FAMILY HOUSING

FUND

The Supportive Housing Continuum:

A Model For HousingHomeless Families

A Report Prepared for the

Family Housing Fund

December 1999

By Ellen Hart-Shegos

Hart-Shegos and Associates, Inc.

Editor: Anne Ray

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary…………………………………………………2

2. Introduction …………………………………………………………5

3. The Problem: The Current Transitional Housing System Cannot Meet the Needs of Many Homeless Families ……………6

4. The Response: Create a Comprehensive System of Supportive Housing for Families ………………………………12

5. The Supportive Housing Continuum: Three Models of Supportive Housing ……………………………16

6. Cost Savings Associated with Supportive Housing …………22

7. Implementing the Supportive Housing Continuum ……………24

8. Endnotes …………………………………………………………26

9. Methods and Acknowledgements ………………………………27

1

The Twin Cities is experiencing a growingproblem of family homelessness. The primaryresponse has been the development oftransitional housing to provide a bridge forfamilies between emergency shelters andpermanent housing. Transitional housingprograms provide families with a housing unit,usually for a period of six to twenty-fourmonths, along with supportive services.

This report proposes the development of amore comprehensive system of supportivehousing that combines affordable housing withservices for homeless families. Whiletransitional housing is one type of supportivehousing, a comprehensive supportive housingsystem encompasses a wider range ofprograms, including housing with veryintensive services to meet the needs ofseverely troubled families.

The problem: The current transitional

housing system cannotmeet the needs of many

homeless families. Transitional housing is no longer sufficient tomeet the needs of homeless families because:

• Family homelessness has increaseddramatically in Minnesota.

• The current transitional housing system is under-funded.

• Many homeless families live incircumstances that render them unable to enter or complete transitional housing programs.

The lack of stable housing for these familiessignificantly increases costly interventions intheir lives by public agencies.

• The tight housing market makes it difficultfor families to find affordable housing upon completion of the transitional housing program.

• Under welfare reform, families need more intensive employment services than are currently found in most transitional housing.

• The 24-month time limit on transitionalhousing assistance is artificial and mayforce families out of transitional housingprograms before they are ready.

The response: Create acomprehensive system ofsupportive housing for families. To provide housing for homeless families, theTwin Cities should create a comprehensivesystem of supportive housing, combiningaffordable housing and services, based on thefollowing principles:

• Supportive housing provides affordablehousing as the environment in whichfamilies receive services.

• Supportive housing providers have theflexibility to determine the families’ lengthof stay in the programs.

• Supportive housing assists families inmaking the transition to independent living.

2

IncreasedHomeless

Under-funded

Tight Housing

WelfareReform

TimeLimits

Unableto Fit

1Executive Summary

3

• The supportive housing system includeshousing for families who have difficultycomplying with the requirements of currenttransitional housing programs.

• Supportive housing builds the capacity of parents to nurture and care for their children.

• Supportive housing encourages productiveparticipation in community and society.

• Supportive housing includes an array ofmental health, academic, social,recreational, and child care services to meetthe needs of children.

• Supportive housing supports sobriety.

The Supportive HousingContinuum: Three Models ofSupportive Housing Funders and providers should create acontinuum of supportive housing programs inresponse to the needs of three categories offamilies, including:

Supportive housing for chronicallyhomeless families

Chronically homeless families survive in acontinuous cycle of extreme poverty,homelessness and emergency shelter use, andvulnerability. The parent has significanteducational deficits and no work experience,and may suffer from substance abuse, mentalillness, or both. Children are at risk for pooroutcomes developmentally, emotionally,physically, and academically.

To provide the multiple, intensive servicesand strong peer support that chronicallyhomeless families need, housing should bedesigned as single-site, congregatedevelopments. Services should assistfamilies in addressing personal crises andachieving family stability, meeting welfarereform requirements, and obtaining servicesfor children. Approximately 1,000 families inthe Twin Cities metro area fit this profile.

Supportive housing for families withepisodic homelessness

These families may have been homelessseveral times, but homelessness is causedprimarily by economic problems rather than disabilities. Their primary need is to become fully employed to prevent further homelessness.

Housing models for episodically homelessfamilies might include congregate housing orscattered-site units. Services such as child care,transportation, and work-place advocacywould help adults become employed at a livingwage. Approximately 1,300 families in themetro area are episodically homeless.

Outreach supportive services for housedfamilies at risk of homelessness

This category includes families who are at riskof homelessness, but whose future homelessnessmay be preventable through services fromsupportive housing providers. Many areformerly homeless and have completedtransitional housing programs. Typically, thesefamilies are working but are unable to maintainhousing and child care without financialsupport. Outreach staff would assist families infinding services such as rent subsidies, childcare, transportation, workplace advocacy, jobplacement, counseling, and financial assistance.Approximately 1,000 families in the metro areafall within this category.

4

Cost Savings Associated withSupportive Housing

The housing and intensiveservices associated withsupportive housing do create costs.

However, if supportive housing isnot put in place, the lack of stable

housing and services for homeless familieswill cost public agencies far more in terms offoster care, medical care, and other emergencyservices for homeless families. This isparticularly true for chronically homelessfamilies, whose constant crises result in theuse of an array of costly emergency services.An analysis of the costs of interventions onbehalf of one chronically homeless familydemonstrates that supportive housing canreduce public costs by 52 percent.

Implementing the SupportiveHousing Continuum An implementation group should be formedconsisting of funders, policymakers, andhousing providers to promote the developmentof the supportive housing system, linkpractices among housing and service funders,and build financial resources. Existingtransitional housing programs should form thenucleus of the new supportive housingcontinuum. Policies will need to beimplemented to lift externally imposed timelimits on these programs and to provideadditional capital, operating, and servicefunding.

The implementation group will need to employa number of strategies to develop steadysources of funding for the supportive housingcontinuum, such as the following:

• Capital Funding:

Convene a technical committee of federal,state, local, and private funders to identifyadditional sources of stabilization assistanceand development capital.

• Operating Subsidies:

Redirect a portion of Section 8 vouchersand certificates to provide rent subsidies fortransitional and supportive housingdevelopments.

• Service Funding:

Explore the use of TANF and MFIP dollarsto create a steady funding stream foremployment-related services in supportivehousing.

ConclusionThe success of the comprehensive supportivehousing system will require a major newfinancial commitment from the public andprivate sector. However, doing nothing willgenerate far higher costs with far fewersatisfactory results. Not only does the provisionof supportive housing dramatically reduce thecost of public interventions in families’ lives,but families in supportive housing experiencegreatly improved outcomes.

In addition, the success of the supportivehousing system depends on the availability ofaffordable housing for those who no longerneed supportive housing. Preventing thetragedy of family homelessness in the TwinCities will depend on our community’s abilityto provide decent, safe, affordable housing,both supportive and not, to all families whoneed it.

Capital Funding

Operating Subsidies

Service Funding

5

2Introduction

the tremendous dedication of local transitionalhousing providers, most families who completetransitional housing programs remaineconomically vulnerable to homelessness.

This report proposes the development of acomprehensive system of supportive housingfor homeless families. Like transitionalhousing, supportive housing combinesaffordable housing with supportive services.However, supportive housing does notnecessarily impose time limits on families’stay, as does transitional housing. Moreover, acomprehensive supportive housing systemencompasses a wider range of programs thandoes the transitional housing system, includinghousing with intensive services to meet theneeds of severely troubled families within asupportive community environment.

This report examines the conditions that limitthe ability of the transitional housing system tofully respond to the problem of familyhomelessness in the Twin Cities. It thenoutlines a list of principles under which acomprehensive supportive housing systemwould operate and describes a continuum oftypes of supportive housing programs designedto meet the needs of different profiles ofhomeless families. Next, the report analyzesthe costs of providing supportive housingversus the costs of providing emergencyservices to homeless families. Finally, thereport lists strategies for funding thestabilization of current programs and theaddition of housing units.

