Homelessness in America:
Present realities, future challenges
Ragaei S. Abdelfattah1
Center for Housing Research2
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0451, USA
Tel. 540-231-3993, Fax 540-231-7331, email: ragaeis@vt.edu
ABSTRACT
Homelessness, and the risk of being homeless is on the rise in the United
States, and it is attracting growing public attention and research interest. Last year, the
Bush Administration pledged to end chronic homelessness in ten years. State and local
governments quickly followed suite and “ending homelessness” is becoming a more
common vocabulary in these circles. Within that context, homelessness is becoming a
more complex phenomenon that requires multi-dimensional/multi-player interventions.
Although recent research indicated the critical role of prevention and aggressive case
management practices, housing options remain the permanent and end solution for the
homeless. This paper develops a model for the process of homelessness - the process of
getting into homelessness and out of it that can be used to guide identifying the key issues
throughout the process. The paper presents some of these issues and focuses primarily on
supportive permanent housing for ending chronic homelessness in the United States by
integrating recent research conducted by the Virginia Tech Center for Housing Research
on cost estimates for the provision of permanent housing units, and the costs associated
with managing and maintaining these units. The paper concludes that more accurate
estimates need to be conducted and reflected in fiscal budgets, on the federal and local
levels, if the pledge of ending chronic homelessness in ten years is to be realized.
Keywords: homelessness, chronic homelessness
1
The author, Ragaei Abdelfattah, is an architect and a graduate assistant at the Center for Housing
Research. After several years of international professional practice, he is now a doctoral student in
Environmental Design and Planning program at Virginia Tech. The author wishes to acknowledge the
valuable and continuous support and guidance of his teacher and mentor Dr. C. Theodore Koebel and the
resources and assistance of the Center for Housing Research which Dr. Koebel directs at Virginia Tech that
made this paper possible. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Center or those of Virginia Tech.
2
For information about the Center for Housing Research, visit:
http://www.arch.vt.edu/CAUS/RESEARCH/vchr/VCHR.html
The New Homeless
Homelessness is a historical phenomenon, not a recent one. It did exist, and
probably will continue to exist in different socio-economic and cultural
environments throughout history and across the world in different forms and at
different magnitudes. However, in the United States of America and during the
last century, the demographics of the homeless have changed, and hence the
issues associated with the problem as well as the approaches to address it. In the
1950s, according to Rossi (1990), the so-called “old homeless” population was
predominantly old men living in cheap hotels on skid rows. The new homeless in
the 1970s are much younger, more likely to belong to a minority group and suffer
from even greater poverty. In addition to Viet Nam veterans, more homeless
people are suffering chronic disability and mental illness end up on the streets,
along with women and families. These are the new and disturbing faces of the
homeless population in the United States.
The routes to homelessness have also changed over time. Historically, according
to Hopper (2003), “the great causes of homelessness have included pilgrimage,
war, famine, social upheaval, itinerant labor, alcoholism, and the lure of the open
road”. In the twentieth century, four additional forces joined the traditional ones:
(1) cyclical unemployment and/or massive job losses resulting in evictions and/or
foreclosures; (2) recurring shortages of low-cost and affordable housing; (3)
deinstitutionalization; unplanned discharges particularly from mental health and
correctional facilities, as well as the foster care system; and (4) increased social
disorder and domestic violence resulting in higher levels of escaped and runaway
women and/or children.
Conventional wisdom would expect the homeless to be unemployed, and thus
unable to afford a roof to shelter them. However, the 2003 State of the Nation’s
Housing report issued by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University indicated that based on the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)’s fair market rent measures, households with one full-time
minimum wage earner cannot afford to rent even a one-bedroom apartment
“anywhere in the country” (p.27). As a result, a new and unexpected segment of
the homeless population can be employed, and yet homeless.
The process of homelessness
In order to understand and address the homelessness problem, we need to
examine and model what can be called “the process of homelessness”. The model
(see Figure 1) shows the key stations through which the homeless either come
from or move to throughout the entering to and exiting from the homelessness
experience. The model indicates the three main intakes to the process: (1)
unmanageable discharge from correctional facilities, foster care system, and
mental and health institutions – or deinstitutionalization; (2) eviction from present
housing unites due to foreclosure or failure to pay the rent (e.g. sudden loss of job,
2
divorce, etc); and (3) domestic violence victims seeking shelter from their
abusers, mainly women, children or both.
