In
1994, HUD evaluated the Emergency Shelter Grant Program by examining
the organizations involved in the program, how program activities
were implemented, and their impacts. The study's findings are based
on the activities of 382 grantees and the 3,000 to 3,500 service
providers who received ESG funds between 1987 and 1991. Of 382 grantees
surveyed, 234 responses were received. Of 3,000 to 3,500 service
providers surveyed, 651 responses were received. Indepth information
was gained from respondees, including both shelter and nonshelter
providers, through study visits to 15 sites.
Program
Description and Administration
Created
in 1986, ESG provides formula funding to entitlement jurisdictions
for a broad range of eligible activities. These activities include
conversion, renovation, and rehabilitation of facilities; operation
of facilities; delivery of essential services; homelessness prevention
and administration. ESG funding has enabled service providers to
expand available emergency shelter capacity to broaden the range
of services available to clients.
Those
eligible to receive funding are States, Territories, metropolitan
cities and urban counties, and Indian tribes. These grantees are
in turn authorized to reallocate funds to either government or nonprofit
agencies that may deliver services directly. While States are required
to distribute their entire allotment to local government, local
governments receiving entitlement funds may distribute all or a
portion of their ESG funds to nonprofit homeless provider organizations.
From
FY87 through FY91, nearly 400 grantees received ESG funding. Most
awards went to metropolitan central cities (50 percent), followed
by urban counties (28 percent). An estimated 3,000 to 3,500 providers
are funded by grantees. A wide variety of agencies and organizations
may receive ESG funding to support delivery of services for clients
who are either homeless or at risk of losing their permanent housing.
Among all ESG-funded providers, the majority (89 percent) are private,
nonprofit entities, generally well- established organizations that
average 17 years' experience.
ESG-funded
entities may be either shelter or nonshelter providers. In FY91,
82 percent of ESG- funded service providers were shelters. ESG-funded
providers that offered nonshelter facilities sponsored health care
and substance abuse treatment centers, served meals, and provided
counseling. While some of these grantees and providers have access
to substantial non-Federal resources for their programs, most rely
heavily on ESG and other Federal initiatives such as those established
by the McKinney-Vento Act.
Program
Implementation, Funding, Costs, and Activities
From
FY87 to FY91, the ESG program distributed $277.8 million to nearly
400 grantee jurisdictions that was distributed as follows: $99.1
million (36 percent) for conversion, renovation, and rehabilitation
of facilities; $129.9 million (47 percent) for shelter operation;
$37 million (13 percent) for services; and $9.8 million (4 percent)
for homelessness prevention.
The
average ESG award in FY91 to a provider agency was $20,592, which
represented, on average, 5 to 10 percent of a provider's operating
budget. The requirement for a dollar-for-dollar match enabled many
ESG providers to aggressively leverage other funding to produce
a 1:10 match. This they did by tapping a combination of other Federal
funding, State and local government sources, and private and foundation
support. The total Federal contribution to an ESG-provider's budget,
including ESG, averaged 30 percent, making Federal support one of
the more significant factors influencing the emergency amelioration
of homelessness. In the 26 States where State appropriations were
available, State funding averaged approximately 20 percent; local
county or city funding averaged 10 percent; and private funding
from corporations, foundations, and religious organizations averaged
approximately 30 percent.
Providers
implemented their programs following ESG-eligible activity guidelines
as follows:
Capital
Improvements
One-fifth
of all ESG-funded providers (21 percent), used their funds for physical
improvements. Improvements included interior remodeling, plumbing,
structural and electrical work, building and health code work, HVAC,
painting, and improved safety for children.
Among
providers using ESG funding for physical improvements, ESG funds
accounted for roughly 50 percent of the cumulative spending for
capital investment and made available an estimated 7,700 additional
beds nationwide. By FY91, spending for capital improvements had
diminished to 20 percent of all ESG funds.
Physical
improvements were generally completed within the 2-year draw-down
period allowed by ESG guidelines. Projects that did experience delays,
however, identified the causes as contractor-related procurement
and bidding delays, a lengthy environmental review process, or excessive
documentation.
Essential
Services
ESG
funding supported expansion of supportive services at emergency
shelters. Ninety-one percent of the grantees reported that they
had expanded social services to their clients, and 63 percent reported
a reduction in the number of underserved or unserved homeless individuals
and families. In addition, numerous providers indicated that the
flexibility of ESG funding was an excellent source of leverage and
an advantage in meeting the needs of their local homeless populations.
More
than 80 percent of all providers that received ESG funds required
case management of their clients as a condition for permitting individuals
and families to remain within a shelter.
The
most common form of assistance, offered by more than 90 percent
of the providers, was help in obtaining benefits and permanent housing.
This was closely followed by assistance in daily living skills,
such as money management (86.2 percent), transportation (79.1 percent),
support groups (78.6 percent), and job referrals (69.8 percent).
Providers also offered assistance designed to help homeless individuals
and families move from a shelter environment into transitional and
permanent housing.
Nearly
60 percent of providers reported that as a result of ESG support,
they were able to increase service capacity and expand and intensify
their intervention services. Added services have included education
and training, child-related and housing-related services, and expansion
of case management and coordination strategies. Other commonly offered
services included child care, GED preparation, vocational counseling,
intervention and treatment services for substance abuse, medical
care, and psychological counseling.