Throughout the report, we have included thestories of three homeless families, headed by“Lynn,” “Bonnie,” and “Kathy and John,”which show how supportive housing can bringnew hope, opportunities, and stability tohomeless families.

The 1980’s marked the beginning of a new,deeply troubling phenomenon in the TwinCities and nationwide: homelessness amongfamilies with children. The primary responseto the growing problem of familyhomelessness has been the development oftransitional housing to provide a bridge forfamilies between emergency shelters andpermanent housing. Transitional housingprograms provide families with a housing unit,usually for a period of six to twenty-fourmonths, along with supportive services to helpthe families become self-sufficient. In additionto providing a place to live, transitionalhousing helps families to increase their lifemanagement skills and resolve the crises thathave led to their homelessness.

However, conditions have changed in the lastdecade, and the transitional housing system isno longer sufficient to meet the needs ofmany homeless families. The sheer number ofhomeless families has increased dramaticallyin the past few years, with homeless womenand children representing the fastest growingsegment of the homeless population.

Many of these families come to transitionalhousing with more serious, chronic problemsthan the programs can address. Also, the TwinCities’ newly tight rental housing market andthe severe shortage of affordable housing unitsmakes it difficult for families to findaffordable housing once they have completedthe transitional housing program. Finally,welfare reform has changed the very meaningof family “self-sufficiency” by requiring thatall families become financially self-supportingthrough employment.

Transitional housing programs are expected tohelp families to achieve more at the very timewhen worsening conditions make it difficult toachieve even previous levels of success. Despite

6

3The Problem: The Current Transitional Housing SystemCannot Meet the Needs of Many Homeless Families

Changing conditions have made it moredifficult for transitional housing programs toprovide the full support needed by homelessfamilies. It is true that transitional housing hashelped many families, particularly those withless severe needs, to re-establish stability andopportunity in their lives. The supportiveservices associated with transitional housinghave helped these residents to maintainsobriety, reunify their families, feel a sense ofcommunity and safety, and benefit fromservices available in the wider community.

However, the transitional housing system as itis currently configured cannot meet the needsof many other homeless families in the TwinCities, for the following reasons:

Family homelessness hasincreased dramatically in Minnesota. According to the Minnesota Statewide Surveyof Persons Without Permanent Shelter –Volume 1: Adults and their Children, conductedby the Wilder Research Center in 1997, on anygiven night in Minnesota, there are 16,000homeless persons, including single childlessadults, and parents with children. Thisrepresents a doubling of the state’s homelesspopulation since 1991. In particular, thenumber of homeless families has steadilyincreased since 1991; between 1991 and 1997,the number of homeless men with childrenincreased 440%, the number of homelesswomen with children increased 240%, and thenumber of teen parents with children increasedmore than 570%. Women and children nowmake up the fastest growing segment of the

homeless population. As a result, there simplyis not enough capacity in the transitionalhousing system to serve all families who needit. A survey by the State of Minnesota foundthat in one night, 234 families were turnedaway from transitional housing programsbecause of the shortage of capacity.

The current transitional housingsystem is under-funded. In order to function effectively, transitionalhousing programs need adequate funding inthree areas: capital funds to develop thehousing, operating funds to support ongoingbuilding management and maintenance costs,and service funds to provide supportiveservices to residents. Transitional housingprograms in the Twin Cities are struggling tomeet these costs.

Because no single entity is solely responsiblefor providing funds for transitional housing,providers of transitional housing mustnegotiate an extremely complex system togain access to funding. The federalDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) provides the largestsource of funding under the McKinneyHomeless Assistance Act, but this accounts forjust 25 percent of funding for transitionalhousing in Minnesota. Programs receivingthese funds must match them with state, local,and private dollars.1

Despite multiple sources, funding fortransitional housing is inadequate to meet theneeds of existing developments. This shortageexists for all three types of funding:

On any given

night in Minnesota,

there are 16,000

homeless people—

double the

state’s homeless

population in 1991.

0%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

19971991

Teen Parentswith Children

Men withChildren

Women withChildren

There has been a dramatic

increase in family

homelessness from 1991-1997

7

Chemical

dependency is the

most common

chronic condition

that prevents

families from

entering

transitional

housing.

Many homeless families live incircumstances that render themunable to enter or completetransitional housing programs.The lack of stable housing forthese families significantlyincreases costly interventions intheir lives by public agencies. Combined with the overall growth in familyhomelessness, the inability of families to meetentrance criteria for transitional housing hasmeant that transitional housing programs canserve only a narrow segment of thepopulation of homeless families. Thetransitional housing system was designed torespond to temporary crises that lead tohomelessness, but many homeless familieshave more chronic, deeply entrenchedproblems. A report by the MinnesotaDepartment of Children, Families andLearning indicates that 60 percent of requestsfor transitional housing are denied, eitherbecause applicants do not fit the programguidelines or because space is not available.

Chemical dependency is the most commonchronic condition that prevents families fromentering transitional housing. Most transitionalhousing programs require that new entrantshave been sober for a minimum period of time,often 30 to 180 days. However, reduction inthe availability of chemical dependency carehas significantly limited access to services, andtreatment programs are often of much shorterduration than previously available 30-dayinpatient and 120-day outpatient programs.

Capital

While it is often easier to raise capital fundingthan funds for ongoing operations and service costs, initial capital needs are often notfully funded. As housing developments age,these capital needs are becoming more urgent.Of 17 local housing providers surveyed, 65percent said that capital funding for theirprojects is inadequate, and five providers areimplementing capital campaigns to raise nearly$3,000,000.

Operations

Nearly 70 percent of programs surveyed needadditional funding to support buildingmanagement and maintenance expenses.Tenant rents, the typical source of operatingdollars for rental housing, do not generatesufficient cash flow, resulting in deficits.Foundations are often unwilling to provide thefunding for reserves and operating deficits, andpublic funding is also difficult to obtain forexisting programs in competition withexpanded or new projects.

Services

Virtually all programs need additional fundingto provide supportive services. There is nosingle dedicated source of public funding forservices in transitional housing, andcompetition is fierce for foundation grants.Moreover, once a program is no longerconsidered a “start-up,” it faces increasedcompetition with new programs when seekingsupport from foundations. Local providersidentified more than $5,200,000 in combinedoperating and service funding needed tomaintain basic programs and facilities.As a result of these funding shortages,transitional housing programs often findthemselves in the midst of financial crises,choosing between deferring propertymaintenance and reducing services for families.

8

One night,

234 families were

turned away from

transitional

housing programs

because of lack

of capacity.

Lynn’s Story Part I: AChronically Homeless FamilyLynn, 26, is a mother of three: Danny, age11; Kevin, age 9; and Cassy, age 3. As theoldest of six children born in southMinneapolis to an alcoholic, single-parentmother, hers is a story of lifelong struggle.Lynn has experienced domestic abuse,sexual assault, and chemical abuse –including crack addiction.

As a child, Lynn shuffled in and out of foster care and St. Joseph’s Home forChildren. When she dropped out of highschool at age 14, she read at the secondgrade level. Several times during her teensand twenties, Lynn received treatment forchemical dependency, but she could notmaintain her recovery.

During her first two pregnancies, Lynnreturned to her foster mother forassistance. Danny tested positive for drugsat birth and later showed evidence ofdevelopmental delays and behaviordisorders. Kevin was born drug-free, butlater developed severe asthma. BecauseLynn was unable to do so, the foster motherraised Danny and Kevin until her ownhealth deteriorated from diabetes andcongestive heart failure.

