeless" consisted of young men and a growing number of young women
with children. Government was ill equipped to handle this new
phenomenon. The traditional social service alternatives to government -the voluntary and not-for-profit organizations -- had limited experience and
expertise in the field, and were not prepared to address the problem.
For a myriad of economic and social reasons, the new homeless
population continued to multiply and the press and the public soon noticed
the systemic failure .to either halt the increase or assist successfully those
who were homeless. The expanded use of welfare hotels and armories
came to symbolize the inadequacy, inhumanity and waste of government's
response. The families and children who were homeless aroused public
sympathy.
The issue began to receive unprecedented publicity and
provoked mounting criticism of government's ineffective response.
By the mid-eighties, not-for-profits had recognized this growing need
and began to fill the void. Voluntary organizations, large and small, tried to
20
tackle the problem and this not-for-profit effort was linked with government
funds and private sector sophistication in so-called public/private
partnerships. Not-for-profits moved aggressively to assist the homeless
family population, utilizing the federal entitlement programs, Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (A.F.D.C.) and Emergency Assistance to Families
(EAF). Previously, A.F.D.C. funds were being used primarily to pay the
exorbitant costs of welfare hotels.
Not-for-profits provided alternative
housing utilizing these previously squandered resources.
By the late eighties, because of government funds, new financing
mechanisms and heightened public awareness, not-for-profits had provided
thousands of units and helped the City to reduce its reliance on welfare
hotels. In addition to being quickly developed, these new units were
attractive, safe, and provided social services.
Hundreds of millions of
dollars of transitional housing were completed in a four to five year period.
I
l
11!11 Males
Females
21
Homeless single adults were not as fortunate. There was far less
effort on their behalf although their plight was as bad, if not worse, than
that of the homeless family population . Although the need for "transitional"
social services was greater among the singles population, their needs
received only a fraction of the attention that was to be focused on the
family population.
The reasons behind the lack of attention to homeless single adults are
complex. First, there were no funding streams comparable to A.F.D.C. and
EAF, and therefore little money available to serve this population .
Moreover, the homeless single population did not receive the same public
attention as the family population, nor the same level of sympathy.
The absurd waste and inhumanity that existed in the welfare hotels
10 years ago exists in the single shelter system today. The cost of a simple
cot in a shelter has reached an unbelievable $18,000 per year. (A New
York Newsday editorial on January 19,1992 compared the cost of a cot in
a singles shelter with the $20,665 needed for tuition, room and board for a
year at Harvard University.) Findings from the Commission's survey of
approximately 500 homeless single adults demonstrate the inadequacy and
incongruity of the shelter approach.
The Commission's survey found very high levels of drug abuse,
mental illness and .i nvolvement with the criminal justice system among
single residents. Appendix 8 contains the complete analysis while some of
the most important findings are summarized below:
Most of the single shelter residents were male (83%), 30 years
or older (72%), and minority group members (94%). Over half
(51%) had been in jail or prison at some time. About half
(48%) were receiving public assistance.
Female and male
single shelter residents differed very little by age or minority
22
I
I
I
group status. However, a .smaller proportion of female shelter
residents were Hispanic (6% vs. 19% respectively) and fewer
had been in jail or prison at some time (29% vs. 55%).
23
Families
67%
21%
8%
4%
100%
Single Men
38%
12%
27%
23%
100%
Single Women
41 %
17%
23%
19%
100%
Fully two thirds of homeless families in the City's shelter system became homeless within
the past year, while about 60% of the single adults have been homeless for more than
one year.
80
60
Single Women
Before
1986
1989
24
\
f
I
I
25
Males
Females
Total
15%
23%
16%
8%
56%
81%
8%
12%
52%
75%
14%
9%
55%
80%
9%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Employed
Full-Time
now
Males
Employed
in last year
Females
Employed
in lest 3
years
Never
Employed
T otel
26
4
The Commission has information on drug abuse from two different sources: 1 ) the Commission
survey (self-reported), and 2) a urinalysis conducted by the Commission under the auspices of Brookdale
Hospital.
I
~
I
27
Total
Men
Women
Clinic
Hospitalized
Prescription Medication
Clinic, Hospital , Medicine
18%
12%
13%
22%
15%
9%
10%
18%
37%
27%
26%
42%
21%
29%
17%
28%
41%
38%
General Health
Chronic Problem
Hosipitalized in past 2 years
Mental Health
General Health
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Clinic
Hospitalized
Prescription
medication
Total
Clinic,
Hospital,
Medicine
OMen
Chronic
Problem
Women
Hospitalized
in past 2
years
28
5
Among the substances tested for was alcohol.
positive for alcohol.
29
In October, 1991, the City proposed a plan of action. The Five Year
Plan proposes the construction of 24 new shelters. The new shelters
6
This Commission heard testimony from several shelter residents who claimed that H.R.A. shelter
personnel were physically and verbally abusive and engaged in drug sales. This Commission has no additional
information regarding the matter and is not in a position to either confirm or discredit the testimony.
30
31
PROPOSED REFORM
32
33
5. Downsize Government.
Downsize H.R.A. and create a new
smaller entity to both develop and manage the entire system.
The Commission's recommendations are based on a number of
interrelated considerations:
34
35
0)
fleoepllon Center
Short Stay, A .. eumont end Roforrol
Ouueeoh Center
Short Stey Referred by Outrooch Teem
-4
=r
(1)
:E
Q)
<
:I:
0
3
,(1)
1
Agroeeto . .flllo..
flefuo. . . .fllloeo
I
lhelter
lubetenoe Abuoo
30'll., lntonelvo Trootmont
Pormonent Houelng
I.A.I.I.C.I.
40')(,, Eduo1tfon 1nd Job Skill
. -:. . l
AIDI ftooldenoe
Pormonent Houolng
Now York/Now York
Pormonont
Supported Houtlng
Pormonont Houolng
37
PHASE I - RECEPTION
The initial goal of the shelter system is the most basic: to provide
emergency shelter in a safe, secure setting that welcomes the individual
from the street. No person should remain outside for lack of a safe
alternative. The Reception Center, which would function as the point of
entry into the emergency system for single adults, should provide that
alternative. At the Reception Center, each adult will be assigned a case
manager.
The case manager's responsibilities will include eligibility
determination, needs assessment and, when appropriate, referral to a
residential independent treatment program.
Eligibility
Eligibility should continue to be based on existing criteria: financial
need and a lack of a viable housing alternative. Documentation of financial
need will be that which is required for Home Relief. Case managers should
be available to assist applicants for emergency housing with the acquisition
of necessary documents. In addition, the case manager will coordinate the
investigation into the applicant's housing alternatives. Family reunification,
eviction prevention, including arranging for legal representation in housing
court, and other prevention efforts will be pursued.
38
I
J
I
7
A team composed of qualified professionals would assess the individual and make a referral
determination. Such a determination should be made pursuant to criteria established by the new City entity.
(See Administration chapter herein.) The new enitity should consult with appropriate professionals and
providers in promulgating the crit eria.
39
CONTINUUM OF CARE
RECEPTION CENTER-- T.R.9 --PERMANENT/SUPPORTED S.R.O. or C.R.1 0
8
The needs of those persons with mental illness who reside in public spaces are addressed in a
subsequent section of this chapter -- Homeless People Residing in Public Spaces.
9
T.R. --Transitional Residence.
10
C.R.- Community Residence.
40
11
Katina Zachmanoglou, Chair, Housing Committee Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Friends and Advocates
for the Mentally Ill.
41
Substance Abusers
While Commission test data show that 65% of the singles population
use drugs or alcohol, their treatment needs may vary widely. There is no
one appropriate program model. As David C. Condliffe, Director of the
Mayor's Office of Drug Abuse Policy, correctly pointed out in testimony to
the Commission:
12
42
Percentage
Testing Positive
Specialized
Assessment
General
Total Singles
Number of
Tests
39%
184
63%
32
309
525
80%
65%
Number of
Positive Results
72
20
248
340
'
90% .
/
..
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% /
30% /
20%~
i
10%~
I
0% '
Specialized
Assessment
General
Total Singles
Source : Tests Conducted by the Commission on the Homeless and Brookdale Hospital (January 1992)
43
44
Drug
1%
Amphetamines
Cocaine
83%
4%
Opiates
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
Phencyclidine (PCP)
Alcohol
30%
0%
11%
Amphetamines
Cocaine
Opiates
CTHCI
(PCP)
Alcohol
Note: The presence of more than one drug per individual causes the percentage total to exceed 100%.
A similar effort must be mounted for homeless adults who suffer from
alcoholism. The State Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, in concert
with the City Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and
Alcoholism Services, should actively encourage local plans/budget requests
from experienced not-for-profit alcoholism provider agencies to operate
programs and services for homeless adults. These programs should be
based in specialized residential independent living programs that also
include other independent living skills development opportunities.
l
J
45
13
Based on 1989 figures from the New York Division of Substance Abuse Services.
46
B.A.S.I.C.S.
(Basic Autonomy Skills and Independent Career Services)
Although a large proportion of homeless single adults suffer from drug
or alcohol problems, these addictions actually are ancillary problems for a
substantial percentage of the population. For this group, chemical
dependency may be more the result of unemployment and homelessness
than its cause.
This population consists primarily of young men who are victims of
family dysfunction and the extreme poverty of their communities. Many
have had no meaningful education, are in some cases functionally illiterate,
and are without job skills. Their job prospects are, at best, limited to a lowpaying job in a service economy.
These young people need a place in our society. If the private sector
cannot absorb them directly into the workforce, then it may be up to
government to step in as it has done at similar times in the past. The
phenomenon of displaced men is not new, but has been present at different
points in our nation's history. Nor is this Commission the first to reach
such a conclusion . A 1983 report of the Governor's Task Force on the
Homeless found the same concern:
Decent jobs and relevant job-training are vital to remedy this
lack. The private market itself, if current trends are any
indication, is no answer: many of the homeless are but poorly
skilled and are little able to command entry-level positions in
today's economy. A public works program, paying minimum
wage and (it is to be hoped) training individuals in marketable
skills -- at least on a demonstration basis -- is urgently in
order.