Almost in all these situations, the emergency shelter is their first station
(especially if there are no family members or friends who would accept doubling
up with them). If they get accepted in the shelter, they have a chance to move
forward through the system to temporary and then permanent housing. Some
cases take longer than the others; some cases stay long enough to make the shelter
their home. However, shelters can not always accommodate everyone and many
people will end up sleeping under the bridge or on the street. They might come
back and knock on the shelter’s door again, or might just disappear from the
public record.
Throughout this process, and in economic and financial terms, sheltering the
homeless is only the skin depth of the system. It takes far more efforts and
resources to move the homeless through the system and, meanwhile, provide all
necessary services and care to them. So, the cost of the bed per night can be only
a fraction for the expenses occurred to service that bed. These services vary
3
depending on the needs and nature of every case and include extensive case
management, job training, health care, emergency financial assistance, legal aid,
drug and substance abuse rehabilitation, etc.
Major Challenges
The model presented supports the three broad strategies for addressing the
homelessness problem as a whole: (1) preventing those at risk of homelessness
from entering the system in the first place through a package of emergency
assistance, legal aid, and coordinated discharge and managed
deinstitutionalization to make sure that their housing options are considered prior
to their release; (2) for those who fall in after all and become homeless to move
them as quickly as possible out through aggressive case management and
supportive services and training; and (3) for those chronically homeless usually
with some form of disability to move them into supportive permanent housing.
Yet, the problem of homelessness remains such a complex and multi-dimensional
subject with several actors and many issues involved. A systematic and holistic
approach is needed to provide a framework or a road map for action and for
allocating resources. However, there are a number of specific challenges that are
critical as a whole (for they may impact one or more other issues or the whole
model in the process), and for the purposes of this paper. These are determining
an accurate count and profile of the homeless population, discharge management
and planning, engaging and improving interagency coordination, and the
provision of affordable permanent and supportive housing options to reduce or
end homelessness.
Counting the homeless
In order to address the homelessness problem, we need to get as much accurate an
answer as possible for the following two questions: (1) How many homeless we
have in any city, county, state, and across the nation to be able to determine the
magnitude of the problem and the resources needed to address them? and (2) what
are the demographics of the homeless population is each geographic hierarchy in
order to better target each population group with the services and programs that
would suit their own specific conditions and needs? So far, the answer to these
questions is we do not know for sure.
A lot of effort has been put trying to use available data in generating statistically
sound models to help infer about the homeless count in the United States. For,
example, Culhane el al (1994) used shelter bed turnover to infer the population
count of the homeless population in Philadelphia. Another contrasting and more
daring approach was presented by Dennis (1991) surveying samples of the
homeless population in non-conventional locations such as bus stations and
abandoned buildings. Burt et al’s (1999) report on the findings of the 1996
National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients provided
4
extensive analysis of the typologies and demographics of the homeless population
“who used the services of the surveyed providers”. Yet, and in it’s very
beginning, the report team attract our attention to note that “the survey was not
designed to produce a national count of the number of homeless people, nor does
it include information on client characteristics at the regional or local levels”
(p.xiv). The US 2000 Census Bureau, on the other hand, adopted a point-in-time
count where census-takers counted people in emergency and homeless shelters
during “a one-night”, and on the following two nights, they counted people in
soup kitchens, on the street and in other places. Yet, neither the US Census have
fully published such data, nor does any of the other sampling and statistical
inference trials claim to have an accurate database on the homeless in the United
States. The disparity between different national counts and methods were found in
some cases to be four folds and more. As a result, efforts are now targeting a more
localized counting approach that feeds a local/national data base to provide more
reasonable and reliable count of the population.
However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is probably the
only source of national count today with a widely accepted estimate that each year
about 1 percent of the U.S. population, some 2 to 3 million people, experience
homelessness. Other local and state base counts are usually based on the number
of recipients of services in shelters and other formal homeless destinations and do
not as a result count those who fail to receive any service due to rejection at entry
points and end up on the street or doubling up with friends and relatives, a
segment of the homeless population Koebel et al (2001) calls “the hidden
homeless”. This is particularly the case in rural areas, where the absence of
emergency shelters and other services for the homeless force people to either
double-up at whatever social cost or to move to a city for emergency shelter
(ibid.).