At one point, Lynn was sentenced to jail fordrug possession, prostitution, and assault.There, she received chemical dependencytreatment and health care for Hepatitis Cand the emphysema that had resulted fromher crack habit. She was released to ahalfway house that continued to support hersobriety. An employment assessmentrevealed that Lynn had a learning disability.

Shortly after leaving the halfway houseprogram, Lynn became pregnant andreturned to her foster mother. Lynn’syoungest child, Cassy, was born threemonths premature and significantly under-weight, requiring 28 days in neo-natalintensive care and a number of medicalinterventions. Lynn continued to live withher foster mother after Cassy wasdischarged from the hospital. With supportfrom the foster mother and a visiting homenurse, Lynn maintained nearly 19 monthsof sobriety and cared for her new baby.Under pressure from Child ProtectiveServices, Lynn re-assumed parentalresponsibilities for Kevin and Danny whilecontinuing to live with her foster mother.

At the same time, Lynn’s welfare benefitswere converted from AFDC to the new stateMFIP program, which required Lynn towork or pursue a job for at least 30 hoursper week. While Lynn looked for a job, thefoster mother cared for the children, buther health quickly deteriorated to the pointthat she moved to a nursing home. Withoutthis support, Lynn could not manage thechildren and the work requirements.

Within a month, her benefits were cut by 10 percent as a sanction for non-compliance; the following month, her checkwas reduced by 30 percent. The necessarypapers for her rent payment wentunexecuted because of the foster mother’shealth condition. Without the foster motherto assist the family, Child ProtectiveServices placed the children in St. Joseph’sHome. Under the stress of losing herchildren and possibly her home, Lynnrelapsed and began to use crack again.

9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

RequestsDenied

RequestsAccepted

Requests for transitional

housing are denied more often

than accepted, either because

applicants do not fit the

program guidelines or because

space is not available.

Thus, many families are unable to demonstratethe length of sobriety necessary to entertransitional housing. Transitional housingproviders also turn away some applicantsbecause the families cannot commit to theprogram expectations or refuse to submit toprogram rules.2 Many families enter butcannot complete transitional housing programsfor similar reasons: they cannot maintainsobriety, they do not pay their rent orotherwise violate their lease agreements, orthey cannot comply with program regulations.

Significant public funds are expended onchronically homeless families who cannotmeet the requirements of traditionaltransitional housing programs. The lack ofstable housing makes it even more difficult forthese families to overcome problems such aschemical dependency, often resulting inexpensive public interventions such as fostercare and emergency health care. The costanalysis in Section 6, demonstrates that theaverage annual cost of public interventions inone chronically homeless family’s life could becut by 52 percent if the family were providedhousing with intensive supportive services.

The tight housing market makesit difficult for families to findaffordable housing uponcompletion of the transitionalhousing program. The Twin Cities currently faces a severeshortage of affordable housing units for low-income families. Rents are rising rapidly andthe vacancy rate for rental housing has fallento just 1.5 percent, creating extreme pressureon the subsidized housing stock needed by

low-income families. There is a particularshortage of large units that can accommodatefamilies. Thus, many families who are nowcompleting transitional housing programsremain vulnerable to homelessness.3 This isparticularly true for families enteringtransitional housing programs who have poor rental histories.

The transitional housing model assumes thatfamilies will find long-term housing uponcompletion of the program. In previous years,most of those leaving transitional housing didfind some type of permanent housing,4

although a disproportionate percentage movedto subsidized housing because they could notafford market-rate options. Those families whodid move into market-rate housing often paidmore than 30 percent of their income towardrent and were at risk of losing their housing.5

With the tight housing market and shortage ofsubsidized units, families are at even greaterrisk of homelessness now.

Under welfare reform, familiesneed more intensive employmentservices than are currently foundin most transitional housing. Even before welfare reform, many transitionalhousing programs provided employmentservices to residents. Adult residents wereencouraged to develop educational and jobtraining credentials, and they received supportas they pursued volunteer and paid work-placeexperience. These services led to greateremployment rates and decreased usage ofpublic assistance.6

Bonnie’s Story Part I: AnEpisodically Homeless FamilyBonnie is a 35-year-old mother of four:Jasmine, age 16; John, age 14; Ann, age13; and Joseph, age 11. Bonnie was raisedon a farm outside of Moose Lake,Minnesota. After high school, she moved toSaint Paul and found work in a factory.There, she met her husband Ray; they gotmarried when Bonnie became pregnant.

The marriage was stormy, with Ray comingin and out of the marriage as he neededmoney or a place to stay. Ray was verballyand occasionally physically abusive toBonnie. After John was born, Bonnie wenton welfare because she could not afford towork with two in child care.

After Joseph was born, Bonnie volunteeredto participate in a workforce trainingalternative to AFDC, called the PATHSprogram. Bonnie was tested and found tohave an aptitude for electronics. She wasaccepted into a one-year certificate programat Brown Institute which would certify herto work on copiers and fax machines.

That year, Bonnie battled homelessnesstwice. The first time, the family was evictedbecause one of the children vandalized thefront entry of the apartment building. Thesecond time, Ray broke into their smallgarage apartment and Bonnie and Raywere cited for disorderly conduct. In

between evictions, the family lost all oftheir possessions. Eventually, Bonnie founda $650 per month, three-bedroomapartment through her classroominstructor. With Bonnie earning $507 bi-weekly, money remained tight.

Despite her homelessness, Bonnie managedto keep up with her class work at BrownInstitute. After earning her certificate,Bonnie found a job fixing copiers. The jobrequired a car, which she obtained througha special loan program for PATHSparticipants. Bonnie was earning $9 anhour and was expected to increase her officecalls by 50 percent in order to keep her job.

One day, in an effort to get to the next jobquickly, Bonnie ran a stop light and causedan accident. Bonnie’s insurance companycanceled her coverage. The other driversued Bonnie and obtained a judgmentrequiring a garnishee of her wages. Soonafter, Bonnie was fired for lost time on thejob and not reaching her repair quota.

Unemployed, Bonnie could not pay herrent. As she fell farther and farther behind,her landlord advised her to go back onwelfare and qualify for emergencyassistance so she could continue to stay.Bonnie contacted the county and learnedthat if she went back on welfare, she wouldnot receive enough to cover the rentpayments. She was facing homelessnessonce again.

10

11

Families change

housing as

the conditions in

their lives change.

Because the new federal welfare law and theState MFIP program add strict employmentrequirements and time limits for thosereceiving welfare benefits, adult residents oftransitional housing programs needemployment services that are far moreextensive than those currently available. Theseservices include training for jobs paying livingwages, child care, and transportation. Atpresent, most transitional housing participantswho do find employment still are unable tomeet their costs in the Twin Cities’ expensivehousing and child care market. Without deepersupport, parents will not be able to reach thelevel of employment necessary to comply withwelfare regulations and support their familiesonce they meet their time limit for benefits.

The 24-month time limit ontransitional housing assistanceis artificial and may forcefamilies out of transitionalhousing programs before theyare ready. Currently, federal funding programs place a24-month time limit on residency intransitional housing. However, for the reasonsmentioned above—the inability of families toenter or to complete transitional housingprograms because of personal circumstances,the shortage of affordable housing fortransitional housing graduates, and theinability of adults to find employment that will support a family under current welfarereform law—many homeless families do notmanage a successful transition to stable,affordable housing after a short time intransitional housing.

Placing an arbitrary time limit on a family’sstay in transitional housing undermines thevery goal of providing this housing—familystabilization—by forcing families to leave thehousing before they may be ready. Everyonefeels the impact of this forced move. Theparent must go through the rigorous process offinding affordable replacement housing,packing up the household, resettling, re-establishing the children in school and insocial networks, and navigating a new set ofrelationships and support. Children who haveexperienced crisis, separation, loss,inconsistency, and trauma must adapt to morechange, uncertainty, and new people in theirlives. The transitional housing communityloses access to members who have succeededin accomplishing significant progress andstability and could serve as peer mentors.Program administrators lose the stability,support, and talent of participants who havemade the journey to personal success.