47
The best "therapy" for these individuals is a basic one: work. These
individuals need a fundamental education and job skills to secure the
independence and dignity provided by a job.
Model programs to assist this group already exist and creative
approaches are showing success. For example, the Doe Fund's Ready,
Willing and Able Program takes single men out of shelters and provides
them with construction jobs rehabilitating City in rem housing. The City
currently places a small number of shelter youth in an upstate Job Corps
program. This experimental initiative has proven successful. Such program
activities actually save money. Efforts such as these should be expanded.
(See Creative Government herein.)
In addition, the Commission recommends the developme':"'t of a new,
comprehensive residential program to help these young people toward selfsufficiency.
The program, modeled after the successful Job Corps
program, is called B.A.S.I.C.S. (Basic Autonomy Skills and Independent
Career Services). It would provide a supportive residential environment in
which education, job training and, where necessary, medical care and
counseling, would be provided. The aim of the program is to enable an
individual to be job-ready and benefit from the dignity and independence
provided by work.
B.A.S.I.C.S. should consist of three components: (1) when
necessary, short-term intensive substance abuse treatment; (2) a school for
career development; and (3) a transition to employment, and assistance in
securing permanent housing.
48
STEP 1:
49
l,
50
t
l
B.A.S.LC.S.
1. MAIN ENTRY
2. COMMUNITY CENTER
51
52
!t
I
53
14
54
15
16
55
56
57
58
59
18
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
or
permanent
Project HELP is unrelated to H.E.L.P., Housing Enterprise for the Less Privileged, headed by Andrew
Cuomo.
19
Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Programs (CPEP) are licensed by the State Office of Mental
Health to provide a full range of psychiatric emergency services to persons thought to be mentally ill. The
program, which is a component of a general hospital emergency room , provides a primary entry point into the
mental health system for a defined geographic area. CPEPs provide crisis intervention, assessment, mobile
crisis outreach services, crisis residential services, beds for extended observation, triage and referral. CPEPs
are required to have agreements for access to inpatient beds with a range of community service providers.
60
.
Outreach Centers
The Commission recommends a significant increase in the
development of street outreach programs. The new City entity should
contract with non-profits to develop a capacity to engage homeless
individuals.
Project Reach-Out is a successful program worthy of
duplication. These outreach efforts should be systematically coordinated so
that the major areas in the City where homeless people congregate are
included.
Outreach teams should identify those individuals in their catchment
area who appear to suffer significant physical health, mental health or
chemical addiction problems. It is likely that many such individuals will
suffer from all three problems. It is also likely that many homeless people
living in public places will be extremely difficult to engage in services .
Some mentally ill people are paranoid and fear any and all contacts with
"officials." Patient efforts to build trust will be required, sometimes over
many months. Once an outreach team has successfully engaged such an
individual, the objective is to encourage that person to enter a "safe place."
The Commission calls it an Outreach Center.
Outreach Centers must be located in areas relatively proximate to
where street people congregate. 20 Otherwise, travel to distant facilities will
increase resistance to accepting assistance.
Outreach Centers, for
approximately 50 people, should be staffed by physicians, psychiatrists,
professional mental health workers, and substance abuse counselors.
Outreach Centers should be available only to individuals brought in by
outreach workers. Some homeless people living in public places may
require several visits to a center before agreeing to spend the night.
20
An Outreach Center may be annexed to a T.R. to provide economy of scale and ease of operation;
however, the Outreach Center must remain separate and distinct from the T.R.
I
J
61
21
Of course, some individuals may need to remain in the Outreach Center for a longer period of time.
62
63
64
The Commission outlines a plan herein which, not only would add
approximately 1,1 00 transitional beds to the 2,500 the City has proposed,
but also would provide $55.5 million in savings from the Five Year Plan
which should be allocated to provide an additional 763 permanent units. A
more detailed description of the Commission's approach is in the chapter on
Cost.
CHAPTER THREE
BACKGROUND
The Commission's survey documented in substantial detail the
significant range of problems that bring families to the door of the
emergency shelter system. There is, however,__g_ commoo ne,.?d: affordable
housing, of which there is a shortage. In New York, as in other large cities,
histories of unstable~ ousmg arrangements are typically combined with
problems of family dysfunction, teen parenting, long-term welfare
dependence, untreated mental illness, lack of proper education and
substance abuse. For example, the Commission's survey found that almost
30% of the families reported being affected directly by substance abuse
and that 45% of the parents lacked a high school diploma.
The characteristics of homeless families reflect the increasingly
grinding and persistent nature of contemporary urban poverty.
This situation was not unexpected. Indicators of this type of poverty
were foreshadowed in the work of early social scientists and authors such
as Jacob Riis and Michael Harrington. More recent work on the persistence
of urban poverty by such scholars as William Julius Wilson tends to confirm
our worst fears .
Indeed, U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who
appeared before the Commission, announced that over 50% of the City's
children born in 1 980 are projected to be on welfare before the age of 1 8.
66
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Peak Number
Of Families
2,416
3,255
4,046
4,608
5,206
5,226
4,574
3,875
4,843
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
67
Family Experiences
Public
Assistance
Physical/Sexual
Abuse
Foster Care
Drug/Alcohol
Abuse
68
69
70
Percentage
Testing Positive
Tier II
Non -Tier II
27%
34%
Total Families
29%
Tier II
Number of
Number of
Tests
Positive Results
331
164
495
88
66
144
Non -Tier II
Total Families
Source: Tests conducted by the Commission on the Homeless and Brookdale Hospital (January 1 992)
The quality of life and living conditions of very poor New York City
families make it unsurprising that large numbers would be forced to seek
the possibility to improve their current living conditions through even the
meager offerings of a congregate shelter or a shabby welfare hotel room .
But it does not have to be this way. Bronx Borough President Fernando
Ferrer stated it well when he testified,
New York City has the capacity to develop a . . . [policy] which
will not become a political football nor institutionalize poverty,
nor create a permanent underclass; rather, such a policy must
involve all New Yorkers in solving one of society's most
devastating problems in a compassionate and practical way.
71
Drug
5%
55%
7%
38%
Amphetamines
Cocaine
Opiates
THC
PCP
Alcohol
0%
12%
Amphetamines
Cocaine
Opiates
(THC)
(PCP)
Alcohol
Source: Tests conducted by t he Commission on the Homeless and Brookdale Hospital (January 1 992)
72
The use of Tier I and Tier II facilities as well as hotels is funded in part pursuant to A .F.D.C. under a
formula by which the federal government contributes 50% of the cost and the State and City each contribute
25%.
23
Weighted costs of Auburn, Catherine, East Third, 151 st St. as of January, 1992, as reported by
H.R.A.
24
Currently, capital construction costs are depreciated through the A .F.D.C. funding stream. Upon
satisfaction of the mortgage, the notfor-profit owns the property and improvements thereon free and clear.
The Commission finds this to be an unjust enrichment. Taxpayer funds are utilized to pay for construction
costs and there is no legitimate basis for such a windfall to the not-for-profit. There are cases in which such
a w indfall may be in the tens of millions of dollars. Upon satisfaction of the underlying mortgage, title should
vest in the City or the not-for-profit should be afforded the opportunity to purchase the property.
73
average of $75 per room per day. 25 After inheriting a system with
approximately 1,500 families in hotels at the end of 1989, Mayor Dinkins
was able to dramatically reduce the number of families in hotels to about
150 in August 1990. Placing thousands of homeless families, many of
whom had only recently entered-r e s e ter system-, -,~n"'ro=--'ermanent
25
26
Source: H.R.A. While this is an average, some hotel rooms cost in excess of $125 per day.
Not all Commission members agreed with this premise.
74
Number of Families
926
227
440
3,230
4,823
Percentage
19.20%
4.71%
9.12%
66.97%
100%
9.12%
Hotels
Special Residences
ili.lJ
Tier I Facilities
Tier II Facilities
27
The demand for housing in the City is tremendous. An estimated 600,000 people are on the waiting
list for New York City Housing Authority units. H.P.O. estimates that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000
people are living in doubled-up conditions. Plainly, the emergency shelter system can never serve all of those
living in crowded circumstances, and must limit itself to helping only those without a viable housing
alternative.
75
may be "doubled up," their current s.ituation, while not optimal, is viable.
Accordingly, they believe that some families enter the emergency system to
improve their housing situation. A corollary to this theory is that the design
of the system itself brings in many families.
A system that offers
unregulated shelter, such as a hotel room or easily available permanent
housing, attracts more families to enter.
Whichever theory is accepted, the fact remains that the current
system is fatally flawed as demand exceeds resources. The emergency
system simply was not created nor designed to provide fully subsidized
permanent housing to all who ask.
Moreover, there currently are no
intelligent or uniform criteria to establish needs or priorities for this scarce
resource. As one witness described it to the Commission, "the system is
essentially first come, first serve; if you can stand the wait." The result is
that the emergency system has become overloaded with few exiting into
permanent housing. The system is burdensome to the family and expensive
for the taxpayer.
Even for those who successfully negotiate the system and obtain
permanent housing, the question remains as to whether they have been
adequately assisted.
The system was not, and is not, designed to
empower a family to escape persistent poverty and dependence on
government programs. It is simply another expensive handout. According
to H.P.D., a full 50% of homeless families presently applying for permanent
housing were previously placed by the City into permanent housing.2s
There are a great many families who require assistance in independent
living before they can be placed in permanent housing. As one official told
the Commission, "We're seeing the same families again and again; we're
not helping them and we're wasting money."
There is little doubt that the system needs radical change.
28
For every two families HRA places without screening in HPD permanent housing, one previously
placed family returns from HPD housing to the shelter system.