Discharge Planning
This is a growing trend in literature, yet with few actual case studies addressing
the discharge procedures and pre-discharge case management of those released
from correctional facilities, foster care system, and mental and health institutions
who are at risk of moving into homelessness, and who still need further assistance
and services that can be beyond their reach. Perhaps the best recent and detailed
reference for such a trend is Hals (2003) training manual for community
organizations working on post-release housing for ex-prisoners. On the other
hand, the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance (MHSA)3 is widely
recognized as a leading non-profit organization advocating and reaching to these
different institutions, as well as negotiating with the local government on the
importance of discharge planning and how to coordinate their discharge processes
with the intake processes of the homeless system (shelters or temporary housing).
Discharge planning is growing to be one of the key preventative measures,
3
For more information on MHSA, go to http://www.nhchc.org/
5
especially against chronic homelessness whose population show higher shares of
people who have been out of or through these institutions at a certain time of their
lives.
Interagency coordination
There is almost an endless list of agencies working to end homelessness on the
federal, state, local, and even community levels. This fragmentation of service
providers is one of the main barriers to addressing homelessness problem (Charles
and Helen Schwab Foundation, 2003). The Interagency Council on Homelessness
(ICH)4 had been reinvigorated by the Bush Administration in 2003 as part of its
pledge to end chronic homelessness to guide and coordinate the efforts of Federal
agencies to achieve that pledge. The Virginia Interagency Action Council for the
Homeless is an example of a State-wide initiative to coordinate and facilitate
collaboration between federal, state and local governmental entities, non-profit
organizations, and advocacy groups that serve the homeless. On the local level,
HUD has been issuing grants for Continuum of Care programs addressing
homelessness needs and services within designated planning commissions
(usually a group of neighboring counties and cities) that help consolidate and
coordinate these efforts at the local and almost day-to-day level. Similar
interagency councils and coordination efforts are critically needed through the
nation, and they need to coordinate within each other in addition to coordinating
within their own jurisdictions.
Housing the homeless
In order to end, or even to reduce the problem of homelessness eventually, we
need housing. Throughout the homelessness process that was presented earlier,
there are four destinations for the homeless: shelters, temporary housing,
permanent housing, or back to the street. The latter option has no initial capital
cost, but obviously it does not serve our purpose. The former, the shelter, on the
other hand, has shown not to solve the homelessness problem, if not considered in
some literature encouraging it in some instances where structural and personal
incentives can attract people to the shelter away from the housing market where
they belong. Expanding temporary housing options and affordable permanent
housing unites seem to be the logical and long-term objective to reduce
homelessness. Funding is the first and most critical challenge in that proposition,
and we are going to present that issue later in the paper.
Beyond Shelter’s housing first program5 is probably an excellent example that
encompasses not only housing the homeless, but the whole process since the
intake point to the program, through screening and needs assessment, to
assistance moving into permanent housing and extensive home-based case
4
5
For more information on ICH, go to: http://www.ich.gov
For more information on housing first program, go to: http://www.beyondshelter.org
6
management to stabilize the newly housed individual or family in the housing
market.
Other than directly providing conventional affordable housing units to the
homeless, a variety of innovations addressing the housing option are growing and
spreading including the reintroduction of Single Room Occupancy (SROs)6
options that were eliminated in the 1980s for single men and women, who can not
afford market rate rents with their minimum wage or social security income.
Operation Match program7 in Loudoun County, VA provides what can be
considered a “passive housing alternative”, where the program provides housing
without actually investing in the construction of new housing units or the
rehabilitation of older stock. The program helps people find affordable housing by
matching them with other people who share their homes due to economic,
companionship or service reasons. Although not exclusively targeting the
homeless population, more than half of its clients were homeless. Although the
program does not provide individual assistance or emergency temporary housing,
it is still can be considered as a leading and innovative case study and a sound
housing alternative for these segments of the homeless population that do not
need supportive housing.
Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity (ECHO)8 units provide another alternative
housing option particularly for the elderly, who would otherwise be homeless in
shelter or public supportive housing. These units are small, free-standing, energyefficient, removable, and designed to be installed adjacent to existing singlefamily dwellings who can provide a minimum level of support and assistance to
the elderly, who is typically a family member but not necessarily so, in exchange
for affordable rent paid by or for the elderly through social service and other
programs.