In a sense, the distinction between“transitional” and “permanent” housing is anarbitrary one. In any type of community, thereis a natural flow of new members coming inand others leaving. Families change housing as the conditions in their lives change. All housing is temporary; no housing is truly permanent.

4 The Response: Create a Comprehensive Systemof Supportive Housing for Families

12

In order to address the shortcomings of thetransitional housing system, the Twin Citiesshould create a comprehensive system ofsupportive housing to serve homeless families.Such a system would build on the strengths ofcurrent transitional housing programs whileresponding to the conditions that areaggravating the problem of familyhomelessness. The supportive housing systemwould be based on the following principles:

Supportive housing providesaffordable housing as theenvironment in which familiesreceive services. The primary purpose of supportive housing isto help families become stable. Individuals andfamilies need stable, affordable housing inorder to address personal challenges such aschemical dependency and lack of employmentskills. The housing itself provides theenvironment in which families can receiveservices and achieve stability.

Supportive housing providershave the flexibility to determine the length of stay in the programs. The major distinction between the currenttransitional housing system and a morecomprehensive supportive housing system isthe removal of the imposition of the 24-monthtime limit on services. Tenants, guided by

supportive housing providers, can bestdetermine the appropriate length of stay insupportive housing. Longer-term supportivehousing programs will ensure that familieshave time to complete their goals within acommunity of their peers, that they will havethe continuity in their lives that was lackingwhen they were homeless, and that successfulprogram participants will be available toprovide support for new entrants.

Supportive housing assistsfamilies in making the transitionto independent living. To help residents succeed in livingindependently, and when necessary meetwelfare reform requirements, supportivehousing programs should providecomprehensive employment services for adultresidents through on-site programs or servicesbased elsewhere in the community. Thesemight include adult education and job skilldevelopment, job search skills, placement,workplace support, and sheltered workexperiences, as well as auxiliary services suchas transportation and child care. Supportivehousing should also help residents who arealready employed to find and maintainemployment that pays adequate wages toensure economic self-sufficiency.

Kathy and John’s Story Part I :A Family at Risk ofHomelessnessKathy and John have six children, ages 4through 12. John works for the city as agroundskeeper assistant. Kathy works three-quarters time at night for a buildingmaintenance company. Their combined take home pay is $25,180 annually, or $1,050 bi-weekly.

For years, Kathy and John lived in a small two-bedroom house in the Centralneighborhood. They dreamed of buying thehouse from the elderly lady who owned it.They were saving $50 a month toward theirdown payment.

In February, Dawn, their youngest child,was hospitalized with asthma. Dawn’sdoctor discovered that Dawn had severelead poisoning–more than three times theallowable level. The hospital notified thepublic health department, which sent apublic health worker to visit the home. The site visit found lead contaminationthroughout the house and grounds, and allsix children were discovered to have high lead levels.

Both the public health worker and hospitalpersonnel contacted the county’s childprotective services office with a complaintabout possible neglect. A child protectionworker notified Kathy and John that the

county was concerned about the health andsafety of the children. Within 10 days, thecity health department condemned thehouse. Initially the notice called forimmediate eviction, but the city agreed togive the family 30 days to find housing.

Kathy and John had family in town, butnearly everyone in their family was alreadyliving in overcrowded housing. Their searchfor housing was exhaustive, butdisappointing. They found that most rentswere well above what they could afford, thatmany landlords would not rent to a familywith so many children, and that many homeswere in worse condition than their currenthouse. They applied for subsidized housing,but went on a waiting list. Kathy and Johnresigned themselves to moving to a shelterat the end of the 30 days.

Investigating emergency shelters, Kathy andJohn were shocked to learn that they wouldhave to deplete their meager savings beforereceiving assistance and that John and thetwo oldest boys would be separated from therest of the family. In the pursuit of housing,Kathy missed two nights of work, and shewas worried that she would lose her job.

A friend suggested they talk to the ministerat the church across the street. The churchran a shelter that might help them.

13

The supportive housing systemincludes housing for familieswho have difficulty complyingwith the requirements of currenttransitional housing programs. While supportive housing programs varyaccording to the intensity of services providedfor residents, there is room in the supportivehousing system for families who are currentlyscreened out of most transitional housingprograms. The programs that provide thishousing should include the intensive servicesnecessary to address the chronic conditions,such as chemical addiction, that compromisefamilies’ ability to succeed in less structuredprograms. Supportive housing can provideaccess to services and professional and peersupport to help tenants change behaviors thathave resulted in their homelessness, such asnon-payment of rent, lease violations, andactions that put others at risk.

Supportive housing builds thecapacity of parents to nurtureand care for their children. Supportive housing should provide services to help build parents’ child care skills. Forthose families who have struggled withdomestic abuse, these services could assist inending family violence. By providingparenting training, advocacy, casemanagement, and stable housing, supportivehousing can help to reunify families, whichmay preclude premature termination ofparental rights. 7

Supportive housing encouragesproductive participation incommunity and society. Families need a sense of security and belongingto support them in their pursuit of independenceand stability. Supportive housing can providefamilies with a community that understandshomelessness, addiction, and poverty, in whichindividuals are encouraged to contributeactively to the well-being of all members.Supportive housing provides this sense ofcommunity through formal activities such assupport groups, resident councils, socialevents, and recreational opportunities, as wellas through informal connections amongresidents.

14

Supportive housing supports sobriety. Residents of supportive housing as well asservice providers have testified repeatedly tothe importance of sober housing; that is, adrug- and alcohol-free community thatsupports residents’ commitment to sobriety,removes the challenges and temptations ofneighborhoods overrun by drugs, andprovides a safe environment for children.Recognizing the incidence of relapse amongthose struggling to maintain their sobriety,there are a variety of ways in whichsupportive housing providers may respond torelapses among residents. Overall, however,supportive housing places a value on sobrietyand puts forth an expectation that residentswill not use drugs or alcohol.

By providing a model for involvement, the community within a supportive housingdevelopment can help residents to becomeinvolved in activities outside the community as well. In this way, supportive housingcommunities can become assets tothe neighborhoods in which they are located by providing active, engaged neighborhood residents.

Supportive housing includesaccess to an array of mentalhealth, academic, social,recreational, and child careservices to meet the needs of children. Homelessness can have a devastating effect onchildren’s health and development. Supportivehousing programs for families should includeservices that meet the needs of children as wellas adults. For example, many children insupportive housing need therapeutic child careto help them catch up in their development.

Supportive housing should also be physicallydesigned with the needs of children in mind. Itshould include areas for supervised play andsufficient common space for programmingsuch as recreational and academic supportservices. Facilities should be designed so thatthey are environmentally healthy, providesufficiently large units for families, and aredurable enough to accommodate the impact oflarge numbers of children.

15

Because different types of families havedifferent needs, we recommend that fundersand providers create a continuum of supportivehousing programs. The continuum wouldinclude three types of programs correspondingto three profiles of families who are homelessor at risk of homelessness:

• supportive housing for chronically homeless families (similar to “Lynn”),

• supportive housing for families faced with episodic homelessness (similar to “Bonnie”), and

• outreach services for housed families at risk of homelessness (similar to “Kathy and John”).

The following profiles of homeless families arebased on the experiences shared by serviceproviders and supported by local and nationalliterature. These profiles vary based on thefamily’s experience of homelessness, thedegree and complexity of additional challengessuch as disability, abuse, and poverty, and thelack of educational and vocational skills andexperience. Similarly, the models of supportivehousing that correspond to the family profilesvary according to the intensity of servicesneeded. This section also includes new versionsof Lynn’s, Bonnie’s, Kathy and John’s stories,showing how their lives could be changed bythe different types of supportive housing.