76
PROPOSED REFORM
Of course, no level of government, and certainly not City government, has a legal obligation to
provide permanent housing. However, we urge that all levels of government make available discretionary
funds for this purpose.
77
for social services or a mandated waiting period for these families. The
delay imposes an undue hardship on the family and an unnecessary
expense on the taxpayer: while an apartment for a family of four can be
rented for approximately $700 per month; the monthly cost of a Tier II is
$3,000 and the monthly cost of a Tier I is $4,300. 30
The second and far more common situation presented is for those
families who need some form of social service assistance before moving to
permanent housing. While Part 900 provides for some social services in
Tier II facilities, they are neither intensive nor targeted.
Commissioner Peter Brest of New York State Department of Social
Services provided insightful testimony when he stated:
The need is for a more service intensive model. Whether the
needs of families have changed since the regulations were
being developed, or whether these needs were underestimated
in the first place, there is no question that many families require
more than simply transitional housing and basic services.
Among the trends that we see among homeless families, the
following all argue for significant changes in the shelter system:
single-parent households who have little or no experience
in living independently;
the number of families with children in foster care;
the lack of educational attainment and work experience;
the rise in substance abuse;
the rise in AIDS and HIV-related illness.
Tho~gh
30
78
en
.....
Family System
(I)
Reception Center
E
('0
LL.
(I)
(I)
Q)
a;
E
0
l:
...0
...c
'+-
c.
Q)
~
as
<(
Permanent Housing
Permanent Housing
---
Shelter
80
PHASE I - RECEPTION
31
The Commission recommends that Tier I facilities, hotels and EAU's be replaced by: a)
implementation of Reception Centers and b) making Tier II units available by moving eligible families currently
in Tier II facilities to permanent housing utilizing The Housing Now! rental assistance plan outlined herein.
Cost
113
Monthly
Annually
500 Units
1000 Units
3000 Units
Total Cost
$700
$8.400
$4,200.000
$8,400,000
$25,200,000
Subtotal
less State Share
$544
$272
$6,528
$3,264
$3,264,000
$1,632,000
$6,528,000
$3,264,000
$19,584,000
$9,792,000
Total Cost
Per Unit
Monthly
Annually
500 Units
1000 Units
3000 Units
$3,000
$36.000
$18,000,000
$36,000,000
$108,000,000
City Cost of
Housing Now!
$272
$3,264
$1,632,000
$3,264,000
$9,792,000
Net City
Savlnas
$478
$5,736
$2,868,000
$5,736,000
$17,208,000
City~Developed Permanent Housing Units Compared to Housing Now ! Rental Assistance Program
Total Cost
Monthly
Annually
500 Units
1000 Units
3000 Units
$745" 0
$8,940
$4.470.000
$8,940,000
$26,820,000
City Cost of
Housing Now!
$272
$3,264
$1,632,000
$3,264,000
$9,792,000
Net City
Savinas
$239
$2,868
$1 ,.4 34.000
$2,868,000
$8,604,000
55 For a family of four, the shelter allowance is $312 per month and the federal share Is 50%.
56 Source: New York City Department of Housing, Preservation and Development and Smith Bamey. Includes
debt service, M&O and current foregone value of the federal section 8 voucher.
114
CHAPTER EIGHT
ADMINISTRATION
The current administration of the emergency shelter system is far
from perfect. Costs are exorbitant, with taxpayers paying $18,000 per
year for a cot in an armory and almost $53,000 per year to keep a family in
a congregate Tier I facility. This is absurd.
In addition to reduced costs, the new system must ensure improved
access to, and coordination of, existing government programs and fundi ng
streams. Currently, responsibility for homeless services is managed in
several areas of government. Those wishing to provide services must
spend valuable time and resources navigating the bureaucracy.
Service providers and emergency shelter operators should not be
forced to reconcile the conflicting demands and requirements of various
government departments -- on either the City or t he State level -- in order to
assist the homeless. Housing and social services, as well as mental health
and substance abuse services, all are handled by separate government
agencies with no one coordinating body to help the homeless. Perhaps one
reason that there has been no effective response to homelessness is
because no one entity has been charged with solving the problem.
(
'
The plan outlined herein is a rad ical departure from current operations
However, a system's design is only as good as its
and proposals.
implementation. The administration of the emergency system, therefore,
must change to reflect its new reality.
116
While the Commission agreed on the need for the new entity, the
Commission did not agree-as tO whether the new -entity should be a City
agency or a public benefit corporation -- an authority.
The advantages of an authority were said to include: the ability to
more readily involve the private sector in construction design and
supervision; enhanced financing ability through bonding capacity; and
increased administrative continuity as a result of term appointments of
58 There was one dissent and one abstention ftom this recommendation.
Ad m inist ration
117
118
The federal government must honor the responsibility it has failed to honor
for the last ten years. Only once a massive low-income housing program is
initiated will New York City truly be on the road to ending homelessness.
Glossary
GLOSSARY
As proposed by the
Appendix A
Commission Hearings Witness List
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 .
2.
3.
4.
A-1
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Januarv 7. 1 992
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A-2
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
A-3
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
44.
45 .
46.
A-4
4 7.
48.
49.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11'
12
13.
A-5
14.
15.
16.
17.
Vera Hasner, All iance for the Mentally Ill of New York State
18.
19.
A6
Appendix 8
Survey Methodology, Results and Questionnaire
INTRODUCTION
In order to learn more about the homeless individuals in the New York City shelter
system, a survey invoMng detailed personal interviews with approximately 1000
individuals currently residing in the system was jointly sponsored by the Commission on
the Homeless and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. The survey was
conducted under the supervision of the Center for Social Research at the City University
of New York. Section I below discusses the survey methodology, while Section II reports
the major findings.
I. METHODOLOGY
Information was gathered from approximately 1000 residents in New York City's
homeless shelters. To increase sampling efficiency, 20 of the 138 shelters were first
selected to participate in this study, and then individuals within those 20 shelters were
selected for interviews. The methodology for selecting the 20 shelters and for selecting
individuals within those shelters is described below.
Site Selection
In order to obtain a representative sample, while maximizing the efficiency of the survey
operation, homeless shelters were divided into a number of categories and then a
proportionate number of shelters from each category was selected into the sample. The
two main categories of shelters were:
o
o
assessment facilities,
specialized facilities (veterans, employable, etc.), and
general facilities.
so.
Specific shelters were randomly selected, based on the size of their resident population.
Each shelter had one chance for selection into the sample per each 50 individuals or
families in the shelter. For example, a shelter with 180 families would have four chances
for selection, since the population was rounded to the dosest 50. Larger shelters had
greater representation in the pool, and therefore, a greater chance of being selected.
B- 1
Respondent Selection
Wrthin selected shelters, specific individuals were chosen for interviews through the
following process:
a) To ensure the anonymity of individuals, and to reduce the potential bias that could
result from self-selection, individuals were identified by their room, bed, or meal
card numbers, not by name. This list of numbers served as the sampling frame
for each facility. Numbers were verified by the staff of the facility 1n order to
eliminate cheating or duplication of respondents.
b) The total number of individuals or families in the shelter was divided by the
number of interviews. scheduled to be collected from that shelter. This figure is
the sampling fraction (k) for that ~cility. Wrth few exceptions, the sampling
traction was the same in each facility.
.
c) As a first step, one individual was randomly selected to participate in the survey.
The rest of the sample was obtained systematical~ by picking every kill individual
on the sampling frame, subsequent to the first indiVidual who had been randomly
selected.
This procedure produced the desired number of interviews per slte, while minimizing the
potential tor bias.
Survey Administration
The survey was administered under the supervision of the Center for Social Research at
City University of New York. In addition to the procedures outlined above, several
additional steps were taken to promote the conection of valid and reliable data and to
ensure the confidentiality of respondents.
Administrators at shelters selected for participation in the stuc;ty were asked to prepare
for the survey in a number of ways. Shelter clientele were told 1n advance that they had
been selected at random to take part in an anonymous survey. Each shelter provided a
separate space where the interviewer and interviewee could speak privately to one
another. Extra staff were provided to maintain order. In family shelters, day care was
provided.
Three steps were taken to promote the quality of the interviews. First, interviewers were
trained prior to data collection. Second, supervisors were available while interviews were
being conducted to provide oversiQht, answer questions, and respond to unusual
situations. Third, at least one of the Interviewers at each slte was proficient in Spanish
and a Spanish version of the survey was available.
1AJ a few faclities. all shelter residenls were asked to participate in order to recelve the necessary quota ol
completed surveys.
B-2
More than three-quarters of the respondents in family shelters were female, while
most respondents in singles shelters were male (83%).
The heads of families in family shelters are much younger than the residents of
single shelters. Approximately half of respondents in family shelters are between
the ages of 20 and 29. On the other hand, over 70"A. of the single shelter
residents (male and female) are 30 years of age or older.
Regardless of the type of shelter, most shelter residents are black: 76% of those
in single shelters and 61% of those in family shelters. Hispanics accounted for the
next largest share of shelter residents: 17% of those in single shelters and 30% of
those in family shelters. Less than 10% of shelter residents were white or of other
races, such as Native Americans or Asian and Pacific islanders. This distribution
is not representative of the New York City population. According to the 1990
census, 43% of New York City residents are non-Hispanic white, 25% are black,
and 24% are Hispanic.
Residents of single shelters are less likely to be married than residents of family
shelters. Nearly three-quarters of the residents of single shelters have never been
married and an additional 21% are divorced or separated. Just 4% are currently
married. In contrast, 46% of the family heads in family shelters are married or
living with someone.
Shelter residents were only slightly less educated than the general population.
According to the 1980 census, 63% of the New York State population age 25+
had at least a high school education and 33% had at least some college. In family
shelters, 55% had completed high school and 13% had some college. Wrthin the
single shelters, men were less educated than women. More than 40% of the men
had not completed high school, compared with less than 30% of the women.