Chronic Homelessness
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003) estimates that while
some individuals may be homeless for only a short period of time, approximately
200,000 individuals are chronically homeless. The Policy Academy9 defines
chronic homelessness as “an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling
condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or has had at least
four episodes of homelessness in the past three years”. Chronic homeless
6
For more details on HUD’s SRO program, go to:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/programs/sro/index.cfm
7
For more information on the program, go to:
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/ADMIN/Docs/presentations/Preconference%204B-Mester.pdf
8
For the details of the ECHO program, go to:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/lawsandregs/regs/home/subf/92258.cfm
9
The policy Academy is a consortium of public/non-governmental agencies interested as advising and
developing policy options addressing the problem of homelessness.
7
represent only an average of 10 percent of the total homeless population in the
United States, yet they consume about 50-80 percent of all resources available for
the whole homeless population (ibid.). They usually suffer from one or more
disability, whether substance use disorders, physical or health disabilities, or
mental illness, and they comprise mainly from 75 percent single males, 40 percent
of whom are veterans (Koebel, 2003).
As a result, chronic homeless population, by definition, will remain homeless or
need substantial housing assistance for extended periods of time, if not for the rest
of their lives. Due to their disabilities, they can not afford to pay almost any rent,
and they need in many cases other social, health and economic assistance as well.
Hence, temporary shelters and similar services can not be a sustainable long term
answer for this population. Chronic homeless need permanent supported housing
options that are almost 100 percent subsidized. This subsidy will include a
substantial initial capital investment in housing design and construction, as well as
budgeting for operational, maintenance, and management costs for these units.
Any social, health and other economic assistance will be over and above this
expenditure. While it is difficult to estimate the average cost of these services
since they vary depending on individuals’ needs and conditions that can in some
cases out weight the cost of housing itself, Dennis Culhane et al (2001) has
demonstrated that the placement of homeless people with severe mental illness in
permanent supportive housing can yield an actual reduction in service costs per
housing unit per year. The provision of permanent supportive housing thus
receives an almost unanimous support from the academy and also from the
Administration.
The Bush Administration declared in its 2003 budget proposal its goal “to end
chronic homelessness in the coming ten years”. In its 2005 budget proposal, the
Administration continues to support that goal with the introduction of a new
“Samaritan Initiative” under the McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Act10
specifically targeting the provision of permanent supportive housing for the
chronic homeless. The Administration requests $70 million in new resources for
the new initiative, of which $50 million would be for the department of housing
and Urban Development (HUD), $10 million for the Department of Health and
Human Services, and $10 million for the Department of veterans Affairs.
“Ending” chronic homelessness is indeed a noble, ambitious, yet expensive and
complicated objective. In order to approach that project, chronic homeless
population must be identified, reported and from the remainder of the homeless
population statistically and fiscally. This would provide a better estimate of the
target population and a more detailed profile of its demographics and special
needs. Based on that estimate, then permanent supportive housing can be
designed and budgeted. So far, in the State of Virginia, for example, as in almost
10
For more details about the McKinney Act go to
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/rulesandregs/laws/index.cfm
8
all other States, homeless population is still estimated based on rough numbers
(primarily count of people receiving services or in other cases point-in-time
surveys), and the chronic homeless population is assumed to be around 10 percent
of that estimate.
Cost of permanent housing
The Virginia Tech Center for Housing Research, through its support and technical
assistance to the Virginia strategic plan “Virginia: Sharing a Common Wealth to
End Homelessness” has drafted an estimate of how much it will cost to provide
these permanent housing units in Virginia, and projected that estimate for the
nation at large. The estimate has been done only for the initial capital investment
needed to design and build these housing units and the cost of its annual
maintenance and management only to frame the real picture of chronic
homelessness from an economic and financial perspective for the policy makers
and other stokeholds working in the field to get a sense of the kind and magnitude
of financial commitment needed to effectively address the problem – that is
ending chronic homelessness.
Table 1 shows the summary of the estimate for the total construction cost and
annual operating expenses for the provision of permanent housing to the chronic
homeless in the State of Virginia, as a local example, and in the nation at large.