Supportive housing forchronically homeless familiesFamily Profile

Chronically homeless families are those thatsurvive in a continuous cycle of extremepoverty, homelessness and emergency shelteruse, and vulnerability. Typically, a chronicallyhomeless family is headed by a single parent,usually female, who experienced homelessnessas a child and has been physically or sexuallyabused as a child and an adult. The parent hassignificant educational deficits and no workexperience, and may suffer from substanceabuse, mental illness, or both. As a result of theparent’s disabilities and the family’s constantcycle of homelessness, a chronically homelessfamily often has an open child protectiveservices case and a number of public servicesthat intervene in the lives of family members.Chronically homeless families are at thehighest risk of non-compliance with therequirements of MFIP (Minnesota FamilyInvestment Program), Minnesota’s welfarereform program, and as a result are vulnerableto loss of public assistance.

The children of the chronically homelessfamily suffer severe effects of prolongedhomelessness and are at risk for poor outcomesdevelopmentally, emotionally, physically, andacademically. Many are born while theirparents are homeless, and they typically sufferfrom low birth weight and are vulnerable to ahost of medical and developmental problems.As the children grow, they tend to havemarked insecurity and a high tendency forbehavioral problems (aggression among boys,depression and withdrawal among girls). Thesechildren have the poorest academicperformance, and the highest incidence ofchronic and acute illnesses. They may bebehind on their immunizations and lackadequate health care.

16

5 The Supportive Housing Continuum:Three Models of Supportive Housing

Profile of A

chronically

homeless parent

with children:

• Single parent

• Female

• Homelessness as a child

• Physically or sexually abused

• Educational deficits

• No work experience

• Substance abuse

• Mental illness

Lynn’s Story Part II: Finding a New Chance

17

Imagine that Lynn and her children wereintroduced to New Chance, a supportivehousing community, when Lynn turned 18.This opportunity came at a critical time,when Lynn had just learned that her infantson was showing signs of developmentaldelays and her foster mother haddeveloped significant health problems.

Lynn’s life was transformed when shewas accepted into the New Chancesupportive housing program. The newlyfurnished two bedroom apartment thatshe and her boys would call home wasthe first clean, attractive apartment shehad ever known. She knew that the boyswould be safe and that she might findhelp to turn her life around.

Almost immediately, Lynn was encouragedto enroll in a tenant education program, anon-site recovery support group, andreceived weekly home visits from hercommunity advocate. Together Lynn andher advocate designed a plan that focusedon the immediate needs facing Lynn andher sons. Within six months, Lynn couldsee the difference. Danny no longerseemed as prone to accidents that hadpreviously sent him to the emergency room.He seemed calmer and easier to satisfy.Thanks to the accessible wellness clinic,Kevin was undergoing a new therapeutictreatment for asthma that lessened the needfor hospitalizations. Both children wereenrolled in the New Chance on-site childcare center. Danny’s hyperactivity wassubduing and Kevin’s health careassessment did not reveal any significantdevelopmental delays.

During this time, Lynn enrolled in NewChance’s job readiness program. As asheltered work experience, Lynn was givenan opportunity to earn while learningon-the-job skills. Upon completion of theprogram, Lynn was hired as a teacher’saide in the New Chance preschoolclassroom. She learned basic child development and stimulation theory, which

was valuable to her as a parent. Shereceived nearly one-on-one supervision forthe first three months, and then waspromoted to play supervisor.

Shortly after, Lynn’s foster mother passedaway. Lynn’s advocate spent time withLynn and helped her plan the funeral.Other New Chance residents alsosupported Lynn by attending the funeral,providing food, and providing emotionalsupport. A resident who had becomeLynn’s recovery mentor offered to staywith her for several nights to encouragesobriety during the stress-filled days afterthe funeral. Community members gave thechildren extra attention and support asthey too grieved the loss of the one whomthey often referred to as mother.

One month after her foster mother’s death,Lynn became isolated. She did not come towork, and her children missed day care.Her advocate visited and found that Lynnhad begun using drugs again. Lynn agreedthat she needed help for both her chemicaladdiction and her depression. She and theadvocate agreed that Lynn would enter thehospital for a short stay to monitor hermedications and to regain her strength forrecovery. New Chance’s children’sspecialist spent the night with the childrenand helped them get to school. In threedays, Lynn returned to her home and job.The family remained intact and stable andLynn learned once again that she couldcount on the community to support hercommitment to sobriety.

At the end of 12 months as a teacher’saide, Lynn was accepted into a teachingassistant training program. Nine monthslater, Lynn found jobs as a morningassistant for a day care center and ateaching assistant in New Chance’s after-school program.

Lynn’s sons, Danny and Kevin, continuedto show signs of improvement, bothemotionally and physically. Danny’s

cognitive development was on par withschool readiness and his behavioralproblems had been addressed to theextent that he could fully participate ingroup activities and play successfully withother children. Kevin’s physical developmentwas developing normally. Kevin, too, wasdeveloping good social skills, fullyparticipating in the activities of his daycare program. His asthma, though anoccasional problem, was under controland responding well to the inhalationtherapies he was receiving at the nearbyhealth clinic.

However, sometime later, Lynn’s advocateand other community members found Lynnonce again relapsed. She had beeninvolved with a man who shared a similarhistory of drug abuse. With advocates andthe community’s help, Lynn terminated therelationship and entered inpatienttreatment. Once again, the communitycared for the children in the apartmentwith minimal disruption to their lives.

While in treatment, Lynn discovered shewas once again pregnant. She made thedecision to keep the baby, but this time alsodeciding to seek prenatal care andadditional support to maintain her sobriety.The community advocate assisted her innavigating the health care system. Sheattended all the prenatal visits; participatedin a special nutritional support program;and received home-based recovery supportservices. After a successful, full termpregnancy, Lynn gave birth to Cassy, ahealthy baby girl free of drugs.

Lynn’s story at New Chance is full oftwists and turns. It is not without setbacks:the loss of a loved one, an unexpectedpregnancy, and a recovery that includesrelapse. However, at New Chance, Lynn isexperiencing the value of a strong supportnetwork and an environment thatencourages stability and self-sufficiency.

Development/Site Design

Chronically homeless families need multiple,intensive support services. In order tocoordinate these services effectively andprovide the peer support that can helpchronically homeless families succeed,supportive housing for these families shouldbe designed as single-site, congregatedevelopments. Ideally, these facilities shouldconsist of no more than 25 housing units so that services can be individualized and of high quality.

Proposed Service Strategy

Services for chronically homeless familiesshould assist families in addressing personalcrises and achieving family stability, meeting welfare reform requirements, andobtaining services for children to reverse the devastating effects of their homelessness. Services might include:

• comprehensive case management servicesto coordinate professional interventions,relapse planning, family reunification, andaccess to community resources for bothadults and children;

• chemical dependency and mental health support services with access to on-site treatment and after care servicesas needed;

• on-site or conveniently located, affordablechild care including special needs ortherapeutic child care, care for sick children,and care during non-routine work hours;

• assistance with transitions from welfare towork, including work readiness and on-sitesheltered work opportunities for those withno work experience and extenuating needs;

• on-site or conveniently located children’sservices focused on building academic andsocial achievement;

• assistance in resolving legal and financial problems, such as past rental andcredit history;

• health care advocacy to address the effectsof homelessness on the adults’ andchildren’s health.

Anticipated Need

According to extrapolations from the report ofthe Wilder Research Center, approximately1,000 families fit this profile.