Alternatively, just 20% of the men had completed some college, while nearly 30%
of the women had some college.
Residents of family shelters were much more likely to have had children (97%)
than residents of single shelters (60%). Within single shelters, women were less
likely to have had children (51%) than men (61%).
More than 40% of the family heads in family shelters reported having had three or
more children. Nationally, 27% of all women with children report having three or
more children.
Nearly half of the respondents in family shelters had children who were under the
age of two. Approximately three-quarters of these families had a child who was
B-3
under the age of six. Nationally, only 38% of families with children have children
under the age of six.
o
Women in single shelters were more likely to have experienced childhood distress
than the male residents. Women were much more likely to have reported being
physically abused (31% vs. 13%) or sexually abused (17% vs. 1%). Additionally,
women were more likely than men to have been in foster care (17% vs. 9%).
Almost all family shelter residents reported receiving public assistance (92%)
compared to about half (48%) of single shelter residents.
Male residents of single shelters were more likely to have ever been In jail (55%)
than either female residents of single shelters (29%) or respondents in lamily
shelters (15%). They were also more likely to have been in jail during the
precedlng year (26% of male single shelter residents vs. 20% for female singles,
or 7% for family shelter residents).
B-4
Men
Sl!!!lll Sh11t!il
Women
Total
(71)
(430)
(501)
(414)
(85)
(499)
29%
23%
24%
100%
0
()'!(,
100
83%
17
RESPONDENT CHARACTERISnCS
Gender:
Male
Female
Age:
19and under
20 24 years old
25 29 years old
30 39 years old
40 59 years old
60 years and over
71
6
26
17
41
11
0
3
24
27
33
12
1
76
4
24
26
34
12
1
7
19
24
4
0
7
21
43
27
2
5
75
19
1
10
80
6
5
6
76
17
2
71
22
75
5
0
12
72
4
1
21
8
21
43
28
45
Race/ Ethnicity:
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
56
62
34
3
29
3
30
41
33
14
11
0
42
32
14
11
1
42
32
14
11
7
34
49
6
4
4
42
41
12
1
5
41
42
11
2
5
37
38
17
3
5
23
43
25
4
4
27
34
34
3
25
27
3
28
39
20
20
45
43
22
49
19
13
19
40
26
47
16
47
26
46
27
19
14
14
31
11
4
24
45
27
5
23
43
2
7
61
3
3
1
35
39
18
4
CHILDREN OF RESPONDENT
Number ot ChHdren:
0
1
2
3 or more
Age ot Youngest Chid:
Less than 2 years
2 5 years old
6 13 years otd
14 years and older
B5
26
20
8
40
20
19
21
lilllllll Sbii!I!J
Men
Women
Total
Hotell
CHil.DIIOOO ExPEAIENCU
On public assistance
sometime during childhood
48
54
53
36
34
36
21
19
13
31
16
10
17
14
10
17
11
13
15
15
18
23
19
16
19
18
20
24
20
21
24
23
45
13
10
21
83
94
92
47
50
48
14
16
15
55
29
51
10
27
20
26
PUBUC ASSISTANCE
Receives public assistance or
other benefi1s ~
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT
Note: Percentages are based on the number ol cases shown at the 1op ol the table unless othefwise specified.
Percentages based on 20 or fewer cases (Indicated by an asterisk) are not reported.
B-6
Homeless History
Table 2 shows the year when shelter residents first became homeless, the housing
conditions they have experienced, and th~ir housing and other circumstances in the year
prior to entry into the shelter system. The findings are highlighted below.
o
Homelessness is a relatively recent condition for families, while for singles it may
have begun many years ago. About two-thirds of the families first became
homeless within the past year, compared to 38% of the single men and women.
Almost 90% of families first became homeless within the past two years,
compar.ed to approximately 50% of singles. One in five (2z>A.) homeless singles
first became homeless 5 or more years ago.
A quarter of all families (25%) had ever slept in a street, subway or park and 15%
had stayed in an abandoned building.
A much higher percentage of the single population had ever slept in a street,
subway or park (68%) or an abandoned building (35%). Single women were
much less likely than single men to have slept in a street, subway or park (46%
versus 73%) or in an abandoned building (14% versus 40%).
About 1 in 7 families (14%) said they had stayed in a street, subway or park
sometime during the year before entering the shelter system, while 8% said they
stayed in an abandoned building. For single residents overall (and particularly
single men), the proportions were much higher: 40% of single residents stayed in
a street, subway or park sometime during the year before entering the shelter
system and 21% had stayed in an abandoned building.
Of the families who stayed in a street, subway or park in the year prior to entering
the shelter system, 43% reported having stayed there for a month or more during
that year, and 21% reported staying there for more than 6 months. Similar
lengths of stay were reported for families who stayed in abandoned buildings in
the year prior to shelter system entry.
The vast majority of all residents had been doubled up at least once, including
88% of the families and 78% of the singles.
More than half of the families were doubled up at some time in the year before
entering the shelter system and 41% said they had their own place at some time
during that year. Single shelter residents were almost as likely (46%) as families
to have been doubled up at least once in the year prior to shelter entry and to
have had their own apartment for some time during that year (38%).
A large proportion of families (31%) and singles (27%) never had a house or
apartment of their own at any time in the past.
A quarter of single residents sald they were in jall or prison during the year before
entering the shelter system; 7% of family shelter respondents had been in prison
or jall in the year before shelter system entry.
Seventeen percent of single shelter residents sald they had been in a drug or
alcohol rehabilitation program in the year before entering the shelter system,
compared to 9% of family residents.
B-7
(71)
(430)
(501)
(414)
(85)
(499)
66'!b
17
12
5
68%
22
7
4
67%
21
8
4
38%
12
27
23
41%
17
20
38%
13
27
22
34
24
25
73
46
68
14
15
15
40
14
35
89
87
88
81
78
65
70
69
71
82
73
23
HOUSING AND OTHE.II CIRCUMSTANCES ExPI!IUE.HCED IN YEAR PRIOR TO SHE.LTE.II SVSTE.M ENTRY
18
13
14
o43
27
40
(13)
(54)
32
26
22
20
(67)
30
27
22
21
(174)
13
29
30
28
(22)
14
32
27
27
(196)
13
30
30
28
23
21
(4)
(35)
(39)
10
36
26
(7)
28
(94)
12
23
33
32
(101)
15
22
33
31
37
29
29
61
53
55
46
45
46
{o43)
7
7
42
(264)
44
(221)
5
20
34
42
5
17
36
42
(186)
5
20
34
40
(38)
5
11
37
47
(224)
5
18
35
42
29
o43
41
37
43
38
(20)
(177)
1
2
10
(197)
1
2
11
{150)
0
2
15
(186)
1
2
14
88
87
83
(36)
3
3
11
83
B-8
83
Tier1
:ilogll:ihtiii!J'
Men
Women
Total
10
27
20
26
(7)
(29)
(36)
(109)
(16)
21
10
17
11
28
33
12
25
41
39
60
{125)
6
12
10
17
14
17
(4)
{39)
3
13
(43)
(67)
(11)
(78)
2
12
2
24
33
30
56
34
40
51
26
56
3
23
33
41
Note: Percentages are based on the number of cases shown at the top of the table unless otherwise specKled.
Percentages based on 20 or 1 -cases (indicated by an asterisk) are not reported.
B-9
For those individuals living in family shelters, money-related difficulties were most
often cited as the main reasons for homelessness. Forty-three percent of family
shelter residents cited a money-related reason, while an additional 22% cited a
housing-related reason. Sixteen percent cited some type of personal situation
problem, 8% cited a drug/ alcohol problem, and 11% cited other reasons.
Three specific reasons accounted for over half of the reasons cited for
homelessness among those in family shelters: lack of rent money or eviction
(30%); overcrowding (12%); and family conflict (11%).
Single shelter residents differed from family residents in several of the main
reasons cited for becoming homeless. While about the same proportion noted a
money reason (44%), many of the single residents cited lack of employment
(27%) as the specific money reason, as opposed to rent money (11 %) or eviction
(2%).
The quality of previous housing arrangements was cited more frequently as the
main reason for homelessness for those in family shelters, but was extremely rare
for those living in si.ngle shelters. Overcrowding and unsafe conditions were cited
as the main reasons for leaving the previous living arrangement by 17% of those
living in family shelters, while only 2% of those living in single shelters cited
overcrowding or unsafe conditions as their main reason for becoming homeless.
A smaller proportion of the female single shelter residents than male residents
cited employment (14% versus 29%) and drugs (20% versus 31%) as the main
reason they were homeless, while more females cited lack of rent money (21%
versus9%):
B-10
Family SheHm
ner2 Total
Hotels
ner1
(69)
(416)
(485)
Sinale SheHers
Men Women Total
(402)
(85)
(487)
43%
42%
49%
44%
14
21
2
27
42%
43%
6
28
0
10
29
20
1
0
10
2
2
0
21
8
3
2
0
2
2
0
0
9
0
11
2
3
1
0
31
20
28
8
0
28
3
20
0
26
2
14
7
5
Personal shuation:
16
15
16
14
13
Family conflict
Illness/injury
JaD/arrest
Physical abuse
Maternity
13
3
0
0
0
11
8
3
11
2
0
3
0
0
6
6
1
0
0
0
0
23
21
22
13
4
6
12
5
4
12
5
2
4
0
4
0
1
4
1
14
11
11
10
10
3
4
1
4
4
2
5
4
0
6
2
4
3
Housing:
Too crowded
Fire
Unsafe housing
Other:
Relocated to city
Social/theological explanation
Miscellaneous
7
4
3
Note: Percentages are based on the number of cases shown at the top of the table unless otherwise specified.
Percentages based on 20 or fewer cases (Indicated by an asterisk) are not reported.