Homelessness
Prevention
After
homeless prevention was added as an eligible activity in 1989, 82.4
percent of providers surveyed by Abt Associates in 1991 were using
ESG funds to forestall or eliminate the loss of permanent housing.
Concomitantly, 77.5 percent of providers surveyed were using prevention
grants to resettle homeless persons into permanent housing.
Specific
preventive assistance included delinquent rental and utility payment
assistance, security deposit payments, and landlord/tenant mediation.
Homelessness
prevention efforts tended to be carried out by the larger social
service agencies or community action organizations.
Operations
ESG
funding for day-to-day operations has remained relatively constant
since the program was initiated, with between 47 and 52 percent
of the total ESG allotment going to operations each year.
Effect
of ESG on Homeless Facilities
Two
trends that accounted for increased staff costs were the emerging
emphasis on case management and the expanding range and intensity
of services being offered to clients, with the expectation that
the effects of these services would provide positive and long-lasting
effects for clients.
Although
the ESG contribution to a provider's budget is modest, if it is
used in combination with other Federal funding, including Community
Development Block Grants and Supportive Housing Demonstration Program
funds, the impact can be appreciable. Because $99 million of capital
investment between FY87 and FY91 represented roughly 50 percent
of the cumulative capital investment of providers surveyed for the
Abt Associates study, the ESG program has been particularly instrumental
in increasing shelter capacity. Ninety-one percent of grantees reported
an increase in the number of shelter beds in their localities since
FY87.
In
less tangible ways, ESG funding has also enhanced the quality of
the shelter space by allowing the addition of children's safety
features, play yards, common rooms, handicapped accessibility features,
and security provisions. Between 70 and 90 percent of all grantees
indicated qualitative improvements related to specific quality improvements
such as improved habitability, increased security, and other benefits.
Providers'
use of ESG funding has shifted over time, however. Whereas funding
for capital improvements amounted to more than half the total in
each of the first 3 years, by FY91 it accounted for only 20 percent.
Funding for essential services increased from 11 percent in FY87
to 21 percent in FY91. Among the types of services showing the greatest
growth have been child care; support groups; basic skills development,
such as budget management; and counseling and treatment for medical
or psychological conditions or substance abuse. Moreover, after
FY89, when homelessness prevention became an allowable activity,
prevention programs for individuals and families at risk of losing
their housing accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total spending
of ESG funding in FY89. By FY91 providers were allowed to use up
to 30 percent of their ESG grant money to prevent homelessness.
Changes
in funding allocated to different activities occur where sponsors
recognize the need for more than "two hots and a cot."
Other critical factors include changes in spending ceilings and
the expansion of eligible categories to reflect an emerging emphasis
on supporting the range of interventions necessary to resolve homelessness.
Impacts
on Populations Served
Estimates
indicate that ESG-funded shelter providers and nonshelter services
providers served 2.8 million individuals and 1.1 million families
in 1 year. The populations include the homeless and nonhomeless
persons threatened with becoming homeless and in need of prevention
or other emergency assistance. Services included providing nighttime
shelter or, in nonshelter instances, helping in the form of a meal,
counseling, or assisting with enrolling for entitlements. Of these,
some 205,000 individuals and 65,000 families were placed or kept
in permanent housing with the help of ESG-supported services.
Shelters
and other homeless service providers that received ESG funds in
FY91, served a broad range of the homeless population. The ESG program
was not designed to target particular groups of homeless individuals
or families. One of its strengths lay in its flexibility, which
allowed it to serve a broad range of the homeless population.
ESG-funded
providers constitute a mix of shelters and other service agencies.
About 82 percent of ESG-funded providers are shelters, and of those
more than three-quarters are 24-hour shelters combining overnight
facilities with day programs. ESG-funded shelter and nonshelter
providers targeted and served homeless individuals and families
in somewhat different ways, with homeless-service agencies tending
to serve a more diverse population. Shelter providers focused on
providing bed space and meals with a secondary, but not necessarily
less important, emphasis on provision of comprehensive onsite services.
Nonshelter
providers did not offer any form of housing, but instead provided
a range of support services that often included housing information
and referrals to health care facilities, counseling agencies, residential
treatment facilities, and child care centers.
Some
ESG-supported providers did tailor their programs to specific populations.
Homeless families were the most frequently accepted. Eighty-five
percent of the programs accepted families in FY91, and approximately
half of all providers reported that they also offered services to
battered women and drug- and alcohol-dependent clients. The elderly,
physically disabled, veterans, and HIV-positive clients were also
relatively well served, with between 37 and 42 percent of all providers
offering assistance. Only 31 percent of all shelters and 34 percent
of nonshelter providers accepted single young men under the age
of 18. Many in this group were restricted to day-only shelters and
were forced back onto the streets at night.
After
homelessness prevention became an eligible ESG activity in 1989,
grantees who employed homelessness prevention strategies reported
they were able to assist nearly 35,000 households at an average
cost per case of $196.33 in FY91.
Of
most importance is whether ESG program funds are making a difference.
The answer is yes. From initial intervention to helping individuals
and families move into transitional or permanent housing, ESG program
funds are helping to lift people out of the abyss of homelessness.
|