Potential Resources

Approximately 50 percent of the localtransitional housing programs reviewed for thisstudy could provide supportive housing forchronically homeless families if they couldwaive the time restrictions associated withfederal funding. In addition, the local office ofthe Corporation for Supportive Housing isconsidering launching a Family SupportiveHousing Initiative, which could result in theproduction of 300 units of supportive housingfor chronically homeless families.

18

Children of

the chronically

homeless

often suffer:

• Low birth weight

• Poor outcomes developmentally, emotionally, physically, and academically

• Medical vulnerability

• Insecurity

• Behavioral problems

• Poorest academic performance

• Chronic and acute illnesses

• Inadequate health care.

19

Housed families

at risk of

homelessness

struggle to

maintain full

employment, often

working more

than one job to

support the family.

Supportive housing for families with episodichomelessnessFamily Profile

Families with episodic homelessness mayhave been homeless several times, but theirhomelessness is caused primarily by economicproblems rather than by disabilities or otherpersonal crises. The heads of households ofthese families often have some post-highschool experience and have worked in alimited capacity. The parent’s struggle withchemical dependency or mental illness mayhave played a part in the family’shomelessness, but the parent has been able tomaintain sobriety and mental health for six totwelve months. Most transitional housingprograms traditionally have been designed toserve families with episodic, rather thanchronic, homelessness.

The children of these families may also bedramatically affected by homelessness, butoften were not born into homelessness.Research suggests that the later in life thathomelessness occurs, the better the child is ableto cope with loss of home and place. Thechildren may have emotional problems andlearning disabilities, but are enrolled in schooland receiving services. Most parents inepisodically homeless families have notsuffered homelessness or out-of-homeplacement as children, so they have morepositive parenting experiences from which todraw as parents themselves. The parent’sneediness may not be in competition with thechild’s. These families may also have friendsand family who are not homeless and thereforecan provide support as the families seekpermanence and stability.

Development/Facility Design

Because episodically homeless families havefewer service needs and are more able to liveindependently than chronically homelessfamilies, they do not necessarily need to live incongregate, single-site housing. What is moreimportant is that the families live in decent,stable housing that they can afford so that theycan resolve the economic problems that haveforced them into homelessness. While manyepisodically homeless families could benefitfrom the community and peer support createdby congregate housing, there are other modelsthat could also serve them appropriately,including housing units scattered throughoutthe community.

Service Strategy

Because the primary cause of homelessnessamong episodically homeless families is a lackof sufficient income for housing, supportiveservices would focus on helping adults tobecome fully employed at a living wage. Theseservices might include access to affordablechild care, transportation, and work-placeadvocacy. Supportive housing developed forthese families would include advocacy and casemanagement support services, with theseservices targeted toward employment retention.

Anticipated Need

According to the extrapolations from the reportof the Wilder Research Center, approximately1,300 families are episodically homeless.

Potential Resources

Approximately 50 percent of transitionalhousing programs reviewed for this reportcould serve episodically homeless families ifexternal time constraints were removed.

Bonnie’s Story Part II: Getting a Fresh Start

Imagine that Bonnie and her children had been referred to a new supportive housing program in the Twin Cities. Fresh Start is ascattered-site supportive housingprogram. It combines affordablehousing with supportive services forhomeless families who are enteringthe workforce.

After discussions with staff about thefamily’s needs and Bonnie’semployment plan, Bonnie was movedinto a three-bedroom duplex in southMinneapolis. An advocate from FreshStart assisted Bonnie in approachingprevious landlords to resolve her pastrental problems.

The Fresh Start advocate alsoassisted Bonnie in gainingemployment providing bench techrepair services for a large businessmachine retailer. Bonnie identifieddifficulties with transportation to andfrom work. The bus system did notcoincide with Bonnie’s schedule, soshe needed alternative transportationor her own car. Because Bonnie hadpreviously purchased a car through anon-profit loan program and had notpaid the outstanding balance after hercar accident, she was no longereligible for access to additionalsupport and she had a negative creditreport as well. The advocate assisted Bonnie with securing a ride through

an informal ride-share program andhelped her set up a payment plan toresolve the defaulted car loan.

Fresh Start also enrolled the childrenin after-school programming andhelped them arrange fortransportation home. Jasmine wasenrolled in an arts program sponsoredby the MacPhail Center and waslinked up with an artist mentor. Johnwas enrolled in a recreationalprogram combining academics andsports. He had lost a year of school,but was maintaining attendance andwas beginning to show improvementin his classes. The other two childrenwere enrolled in an after-schoolprogram sponsored by Fresh Start,which incorporated sports, theater,and community field trips.

After initial support and assistance,the family settled into their new home.Bonnie was able to continue at herjob, where she was promoted, givensupervisory responsibility, andbecame eligible for classes at BrownInstitute to upgrade her certification.Eventually, Bonnie was accepted intoa first-time home buyer program andpurchased a home in Richfield. Thekids continue to attend school andparticipate in sports and arts.Jasmine has been accepted into aprogram sponsored by HamlineUniversity for minority scholars.

Kathy and John’sStory Part II: A little HelpImagine that Kathy and John hadbeen referred by the minister toHELP, a program sponsored by alocal nonprofit organization. HELPassessed the family’s needs andcontacted the city’s Lead AbatementProgram, which offers short-term safehousing to families while theirresidence is cleansed of leadcontamination.

The assessment also indicated that thefamily was interested in purchasingthe home. HELP made an additionalreferral to the Housing Center,another non-profit organization,which assisted the family in securingdown payment assistance andmortgage counseling so that theycould purchase the house uponcompletion of the lead abatement. Inaddition, the family received a low-interest home improvement loan toassist with weatherization and codecompliance improvements.

Within 60 days, Kathy and John andtheir children moved back into theirnewly safe home — this time as home owners.

20

Outreach supportive servicesfor housed families at risk of homelessness.Family Profile

This category contains a wide range offamilies, many of whom are formerlyhomeless and have completed transitionalhousing programs. These families are includedin the design of the supportive housingsystem. Their future homelessness may bepreventable through services similar to thosefor episodically homeless families. Moreover,the majority of housing providers surveyedexpressed concern that families who are nolonger supportive housing residents could notreceive services through their programs unlessthey become homeless again.

Typically, these families have succeeded inmaking the transition from welfare to workand are currently living in permanent housing,but are unable to maintain both their housingand child care without financial support. Theyare employed but may need ongoing outreachservices to support the retention of theiremployment. The children of these familiesmay be at the least risk when compared withthe profiles of children trapped in a cycle ofhomelessness. These children may have otherunmet needs having more to do with lack ofaccess to a parent who is struggling tomaintain full employment, often working morethan a single job to earn a living wage thatwill support the family. As a result, thesechildren may need support to maintain theirdevelopmental and academic progress.

Development/Facility Design

These families would receive services to keepthem in their current housing, so the only“facility” might be an outreach office withstaff to conduct home visits and coordinateaccess to supportive services necessary toavoid homelessness.

Service Strategy:

The outreach staff would assist families infinding resources and services to respond to awide variety of needs: rent subsidies, childcare, general advocacy, transportation,workplace advocacy and job placementservices, counseling, and financial assistance.

Anticipated Need:

It is difficult to estimate the number of housedfamilies who are at risk of homelessness,because families do not enter the currenttransitional housing system unless they havealready become homeless. An estimate based onextrapolations from the report of the WilderResearch Center is that approximately 1,000families at any given time have less severe needsthat could be addressed through outreachsupportive services.