B-11
Doubling Up
Survey respondents that had been doubled-up were asked the reason why they left the
last residence in which they were doubled-up. The results are shown in Table 4.
Findings are highlighted below.
o
As indicated above, the vast majority of all residents had been doubled-up at least
once, including 88% of the family shelter residents and 78% of the single shelter
residents.
Half of the family and single shelter residents were doubled-up in the year prior to
entry.
Respondents were asked how long they been doubled-up in that year. About
three-fourths were doubled-up for more than 1 month and 42% for more than 6
months in the year prior to shelter entry. There were no important differences in
the length of being doubled up between family shelter residents and single shelter
residents, or between the men and women at the single shelters.
By far, the most frequent reasons cited by families for leaving a doubled-up
situation were overcrowding (47%) and interpersonal conflict (34%). In addition,
14% cited no rent money or evicted as a reason. Compared to family shelter
residents, single shelter residents were more likely to cite no rent (25% versus
14%) and drugs (12% versus 6%) as reasons, and much less likely to cite
overcrowding (19% versus 47%).
Male single shelter residents and female single shelter residents cited very similar
reasons for leaving doubled-up situations. However, male single shelter residents
were more likely to indicate that lack of rent money or eviction was a reason for
leaving the doubled-up situation than female single shelter residents.
"'
It is important to note that none of the respondents appear to have cited the
desire to secure permanent subsidized housing as a reason for leaving the
doubled-up situation.
_/
------
B-12
Ftmi!x Shelters
ner2 Total
Hotels
Tier 1
Single She!tn
Men
Women
Total
{71)
(430)
(501)
(414)
(a5)
(499)
89%
87%
88%
77'lb
81%
78%
61
54
55
46
45
46
(43)
(221)
(264)
(186)
(38)
5
(224)
20
17
20
18
35
7
7
42
44
34
36
42
42
34
40
11
37
47
(63)
(374)
(437)
(318)
(69)
(387)
Mslw
22
12
14
27
15
25
No rent money/evicted
Unemployed
22
0
12
14
27
1
15
25
1
12
13
12
Personal sayat!on
44
34
36
34
42
36
Interpersonal conftid
41
33
34
31
1
1
0
0
38
0
32
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
Drygs/a!oobol
Sexual abuse
Phy$lcal abuse
Medical reasons
42
Jal
0
0
Death
1
1
2
Housing
43
50
49
23
26
24
Too crowded
Unsafe housing
Fire
38
48
3
1
47
3
1
19
3
1
19
4
3
19
3
2
Other reason
16
12
12
13
13
13
Moved
11
2
2
2
7
1
3
1
7
1
3
1
12
1
3
1
9
1
3
1
Owner moved
Temporary home
Mlscellaneou$
Note: Pen:entages are based on the number of cases shown at the top of
Percentages based on 20 or fewer cases [Indicated by an asterislc) are not reported.
B-13
0
0
Overall, about 30% of the residents of homeless shelters had never lived in their
own home or apartment Women in single shelters were the group most likely to
have ever had their own home or apartment: 82% had done so.
Of those who had ever had their own home or apartment, over 20% had had
other people doubled-up with them. Residents of family shelters were slightly
more likely (26%) to have had someone doubled-up with them than residents of
single shelters (21%).
Among those who had had their own horne or apartment during the previous
year, about 85% had been in that home for more than six months. Aesictents of
family shelters were slightly more likely (87%) to have spent six months or more in
their own homes than residents of single shelters (83%).
A variety of reasons for leaving their apartment were cited by those who had ever
had the1r own home or apartment. The most common reason was laCk of money
for paying the rent. Women in single shelters were more likely to cite this reason
(55%) than other groups.
Elements of their personal situation were the second most common reason cited
by the respondents as the reason for leaving their own home or apartment.
Nearly one-quarter of those in single shelters gave this reason, compared with
16% of those in family shelters. The most frequently cited situation within this
category was interpersonal conflict.
Characteristics of the housing unit were also frequently cited as the reason for
leaving their own home or apartment. Characteristics of the housing unit were
cited twice as frequently by those in family shelters (26%) as by those in single
shelter (12%). The most frequently cited characteristic was unsafe housing. This
reason was given by 16% of those in family shelters and 13% of the women in
single shelters. Fire was the reason given most frequently (8%) by men in single
shelters.
Drugs or alcohol were cited by about 10% of the shelter respondents as the
reason for leaving their own home or apartment Women in single shelters were
less likely to give this response (3%) than other groups.
B-14
Sinole Sheltert
Men Women
Total
Hote'(71)
(430)
(501)
(414)
(85)
(499)
65%
70%
69%
71%
82%
73%
(46)
20
(299)
(345)
(295)
(69)
24
26
19
26
(364)
21
29
43
41
37
43
38
(20)
0
0
20
80
(177)
1
2
10
(150)
0
2
15
83
(36)
88
(197)
1
2
11
87
3
3
11
83
(186)
1
2
14
83
(46)
(299)
(345)
(295)
(69)
(364)
;rr
!Z
No rent money/evicted
Unemployed
38
4
45
4
44
4
41
12
57
0
44
10
1Q
1Q
.1.2
ll
Personal s~vatjon
ll
23
2!1
2!
Interpersonal conftict
Sexual abuse
Physical abuse
Medical reasons
22
2
2
2
2
0
9
0
2
2
1
0
11
0
2
2
1
0
14
0
1
1
6
1
18
0
5
6
2
0
15
0
1
2
6
1
Housing
21
2!1
.1.2
.1.2
Too crowded
Unsafe housing
Fke
0
11
11
3
17
7
3
16
8
1
3
8
0
13
3
1
5
7
Other reason
1Z
.1.2
l2
Moved
Owner moved
Temporary home
Miscellaneous
18
0
0
0
10
1
0
1
11
1
0
11
1
0
1
8
0
0
2
10
1
0
1
Oruqs/a!coho!
Jai
Death
Noce: Percentages are based on the number al cases $hown at the top al the table unless otherwise specified.
Percentages based on 20 or fewer cases Qndicated by an asterisk) are not reponed.
B-15
A number of questions examined the level of alcohol and drug abuse in the shelter
population (see Table 6). The results are based on self reports rather than actual drug
or alcohol tests. lhe primary findings are highlighted below.
o
There were substantial differences in reported drug use between those living in
single shelters and those living in family shelters. While 48% of those living in
single shelters said they used drugs in the past year, only 18% of those living in
family shelters reported using drugs in the past year.
Almost one-third of the single shelter residents reported using drugs at least once
a month, but only 10% of the family shelter residents reported that degree of drug
usage.
In single shelters, men reported more substantial drug usage than the females.
Thirty-seven percent of the males living in single shelters reported using drugs at
least once a month, in contrast to 14% of the women living in single shelters.
The vast majority of those that use drugs at least once a month would be willing to
participate in a drug rehabilitation program. About 85% of those livinQ in family
shelters and 85% of those living in sinQie shelters that have used drugs 1n the last
month indicated that they would partiapate in a drug rehabilitation program.
Few shelter residents said that they drink every day. But over a third of residents
at the male shelters and 17% of residents at the female shelters said they would
be willing to enter an alcohol rehabilitation program if one were available. Fewer
family shelter residents (22%) than single shelter residents (36%) said they would
be Willing to participate in an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Twenty-five percent of the family shelter residents and 48% of the single shelter
residents indicated that they would be willing to enter either a drug or alcohol
rehabilitation program.
B-16
Family Shelters
Tlw2
Total
Hottle
Tier 1
Single Shelters
Men Women Total
(71)
{430)
{501)
(414)
{85)
(499)
1'1(,
4'1(,
3'1(,
13'1(,
3%
11 '1(,
17
23
22
39
17
36
17
18
18
51
33
11
10
15
13
11
11
10
37
14
32
11
11
37
20
34
10
13
13
43
20
39
(6)
(43)
86
(49)
84
(137)
(12)
85
(149)
86
14
24
23
39
34
38
13
12
20
20
20
21
26
25
53
25
48
ALCOHOL ABUSE
0RUGA8u$
Note: Peroentages are based on the number of cases shown at the top of the table unless otherwise specified.
Perctn1ages based on 20 or fewer cases (Indicated by an asterisk) are not reported.
B-17
Table 7 presents information on the health, mental health, and employment histories of
residents of homeless shelters. The findings from Table 7 are highlighted below.
Health and Mental Health
o
Poor health is a serious problem for a large proportion of the residents of both
family and single shelters. For example, 21% of both family shelter and single
shelter residents reported a serious or chronic health problem. About a quarter of
both family shelter and single shelter residents reported having been hospitalized
in the past two years.
Most shelter residents report at least some minimal utilization of medical care.
Neai1y 90% of family .shelter residents and 83% of single shelter residents said
they had visited the doctor during the past two years.
Women in single shelters report much higher rates of health problems and health
care utilization than other shelter residents. Forty one percent said they had a
serious or chronic health problem, 38% had been hospitalized in the last two
years, and 20% had been treated at a clinic, hospitalized, or taken prescription
medication for a mental or emotional problem.
Employment
o
Single shelter residents are more likely to be working .(16%) than family ~helter
residents (7%). Approximately half of those employed are working full-time.
About a third (32%) of family shelter residents have worked in the last year, and
72% have been employed in the last three years. Single shelter residents are
more likely to have recent labor force attachment than residents of family shelters:
55% report working during the last year compared with 32% of family shelter
residents.
About a third (35%) of family shelter residents and about a quarter (24%) of single
shelter residents have neither a high school education nor recent labor market
experience.
Of those who were not currently working, but who had worked during the past
year, only 20% of family shelter residents and 18% of single shelter residents
received unemployment benefits.
2The rate of employment may be over-estimated, partic1Aar1y for women In the single shelters. An
employment shelter was 1 of only 2 shelters chosen for survey participation among the shelters for single
women; and an employment shelter was the only type of specialized shelter chosen for survey participation
among the shelters for single men.