21

Services needed to

help keep families

in their current

housing:

• Rent subsidies

• Child care

• General advocacy

• Transportation

• Workplace advocacy

• Job placement services

• Counseling

• Financial assistance

The housing and intensive services associatedwith supportive housing do create costs, andthe following chapter, “Implementing theSupportive Housing Continuum,” recommendspotential funding sources for these costs.However, if supportive housing is not put inplace, the lack of stable housing and servicesfor homeless families will cost public agenciesfar more in terms of foster care, medical care,and other emergency services for homelessfamilies. This is particularly true forchronically homeless families, whose constantcrises result in the use of an array of costlyemergency services.

An analysis of “Lynn’s Story,” the case study ofa chronically homeless family, shows thatdespite increased up-front costs, providingsupportive housing actually reduces public costssignificantly. The following chart shows theannual costs of public interventions in the livesof Lynn and her children from 1991 to 1999,beginning after Lynn’s eighteenth birthday. Thechart traces the two possibilities described in thestories on pages 8 and 17: first, that Lynn andher family remain homeless, or second, that thefamily moves into the “New Chance”supportive housing community.*

In this case, the family’s stay in supportivehousing reduces costs to the public sector by anaverage of 52 percent per year, from $77,000per year to $37,500 per year. Providing a stablehome for the family and treatment andcommunity support to prevent Lynn’ssubstance abuse prevents her older childrenbeing sent to foster care and her youngest childfrom being born with severe health problems.Thus, while the supportive housing scenarioinvolves increased costs for housing, chemicaldependency treatment, and employment-relatedservices, these costs are far outweighed by thesavings to the medical and foster care systems.Moreover, the less costly supportive housingoption leads to far more stable lives for Lynnand her children.

22

6Cost Savings Associated withSupportive Housing

Supportive

Housing Offers

Potential for

Significant Savings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PotentialCost

CurrentCosts

23

* This cost comparison is based on extensive research and interviews with agency staff. The cost data represent actual

costs to public agencies to provide a variety of types of services to one homeless family over a nine-year period (1991-

99). For more information about how “Lynn’s Story,” the other case studies, and the cost data were assembled, see the

“Methods” section at the end of this report. Also, a more extensive analysis with the sources of all the costs listed

above, The Financial Implications of Public Interventions on Behalf of a Chronically Homeless Family, will be

available from the Family Housing Fund.

Public Intervention Without Supportive With Supportive Cost SavingsHousing Housing of Supportive

Housing

Out-of -Home Placement for Children $ 99,700 $ 0 $ 99,700

Chemical DependencyTreatment/Support 9,600 39,200 (29,600)

Criminal Justice 48,800 0 48,800

Hospital/Medical 281,200 38,200 243,000

Housing 6,000 52,400 (46,400)

AFDC/MFIP 69,100 69,100 0

Case Management 54,500 24,200 30,300

Child Care 77,500 85,200 (7,700)

Employment 200 2,600 (2,400)

Academic Development 48,600 5,900 42,100

Mental Health 0 12,700 (12,700)

Transportation 0 7,600 (7,600)

Total $695,200 $337,100 $358,100

Average Annual Costof Public Interventions $ 77,000 $ 37,500 $ 39,800

We recommend that an implementation groupbe formed consisting of funders, policymakers,and housing providers to oversee the creationof the supportive housing continuum. Thisgroup would be responsible for promoting thedevelopment of the supportive housing system,linking policymaking and funding practicesamong housing and service funders, andbuilding financial resources for the supportivehousing continuum.

With some modifications, we recommend thatexisting transitional housing programs form thenucleus of the new supportive housingcontinuum in the Twin Cities. Many transitionalhousing programs already perform several ofthe functions identified in the description ofsupportive housing, with approximately 300existing units responding to the needs ofchronically homeless families and another 300units focused on families who struggle withepisodic homelessness. These programsrepresent a significant preliminary investment inthe supportive housing continuum. To functionmost effectively, however, policies will need tobe implemented to lift externally imposed timelimits on these programs and to provideadditional capital, operating, and servicefunding to stabilize developments.

In order to stabilize the existing supply ofhousing as well as to meet the increasingneeds of families, the implementation groupwill need to employ a number of strategies todevelop steady sources of capital, operational,and support services funding. The followingrecommendations suggest strategies toincrease financial assistance for supportivehousing developments.

Capital Funding: Convene atechnical committee of federal,state, local, and private fundersto identify additional sources ofstabilization assistance anddevelopment capital. The implementation group should convene atechnical committee of funders to identifyfinancial resources for stabilization and newdevelopment. This group should conduct ananalysis to determine the cost of preserving thequality of the existing housing stock and identifyfunding sources to meet those costs. The groupshould also explore the availability of fundingsources that would allow some programs toconvert from traditional transitional housingprograms to supportive housing programswithout externally imposed time limits. Finally,the group should identify sources of funding toadd new units as part of the development of thesupportive housing continuum.

Operating Subsidies: Redirect a portion of Section 8vouchers and certificates toprovide rent subsidies fortransitional and supportivehousing developments. Through the Section 8 voucher and certificateprogram, the federal government provides amonthly rental subsidy to private landlords that

24

7 Implementing the SupportiveHousing Continuum

25

house low-income tenants. The Twin Citiesshould pursue a waiver from HUD to permit theattachment of a portion of Section 8 certificatesand vouchers to units in transitional housingprojects. HUD occasionally grants waivers intight housing markets where tenants arereturning certificates and vouchers to the issuingauthorities because of the shortage of availableunits. If Section 8 assistance can be attached tonew and existing supportive housing units, itcan provide the steady operating subsidycurrently lacking in the system.

Service Funding: Explore theuse of TANF and MFIP dollars tocreate a steady funding streamfor employment-related servicesin supportive housing. Minnesota has amassed a reserve of federalTANF reserve funds in excess of $200million.8 Only a small percentage of reservefunds has been allocated, primarily for childcare funding. As noted above, under welfarereform, many of the services currently neededby residents of transitional or supportivehousing relate to employment. TANF reservefunds and MFIP dollars from the state couldfund services that would reduce barriers toemployment for supportive housing residents,such as child care, transportation, andemployment support programs.

ConclusionThese recommendations suggest that creating acomprehensive supportive housing system willrequire a major new financial commitmentfrom the public and private sectors to produceadditional housing units. There are alreadymore homeless families in the Twin Citiesmetro area than the current transitional housingsystem can serve, and lengthening the stay ofsome families in supportive housing will meanthat each unit can serve fewer families peryear. Meeting families’ needs for supportivehousing is expensive, especially given theintensive needs associated with chronicallyhomeless families with children. However, asthe previous section shows, doing nothing willgenerate far higher costs with far lesssatisfactory results. A strong push to create thesupportive housing continuum would be bothhumane and cost-effective.

In addition, the success of the supportivehousing system depends on the availability ofaffordable housing for those who no longerneed supportive housing. The lack of housingalternatives places a tremendous strain on thesupportive housing system, as families who areready to move to independent living are forcedto remain in their current supportive housing—or are vulnerable to becoming homelessagain—because they have no place else to go.Preventing the tragedy of family homelessnessin the Twin Cities will depend on our ability toprovide decent, safe, affordable housing, bothsupportive and not, to all families who need it.

26

8Endnotes

2 Some providers who have accepted families

representing a high risk for failure have created

separate, internal programs as preparation for

transitional housing. They report the need for

intensive services and costly program interventions

to maintain these families in temporary housing,

with few moving on to transitional housing.

3 In addition to placing families at increased risk of

homelessness, the tight housing market can result in

the loss of parental rights to children in families with

open child protection cases. Under the federal

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, states must

terminate parental rights and start adoption

proceedings if children are in out-of-home

placement beyond a requisite limit. The Minnesota

legislature recently passed a state law that expedites

the timeline to six months for children under the age

of eight. Because some parents have been unable to

find housing in the tight rental market, they have not

been able to reunite with their children and their

parental rights are at risk of termination. While

recent case law forbids termination of parental rights

due exclusively to the lack of housing, local

interpretation of the law has resulted in the

premature loss of parental rights. Homelessness may

not be cited as the primary factor, but may be the

unstated reason.