B-18
Slnalt Shelters
Men Women
Totlll
(71)
(430)
(501)
(414)
(85)
(499)
16%
22%
21%
17%
41%
21%
23
26
26
28
38
29
85
91
90
80
95
83
11
15
15
15
37
18
10
10
27
12
13
11
11
10
26
13
16
19
19
18
42
22
Employed now
15
23
16
Employed lui-time
12
33
32
32
56
52
55
70
72
72
81
75
80
14
17
17
14
(18)
(100)
20
(118)
20
(157)
18
(24)
17
(181)
18
41
46
45
42
28
40
33
35
35
25
18
24
HEALTH
Has a chronic or serious health problem
M!NTAL HEALTH
Ever treated at clinic for mental
or emotional problems
Ever been hospitalized for mental
or emotional problems
EMPLO'IMEHT
Note: Percentages are based on the number ol cases shown at the top ol the tabla unless otherwise specified.
Percentages based on 20 or fewer cases Qndlcated by an asterisk) are not reported.
B-19
Almost a third (30%) of the family shelter residents and sr~ghtly more than half
(53%) of the single shelter residents had indications of either a drug or mental
illness problem.
Those with either a mental illness or substance abuse problem were no more
likely to have employability problems than the general shelter population.
Two percent of the family residents and 9% of the single residents showed
indications of both a mental illness and drug problem, according to the survey
responses.
Twenty-three percent of the family shelter residents and 12% of the single shelter
residents had employability problems and no indications of mental illness or drug
abuse.
While female single shelter residents were more likely to have indications of
mental illness than male single shelter residents, and maJe single shelter residents
were more likely to have indications of dnJQ abuse, there were no important
differences between the groups in the proportion that had either one or the other
problem. There was also no difference between the two groups in those who had
an employability problem and no indications of mental illness or drug abuse, or
the proportion of those with a mental illness or drug abuse problem that also had
employability problems.
As noted above, large proportions of the family and single shelter population
never lived in their own home or apartment (31% and 27%, respectiVely), and
therefore may have a problem with Independent living.
Thirty-four percent of family shelter residents and 28% of si~le shelter residents
had none of the problems disCIISse-j above: i.e., no indications of drug abuse,
mental illness, or independent living problems, and no employability problem, as
defined.
Financial E!igib!ljty
o
3As noted above, the propor1lon who are woridng may be an over-estimate.
B-20
ner1
Mtn
Hotels
(71)
(430)
(501)
(414)
(85)
(499)
10%
13%
13%
43'1(,
20%
39%
16
19
19
18
42
22
26
31
30
53
51
53
11
EmployabDity problem:
No recent labor force anachtnert
(have not worked In past year) m1
completed less than 12th grade
33
35
35
25
18
24
19
24
23
13
12
(17)
(126)
38
(143)
39
(198)
24
(40)
20
{238)
23
35
30
31
29
18
27
40
32
34
26
37
28
t7
53
50
52
11
13
11
0RUGA8uSEAHO
MEHTAL/EMOTIOIW. PA08LEM
Drug abuse problem:
Uses drugs at least once a month
or willing to partclpate In a
drug rehabilitation program
EMPLOYABIUTY PROBLEM
FINANCIAL EUGIIIIUTY
NOI currently I9CeMng public
assistance or other benefits
Worldng and not reoeMng public
assistance or other benefits
NOie: Percentages are based on the number ol cases shown at the top ol the table unless otherwise specified.
Percentages based on 20 or fewer cases (Indicated by an asterisl<) are not reponed.
B-21
QUESTIONNAIRE:
[Read] We are taking a survey of people in shelters. r don't want
to know your name because some of the questions r am going to ask
are very personal. Your answers are completely confidential.
Q.l
Q.2A.
Q. 2B.
Q.2C.
Q.3A.
Have you
Y_(l)
Q.3B.
Q.3C.
(3)
822
Q.4A.
Y_(l)
[GO TO Q.5A](2)
8
Q.4B.
Q.4C.
(5)
Q.SA.
Y_(l)
11
Q.SB What about the year before you entered the shelter
system, were you in a rehab program then?
-No_(l) [SKIP TO Q. 6A]
- Yes__ (2)
Q.SC.
12
(3)
823
(6)
13
Q.6A.
N_ [GO TO Q.7A](2)
'i_(1)
Q.6B.
Q.6C.
Q.6D
15
17
-sexual abuse_
18
-physical abuse___
19
20
-fire_
21
-unsafe/condemned building___
22
23
24
Q.6E.
14
Q. 7A]
(2)
25
(3)
B-24
26
Q.7A.
Y_(l)
Q. 7B.
Q. 7C.
27
29
-sexual abuse___
30
-physical abuse___
31
-drugjalchohol problem_
32
-tire_
33
- unsafe/condemned building___
34
35
36
-Yes_(2)
Q.70.
(3)
38
(2)
39
825
Q. 8.
What would you say is the main reason you became homeless?
40
Q.9A.
[READ]
NYC_(l)
NYS outside NYc___ (2)
us outside NYS___ (3)
outside the us___ (4)
other___ ( 5)
Q.lOA.
41
(Do
Not Read]
Under 10_(1)
10 to 15 yrs old___ (2)
15 to 20 yrs old___ (3)
42
When you were growing up, did both your parents live
with you?
Y_[GO TO Q . l2]
N_[GO TO Q.l3 ]
Part of the time_[GO TO Q.13]
Q.l2.
Q . 13.
43
N_(2)
44
B-26
45
Q.l4.
Y_(l)
46
N_(2)
Did the person you lived with when you were growing up
ever need to receive public assistance?
Q.15.
Yes_
Q.16.
_ (l)
No _
_ (2)
47
Y_(l)
48
N_(2)
Q.17.
Y_(l)
49
N_(2)
Q.l8.
Y(l)_
Q.l9A
50
N(2) _
Y(l) _
Q.l9B.
N(2) _
51
[SKIP TO Q.20A)
[Read)
(3)
52
53
Q.l9C.
every day_(l)
every week__ (2)
every month__ (J)
less than every month__ (4)
neverjquit__ (5) (GO TO Q.20A)
827
54
Q.19D.
Q.20A.
(2)
55
Y_(1)
Q.20B.
56
(2)[GO TO Q.21A]
Q.20C.
57
58
(2)
Q.21A.
59
N_(2)
60
Q.21B.
61
Y_(l)
N_(2)
B28
62
Q.22.
Y_(1)
Q.22A.
y
Q.23 .
(1)
(2)
66
N_(2)
67
N_(2)
68
Q.28.
65
Q.27.
N_(2)
Q.26.
64
Q.25.
N_(2)
Q.24.
63
N_(2)
69
N_(2)
70
Q.30A.
71
B-29
72
Q.JOB.
Q.JOC.
fuJ.l time_(1)
part time__ (2)
just once in a while__ (3)
something else(EXPLA:INJ
(4)
74
75
Q. 31.
(2)
76
77
Y_(1)
Q.32A.
Q.J2B.
full time__ ( 1)
part time__ (2)
just once in a while
(3)
78
Q.J20.
Q.32E.
Q.J2C.
(1)
N_(2)
B-30
81
Q.JJA.
Q.33B.
82
N_(2)
Q.34.
no jobs available___
83
84
tired of looking___
85
86
rehab program_
87
88
disabled/injured/handicapped___
89
othe r
90
Q.JS
(specify) _______________________
N_(2)
91
N_(2)
92
Q.36
Q. 37 .
completed?
(1)
grade_(2)
Technical/Vocation al
(4 )
B-31
94
For
Q.38.
F~y
Survey Only
single_p)
married_(2)
living with someone___ (J)
divorced___ (4)
separated___ (S)
widowed
(6)
other(speciry) _____________________
Q.39
96
Y_(l)
many
95
you have?_______
Q.40
Bo~
Q.41
98
Q.42
99
Q.43
~o
Y_(1)
Q.44
97
100
N_(2)
Black_(2)
Bispanic___ (J)
Native American_(4)
Asian_(S)
Other
(5)
101
Female
TIME :
DATE:
103
rNTERVrEWER:
ENGLISH/SPANISH
104
(2)
102
lOS
FAMILIES LOCATION:
B-32
Q.Ja.
Q.39
95
96
Y_(l)
Q.40
97
Q.41
98
Q.42
Q.43
child?____
o~dest
99
100
Black_(2)
(1)
Bispanic__ (3)
ASian_(S)
other_(S)
Thank you for your help
Gender: Male _(1)
Female
(2)
TIME:
DATE:
IN1'RVIEWER:
ENGLISH/ SPANISH
SINGLES LOCATION:
833
101
102
103
104
105
Appendix C
Drug Testing Methodology and Results
from adults at family shelters and 525 samples collected at shelters for
single individuals.
The
numbers are, however, significantly higher than those produced by selfreporting studies.
was 34 %.
C-1
The
test results ranged from 39% testing positive in the specialized shelters to
80% testing positive in the general population City operated shelters.
The
samples
were
tested
for
amphetamines,
cocaine,
opiates,
75% of all of those who tested positive-- 55% of those who tested positive
in the family shelters and 83% of those who tested positive in the singles
shelters.
approximately one third of those who tested positive and alcohol in 11.5%.
Amphetamines were present in fewer than 5% of those who tested positive,
as were opiates, and no phencyclidine (PCP) was detected at all.
C-2
N umber of
Percentage
Tests
Testing Positive
Tier It
27%
331
Non Tiorll
34%
29%
164
495
39%
63%
80%
184
32
309
Total f amities
Speelallz.cl
Assessment
Gtne<el
Total Singles
65%
C3
s2s
88
56
144
72
20
248
340
un ,v rsty ot N w
(7 18) 240-628 1
Afl,lfatetJ w 1t h
Stiff
Yon~:
TO :
DATE :
At the request of the "Commission of the Homeless" during the past three
weeks members of the staff at Brookdale Hospital have worked to deliver over
1,000 urine samples from homeless adults in the New York City shelter system
to a licensed toxicology laboratory for analysis.
Over a three week period
the staff visited 15 shelters and received 496 samples from individuals in
family shelters and 529 from individuals in single shelters.
Those who
submitted samples did so voluntarily and anonymously.
In order to preserve
confidentiality each urine sample was identified only by a number which wa3
placed on the container at the shelter.
Each urine sample was screened for the presence of the six substances by
enzyme immunoassay (EMIT) by Clin PathjTox Laboratories, licensed by the City
of New York, and reported as positive if a concentration equal to or greater
than the "detection limit" was present .
Of the 1, 020 samples 47% testej
positive for at least one of the drugs listed below.
The detection limits
were as follows:
Amphetamines
300 ng/ml
300 ng/ml
Cocaine Metabolite (Benzoylecgonine)
Opiates (as morphine)
300 ng/ml
20 ngjml
Marijuana (the)
75 ngjml
Phencyclidine (pep)
Alcohol
0.4%
Test results from the family shelter samples showed that:
Of the 4 95 samples 136 (29%) tested positive.
23 (17%) tested positive for more than one drug .
The percentage for each drug was as follows:
Crack/cocaine (55%); THC (38%); Alcohol (12%) ; etc.
Test results from the single shelter samples showed that:
Of the 525 samples 342 (65% ) tested positive.
100 (29%) tested positive ror more than one drug .
The percentage fo~ each drug was as follows:
Crack/Cocaine (83%); THC (30%); Alcohol (11%); etc .
C-4
A voluntary non-profit reaching hospital marking more than 65 years ofprogress in health care.
Appendix D
Model Regulations for Transitional Residences
PROPOSED OUTLINE
REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRANSITIONAL RESIDENCES
1.
APPLICABILITY
3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
LEGAL BASE
DEFINITIONS
0 -1
BE
LICENSED
BY
DSS
5.
ORGANIZATION AND
(1)
NOTE:
FOR
GOVE~NG
(2)
ADMI~STRATION
PUBLieLY OPERATED
BODY STRUCTURE
PROGRAMS
NEED
TO
DETERMINE
for
D-2
6.
( 5)
(6)
(7)
( 8)
CERTIFICATION
(1)
D-3
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
An
( 6)
(7)
(B)
(9)
0-4
0-5
be
made
habitable
or
alternate
stable
accommodations can be found.
No operating certificate is transferable.
living
ADMISSION ELIGIBILITY
0-6
the program.
These may include house rules regarding
visitors, curfews, use of substances, use of premises,
and allowable reasons for termination of residency
To have a habitable living space and common area which
meets the standards set out in the regulations
To be informed of any grievance process
(2) Individuals have the following obligations:
Respect
righ~s
RESIDENT SERVICES
D-7
(2)
( 3)
(4)
Crisis Intervention:
Activities and interventions,
including medication and verbal therapy, designed to
address acute distress and associated behaviors when the
individual's condition requires immediate attention .
(5)
Discharge Planning:
The process of planning for
transition from the program to permanent housing. This
includes identifying the resources and supports needed
for transition to permanent housing and making the
necessary referrals, including entitlements, linkages for
treatment, rehabilitative and supportive services based
on assessment of the patient's current mental status,
strengths, weaknesses, problems, servi ce needs, the
demands of the patient's living situation, working and
social environment and the client's own goals, needs and
desires.
(6)
(7)
( 8)
Housing Services:
This is intended to prepare the
individual for permanent housing and must include
training in activities necessary to maintain housing such
as ADL skills, shopping, medication compliance, money
management and travel.
(9)
D-8
(10)
Medication Therapy:
This means prescribing andjor
administering medication, reviewing the appropriateness
of the patient's existing medication regimen through
review of records and consultation with the patient and
monitoring the effects of medication on the patient's
mental and physical health.
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Transportation:
NOTE: MAY WAN'!' '1'0 IDEN'l'D'Y '!'HOSE SERVICES REQO:IRED TO BE
PROV:IDED ON S:ITE AND THOSE WB:ICB MAY BE PROV:IDED BY
AGREEMENT
12 .
SERVICE PLAN
There shall be a services plan developed for each resident of
a TR. The Plan shall include the following elements:
NOTE: HOST DETERM:INE TIME FRAME
COMPONENTS OF TBE SERVICE PLAN
FOR
COMPLETING
VARJ:OUS
D-9
CONFIDENTIALITY
14.
tJSED FOR
STAFFING
l.
2.
Staffing shall
following:
include but
not
be
limited
to
the
0-10
3.
preadmission
4.
15.
ENVIRONMEN'l'AL STANDARDS
WAJ:VER
0-11
Appendix E
Memorandum from Commission Member Frank G. Zarb to Members of the
Commission Regarding Proposed Private Sector Housing Initiative
TO:
FROM:
Frank G. Zarb
DATE:
RE:
This memorandum will provide the Commissioners with some background and the
general financial and development assumptions supporting a private sector led proposal
for your review. The memorandum is not intended to offer recommendations for any
effort to raise the necessary financial contributions at this time.
Corporate Response
The private sector, "Corporate New York" appears to be the remaining resource for
additional financial assistance.
Why should "Corporate New York" accept such a responsibility.
To help build permanent housing, not mass shelters, for the homeless is the morally
correct, altruistic action to undertake. To assist a family or single person to be housed,
to be protected from the cold or inclement weather, to be safe from the fear of crime,
to receive social service assistance, education and job training can make lost adults
productive and save children.
There is another reason. New York City has created the environment, the physical and
social infrastructure, for large and small sized corporations to conduct their commerce
and business and to become successful. The quality of life within new York City
directly impacts upon the ability to conduct business and commerce. The private
sector' s and the public sector's interests are both served by improving the general
environment of our streets, transportation facilities, parks and other public spaces.
Now is a moment in the City's history when the private sector must contribute to a
critical need. While the provision of housing will not cure the cause of homelessness
of every individual or family, the lives of an overwhelming majority will be decidedly
improved. This proposal is not an experiment; rather, it is an investment in a known
technology with a record of success.
Corporate financial assistance, combined with the experience of not-for-profit
organizations in producing ~ousing for the homeless, can potentially be more effective
than the government's efforts. The private and not-for-profit sectors are not
encumbered with the statutory and regulatory procedures that can delay the public
sector.
-2-
need for governmental sources to appropriate additional funds for the operational and
social service costs.
Fmancin& Structure
We envision a legal structure where a certified not-for-profit, or other not-for-profits
experienced in low income housing, will be sponsor/owner for each project. By having
.a not-for-profit entity act as the owner, the housing would qualify under Federal tax law
as tax-exempt debt. The debt could be issued through a subsidiary of the State Housing
Finance Agency or City Housing Development Corporation. The not-for-profit will
serve as the developer. Construction will be undertaken by the private sector. The
debt will be capitalized for one year and possibly issued as commercial paper or
variable rate debt during construction. Upon completion, the debt would be amortized
at a fixed rate for a term of 20 to 30 years. Debt will be issued only for the number
of units actually placed in cOnstruction in a given year. This measure will reduce debt
service costs and prevent an over-issuance of bonds. If we were to issue debt for 500
units, using the conservative assumptions of development costs of $100,000, a flat 8%
interest rate with a 30-year term on a level debt structure, the debt service costs will
be approximately $5,625,000/year. After constructing 1,000 units, the debt services
costs will be approximately $11,250,000/year.
Capital Fundin&
By being the commerce center of the nation, New York has the advantage of being the
central office for a large number of publicly-owned and privately-held corporations.
Producing sufficient funds to secure the debt for 1,000 units of housing seems to be a
feasible goal if a sufficiently large number of corporations subscribe to the effort.
Indeed, the goal seems feasible without placing any additional, significant burden on
existing corporate contributory efforts.
Being cognizant of the impact of the recession on corporate sales and earnings, the
proposal is aimed at trying to limit the need for any vast increases in the current levels
of corporate giving. Rather the direction is to request that corporations prioritize this
programmatic effort, target their contributions and dedicate a dollar level for the
maturity of the debt. However, for some corporate entities there will be a need to
increase their current levels.
One possible methodology, to identify possible contributing corporations and their
contribution is to utilize a level of gross sales per year and apply a threshold amount
for a maximum and a minimum. Reviewing a general sample of public and private
companies headquartered in New York City with gross sales of $100 million or greater
per year generates a list of 435 corporations. Companies are then divided into 5 tiers
according to their gross sales in categories from $100 million to $5 billion and over,
and a contribution level of $20,000 to $50,000/year is applied. The contributory levels
- 3-
would amount to .02% to .001% of one percent of their gross sales of their tier. At
these levels $13.1 million/year can be generated. Of course, not each of the 435
corporations will participate, and construction costs will increase over the near.future.
-4-
With the reduced role of Federal programs for subsidized housing, FNMA is assuming
.a larger role in producing housing for low, moderate and middle income families.
FNMA's programs run the spectrum from single family to multi-family housing which
is additionally subsidized through various Federal tax, insurance, or capital subsidy
programs. While aimed at producing housing moderate income households, the
programs are not aimed at the very low income levels of the homeless that the City of
New York or State of New York are attempting to assist.
However, two programs offer the possibility of leveraging subsidies if FNMA is willing
to consider a number of revisions to their underwriting standards to assist this very low
income population in this region of the nation.
Multi-Family Debt Financine & Credit Enhancement
FNMA has completed a number of credit enhanced multi-family tax exempt issues.
Under this program a housing finance agency, such as the New York State Housing
Finance Agency or New York City Housing Development Corporation, issues tax
exempt bonds. The proceeds are used to fund permanent mortgage loans. A lender,
originates and underwrites the mortgages according to criteria issued by FNMA for low
income housing. Upon satisfactory completion of construction and occupancy the
lender assigns the mortgage to FNMA. In exchange, FNMA issues and provides a
Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) in an amount equal to the principal amount of the
mortgage.