4 Several reports document families’ success in

finding permanent housing. The SAFAH Report

documented that 63 percent of families found

permanent housing upon completion of a transitional

housing program, increasing to 72 percent 24

months later. The Wilder Transitional Housing

Report found that 45 percent of those completing a

transitional housing program were living in

permanent housing six months later, decreasing to

41 percent 12 months after completion.

HOMEBASE reported that 61 percent of HUD-SHP

residents found permanent housing upon completing

a transitional housing program.

5 The Wilder Transitional Housing Report found that

one year after leaving transitional housing, 68

percent were concerned that they could no longer

afford their housing. The SAFAH Report stated that

19 percent of those who had left transitional housing

for a permanent unit reported difficulty in paying

their rent, with 13 percent spending more than 50

percent of income for housing.

6 The SAFAH Report found that transitional housing

programs led to a 32 percent decrease in AFDC

usage and a 62 percent increase in employment. Of

those employed, 57 percent reported an increase in

income, averaging $626 per month. The Wilder

Transitional Housing Report found that 55 to 67

percent had higher incomes upon completing a

transitional housing program, and 50 to 58 percent

experienced an increase in income from full or part-

time employment. A HUD report found that twice as

many transitional housing residents were employed

at program completion than at entry.

7 See discussion of parental rights in Endnote iii.

8 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,

i.e., the federal welfare funding program that has

replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

TANF funds are allocated to states.

1 In the Twin Cities, transitional housing programs

supplement HUD funding with a patchwork quilt of

state, federal, philanthropic, and private funds,

including the following:

State of Minnesota: Minnesota’s Transitional

Housing Program, Group Residential Housing

program, and social service programs provide

funding for capital, operating, and support services.

Other federal programs: The Emergency Shelter

Grant (ESG) and Housing for People With AIDS

(HOPWA) programs provide funding for capital,

operating, and service costs. The federal Low

Income Housing Tax Credit also provides funding

for capital expenditures.

Philanthropic: Non-profit intermediaries such as

Family Housing Fund, Greater Minneapolis

Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC), and

Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) provide

support for pre-development and capital costs. The

Federal Home Loan Bank also provides capital

assistance. United Way and private foundations

provide funding for service costs.

Local: Cities and counties may appropriate federal

pass-through funds, such as Community

Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the Home

Investment Partnership Program (HOME), for

capital expenditures. In addition, counties may

provide funding for service costs.

Client rents: This revenue is used for all types

of expenditures.

27

9Methods andAcknowledgments

Case Study MethodsThe three case studies found in this report —“Lynn’s Story,” “Bonnie’s Story,” and “Kathy and John’s Story” — are based on theactual experiences of homeless families. Eachof the characters is based on a real person,although some of the families are compositesmade up of members of several different real-life families. The stories leading up to thefamilies’ encounters with supportive housingrelate real events, with names and some detailschanged to simplify the stories and protectindividuals’ anonymity.

Cost Analysis MethodsThe analysis of the cost savings associated withsupportive housing is based on extensiveinterviews with agency staff from the State ofMinnesota and metro-area counties, interviewswith service providers, research by theCorporation for Supportive Housing into thecosts of supportive housing alternatives, and, inrare cases, published studies. Each category ofexpense is a summation of the costs of numerousservices corresponding to specific incidents; forexample, the “Chemical Dependency Treatmentand Support” item in the supportive housingscenario includes the costs of two sessions ofinpatient treatment for Lynn, ongoing relapseprevention services, and ongoing soberrecreational activities. A more extensive analysisincluding tables detailing the dollar amount andinformation source for each cost, entitledFinancial Implications of Public Interventions onBehalf of Chronically Homeless Families, will beavailable as a separate publication from theFamily Housing Fund.

AcknowledgmentsMany people contributed their time andinsights to this study. The report was overseenby an advisory committee chaired by ReverendMichael O’Connell of the Basilica of St. Mary.Local transitional housing providers and afocus group of transitional housing residentsalso contributed significant input. The Family Housing Fund and report author EllenHart-Shegos would like to acknowledge theinput of the following contributors:

Advisory Committee Members:

Chair: Reverend Michael O’Connell, Rector, Basilica of St. Mary, Pastor, Church of the Ascension

Carol Berde, Executive Vice President, The McKnight Foundation

Janel Bush, Housing Policy Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Human Services

Gary Cunningham, Director, Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development

David Doth, Director of the Health Department, City of Minneapolis

Tom Fulton, President, Family Housing FundKit Hadley, Commissioner, Minnesota

Housing Finance Agency Shawn Huckelby, Community Builder,

U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment

Mary Mahoney, Director, Ramsey County Office for Integrated Health Care

Ann O’Rielly, Program Director, Corporation for Supportive Housing, New York

Steve Thomas, Program Manager, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Minnesota

Edie Thorpe, Director, Surdna FoundationSandra Vargas, County Administrator,

Hennepin CountyRebecca Yanisch, Vice President for

Development, Ryan Companies, US, Inc.Pam Zagaria, Vice President,

Family Housing Fund

Transitional Housing Providers:

Brenda Alexander, Model Cities Family Development Center

Pam Ampferer, New Foundations, Inc. Crestview Community

Scott Beckman, Common Bond CommunitiesMaLoyce Bell, New Foundations, Inc.

Crestview CommunityReyne Branchaud–Linsk, Mary’s ShelterDan Cain, Eden ProgramsGwen Chandler–Rhivers, YWCA of

Saint Paul Housing and Support ServicesLinda Coleman, Parent/Child

Development InstituteTrisha Cummins Kaufman,

East Metro Women’s CouncilDeanna Foster,

HOPE Community, Inc.Mary Hartmann, New Foundations, Inc.

Crestview CommunityBeverly Hawkins, Model Cities

of St. Paul, Inc.Peter Hayden, Turning Point, Inc.Rebecca Henry,

HOPE Community, Inc.Charles Jackson, Model Cities

of St. Paul, Inc.Marc Johnson, Harriet Tubman

Transitional Housing ProgramDianne Marsh, Model Cities

Family Development CenterJackie Meyer, Passage CommunityAngela Nichols, YWCA of Saint Paul

Housing and Support ServicesGloria Perez–Jordan, Jeremiah ProgramRose Robinson,

Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource CenterJeannie Seeley–Smith,

Perspectives Transitional HousingShirley Shumate,

Perspectives Transitional Housing

Mary Thorpe-Mease,Wayside House and Incarnation House

Bill Vanderwall, Lutheran Social ServicesStephanie Walter, Harriet Tubman

Transitional Housing Program

Focus Group Participants:

Marlee AllenSara BernaulDontelle ColesLia EvensDiane HalliganGina JirakCynthia L. JohnsonNyapiach KuothDorothea LeeLori K. MingerAmy MontantesBrandy MullettLynonia NewmanRobin PetersonRasheda PettifordShakri SaidDeb TwardowskiYolanda Warner

Additional Contributors:

Denise Holter, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency

Christine Jacox, Hart–Shegos and Assoc., Inc.Pat Leary, Minnesota Department of

Children, Families and Learning Stacy Majestic, Hart–Shegos and Assoc., Inc.Greg Owen, Ph.D., Wilder Research CenterDenise Rogers, Minnesota Housing Finance

AgencyGeorge Stone, Corporation for Supportive

Housing, Minnesota

28

FAMILY HOUSING FUND

MIDWEST PLAZA WEST

SUITE 1840

801 NICOLLET MALL

MINNEAPOLIS,

MINNESOTA 55402

Tel: 612-375-9644

Fax: 612-375-9648