The MBS serves as credit enhancement for the bonds since FNMA guarantees passthrough of the principal and interest to the bondholders. Since FNMA is rated AAA
by both Moody's and S&P and lease revenue bonds backed by the City or State are
rated Baa/BBB, there could be a substantial savings in the borrowings costs.
For this program to work in New York for the intended housing, FNMA' s underwriting
criteria will need to be substantially modified. Attempting to convince FNMA to
undertake such a modification will be difficult due to the precedential nature.
Bond Purchase
On a limited basis FNMA can directly purchase tax-exempt debt issued to fund multifamily projects. The bonds must be secured by a letter of credit from a rated financial
To enhance
institution and/or by acceptable direct government guarantees.
affordability, FNMA purchases the bonds at a favorable rate, slightly below the
prevailing market rate. The bonds are purchased by FNMA through a private
- 5-
Schedule
A realistic, feasible schedule would project the 1,000 units to be build over a 3-year
period from the point where corporations have committed their assessments.
Predevelopment requirements include gaining the sites from the City of New York.
Land use and environmental reviews and design would encompass the first year. This
schedule could be accelerated if the State Urban Development Corporation is willing
to utilize its powers of eminent domain to acquire sites..
While some funds from corporations would be required during the predevelopment
stage, the amounts would be minimal. Actual construction would commence in year
2 and buildup to a level where 500 units were completed and occupied each year.
The timing of the issuance of the debt would correspond to the construction schedule
so that the full debt requirement would not be reached until year 3. Hopefully, the time
schedule would permit additional corporations to join the effort.
The initiative can only be successful if there is the willingness of the City and State to
assist the private and not-for-profit sectors to attain this goal.
-6-
FamiliesIndividuals-
800
200
1,000
Estimated Construction Cost
per Permanent Unit:
$110,000
$5,359,000
$10,718,000
$ 7,859,000
$15,718,000
Assumes 8.00% borrowing cost, one year construction schedule, one year of
capitalized interest, costs of issuance equal to 2.00% of principal, and a debt service
reserve fund equal to 112 maximum annual interest & 30 year amortization.
** Assumes residents are eligible for Federal, State and City public assistance programs
to fund on to costs.
-7-
Appendix F
Letter from Ronald J. Marino, Smith Barney, Attesting to the Reasonableness
of the Financial Assumptions, Calculations and Conclusions Contained in the
Cost Chapter of the Report
SMITH BARNEY
February 6, 1992
'?-Jc~~.....:Ronald J. Marino
SMITH BARNEY.
HARRIS UPHAM & CO. INC.
1345 AVE)I;UE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK. NY 10105
2 12~8.0000
Appendix G
Opinion of Whitman & Ransom
Regarding the Cost Chapter of the Report
and the Proposed Service Contract Financing Mechanism
Appendix H
Memorandum from Jerry I. Speyer, President, Tishman Speyer Properties,
to the Commission Regarding Not-for-Profit/Private Partnerships
PLAzA
20388&-3800
N.J. 071025398
201-821-2230
L STBZET
TELECOPIEJl: 2123513131
91&-441-4242
11 W.A.TEJU.OO PL.a.cz
BLDG.
3-712 TOl!..U10MON
011-44-71-83&-3228
8: AssociEs
CBA'OssU DE LA Htrl.P:, 187
03-438-4388
JANSON B.A.UGN'IET
February 7, 1992
01132-2-87&-3()-30
Andrew Cuomo
Chainnan
New York City Commission on Homeless
52 Chambers Street, Suite 356
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Cuomo:
We have reviewed the Report of the Commission on the
Homeless (the "Report ").
As you know we have acted as bond counsel in connection
with revenue bonds issued by the New York State Housing Finance
Agency to finance, for not-for-profit corporations, transitional
housing facilities occupied by homeless families in the City.
The corporations use the facilities to provide transitional
housing and related services to homeless families referred to the
facilities pursuant to service contracts between the corporations
and the City. Payments by the City under the service contracts
secure the debt service on the revenue bonds.
{1/~t:WJ+~~
1TishmanSpeyer
Propertles.lnc.
Jerry I. Speyer
President
To:
From:
Jerry I. Speyer
Tishman Speyer Properties
Re:
Not-for-profit/Private Partnerships
Date:
February 5,
tm
NEW YORK
FRANKFURT
CHICAGO
BOCA RATON
HONG KONG
MIAMI
SAN FRANCISCO
FORT LAUDERDALE
STAMFORD
Appendix I
Letter from Gregory Kaladjian, Acting Commissioner,
New York State Department of Social Services,
Regarding Program Eligibilty for Federal Funds
'\.
Gregory M. Kaladjian
Act.inc Commiuioner
'
,..~~.;.,;;. . J
February 7, 1992
C/O
6th Floor
New York, NY
10016
sry, . ")
l
( ~~ ,----
M.J. DJwli.rq
Appendix J
Transition
TRANSITION
J -1
J -2
Selected Bibliography
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Community
Service
Society
of
New
York,
Basic
Preservation and
Blum B., and Blank, S. Mental Health and Mental Retardation. New York
City-New York State Project, Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of
Government, October 14, 1986.
Bogue, Donald B. Skid Row in American Cities. Chicago:
Family Study Center, University of Chicago, 1963.
Community and
Bombyk, Marcia J., Phillips, Michael H., Kronenfeld, Daniel and MiddletonJeter, Verona.
"Services to Homeles Families:
A Differential
Approach". New York, NY, September, 1986.
Brantley, C. New York City Services to Homeless Families - A Report to the
Mayor, October, 1983.
Brower, Bonnie . Missing the Mark: Susidizing Housing for the Privileged.
Displacing the Poor - An Analysis of the City's Ten Year Plan. The
Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, Inc. and The
Housing Justice Campaign. New York, 1989.
Burt, Martha R. Over the Edge. The Growth of Homelessness in the 1980s.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.
Butler, Stuart M .
"What Can Be Done to Reduce Homelessness?"
Rethinking Policy on Homelessness, Washington, D.C.:
Heritage
Foundation, 1989.
Casey, Timothy J ., and Dehavenon, Anna Lou. "Statement to the Task
Force on Human Services on The Churning Crisis." New York, March,
1985.
Citizen's Committee for Children of New York, Inc. "700 Homeless Children:
The Crisis Continues." New York, October, 1986.
Citizen's Housing and Planning Council, On Its Own:
Approaches Affordable Housing, 1985.
Coalition for the Homeless, A Crying Shame - Offical Abuse and Neglect of
Homeless Infants, November, 1985.
Coalition for the Homeless, Community Action for Legal Services and New
York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
"Stemming the Tide of
Displacement." New York, 1 986.
Coates, Judge Robert C.
A Street is Not a Home, Solving America's
Homeless Dilemma. Buffalo , New York: Prometheus Books, 1990.
Crouse, Joan M. The Homeless Transient in the Great Depression: New
York State. 1929-1941. Albany, SUNY Press, 1986.
Cuomo, Mario.
"1 933-1 983 - Never Again, A Report to the National
Governor's Association Task Force on the Homeless."
New York,
July, 1983.
Dehavenon, Dr. Anna Lou. No Room at the Inn -- An Interim Report with
Recommendations on Homeless Families with Children Requesting
Shelter at New York City's Emergency Assistance Units in 1991 .
Action Research Project on Hunger, Homelessness and Family Health.
New York, December, 1991 .
Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Report on the 1988
National Survey of Shelters for the Homeless. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research, 1 989.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Advisory Commission on
Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing.
Not In My Backyard.
Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing. Washington, D.C., 1991.
Elliot, Marta and Krivo, Lauren J. "Structural Determinants of Homelessness
in the United States." Social Problems, 1991, 38( 1} 113-131 .
!..H!.l:o~mw.:e~l~e~ss~n~e~s~s~:-!.!.lm!..!.lp~l~e~m..!:e~n~t~a..l:.!ti.::::;o!..!n__.::::;of.:....-!F~o~o~d~a:.:..n=d
~S~h~e~lt~e~r--!..P.!..;ro~g~r~a~m~s:::....._~u:....:.nd:::.;e=r"--t=:..:..h=e::....-lM~c:.!,.;K~in~n~e~yJ.--:....:.A=ct.
Washington,
D.C .:
New York:
New York:
Truth
About
Kanter, Arlene S. "Homeless but not Helpless: Legal Issues in the Care of
the Mentally Ill." Journal of Social Issues, 1989, 45(3): 91-104.
Knickman, James R. and Weitzman, Beth C. "A Study of Homeless Families
in New York City:
Risk Assessment Models and Strategies for
Prevention, Vols. 1-4" Health Research Program of New York
University. New York, 1989.
Kondratas, Anna.
"What Can Be Done to Reduce Homelessness?"
Rethinking Policy on Homelessness. Washington, D.C.:
Heritage
Foundation, 1989.
Lee, Barret A. "Stability and Change in an Urban Homeless Population."
Demography, 1989, 26(2): 323-334.
Manhattan Borough President David N. Dinkins' Task Force on Housing for
Homeless Families. A Shelter is Not a Home. New York, 1987.
Massey, Douglass S. and Eggers, Mitchell L. "The Ecology of Inequality:
Minorities and the Concentration of Poverty, 1 970-1 980." American
Journal of Sociology, 1990, 95(5): 1153-1188.
Mayor's Advisory Task Force on the Homeless.
Policy on Homelessness, New York, 1987.
Toward a Comprehensive
On Understanding Poverty.
Cambridge:
Basic
Reed,
Cambridge:
Harvard University
Unwin,
1987.
Wright, James D. and Lam, Julie A.
Housing
Supply."
=S-=o=ci=a"'-1_,_Po=l=ic~y,
1987,
17:
48-53.