As a result, the State of Virginia needs to spend $146-220 million on capital
subsidies to cover only construction cost, plus an average $140 per unit per month
for operating expenses (around $6.7 million/year)11. If we project this estimate on
the national level, and given only 182,000 new units needed (to provide for the
200,000 chronic homeless estimate which might be a conservative figure already),
the Bush Administration will need to appropriate $6.8-10.2 billion dollars over
the next ten years and budget for at lease $310 million each year for maintenance
and operation expenses of the housing units. The underlying assumption in this
draft estimate is that other prevention measures are taking place over the ten year
period to prevent new chronically homeless into the formula, which mean that
there must also be a mark-up in the final estimate for a minimum threshold of new
entrants to the model, and adjust the estimate to accommodate for probably, yet
hopefully, reduced new comers. In addition, funding for supportive services to
this and other homelessness population segments needs at least to continue, if not
increased.
This estimate, although mathematically basic, based on dated cost multipliers, and
full of broad assumptions have shown that it is indeed very expensive to “end”
chronic homelessness through permanent housing options only. Without new and
additional substantial Federal support together with aggressive prevention
measures and case management, capital subsidy required to end chronic homeless
11
These are based on 1995 dollars that if inflated to today’s values will further increase the amount of
subsidies needed.
9
could consume most, if not all, of the state and federal funding currently provided
for shelters and homeless services in Virginia12, and probably in other states as
well.
Table 1: Estimated construction and maintenance cost needed to “end” chronic
homelessness
Virginia
National
Total Estimated
43,18213
2,000,000
Homeless in FY2002
Estimated Chronically
4,318
200,000
Homeless14
Total estimated
3,925
181,818
households15
No. of units needed
392 units
163,636 units
18,181 units
3532 units
(90% for single
(10% for
(90% for single
(10% for
unaccompanie
families)
unaccompanie
families)
d persons)
d persons)
Average unit area
300 sq ft
700 sq ft
300 sq ft
700 sq ft
Average rentable area
1,059,600 sq ft
274,400 sq ft
49,090,900 sq
12,727,166 sq
ft
ft
Circulation and
105,960 sq ft
27,440 sq ft
4,909,090 sq ft 1,272,716 sq ft
utilities (10% of
rentable area)
Total average built
1,165,560 sq ft
301,840 sq ft
54,000,000 sq
14,000,000 sq
area
ft
ft
Construction cost
@ $100/sq ft
@ $120/sq ft
@ $150/sq ft16
Total construction cost
Annual operating
expenses17
Total average rentable
area
@ $5.02/sq ft/year
$116,556,000
$30,184,000
$5.4 billion
$1.4 billion
$139,867,200
$36,220,800
$6.5 billion
$1.7 billion
$174,834,000
$45,276,000
$8.1 billion
$2.1 billion
$146,740,000 - $220,110,000
$6.8 – 10.2 billion
or $37,400-$56,100 per unit
1,334,000 sq ft
61,818,066 sq ft
$6,696,680/year
$310,000,000/year
or $1706/unit/year ($142/month)
Source: Koebel and Abdelfattah (2003)
12
During the FY2002, the total cost of State funded shelters and supportive services in Virginia was
$43,771,454.
13
According to the State’s FY2002 report to the House Appropriation and Senate Finance Committees, as
well as the 2004-2008 consolidated plan draft
14
According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ recent report on “Ending Chronic
homelessness, Strategies for Action”, March 2003.
15
assuming 1.1 person per household
16
if accessible low rise with elevators
17
Based on the 1995 dollars. Source: Income/Expense Analysis: Federally Assisted Apartments. Institute of
Real Estate Management, Chicago, 1996, pp.16.
10
The future of homelessness
Again, homelessness is a historical phenomenon, and will probably continue to
exist. The real question is not if it does exist, but in what form and to which extent
relative to the society and environment in which it does exist. The recent HUD
report prepared by Burt et al (2004) on chronic homelessness acknowledged that
“ending” chronic homelessness while a noble and passionate goal indeed might
not be quite realistic to absolutely achieve. Simply, no community has ever been
able to “end” homelessness yet (p.xiii). Instead, the authors selected the title
“Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homelessness” for their report. Why this
is important? Because setting impossible goals and using compassionate terms
without having enough resources to back them up may mask realistic and
achievable objectives, and will lead eventually no where.
Homelessness can be seen, especially in an affluent country like the United States,
as a policy as well as an individual failure in a broader sense. As Bassuk (1984)
rightly argue, “Homelessness is often a final stage in a lifelong series of crises and
missed opportunities, the culmination of a gradual disengagement from supportive
relationships and institutions”. In other words, homelessness is not an accidental
phenomenon but rather a gradual and in many cases a repetitive one. The
objective of any future policies addressing homelessness has to predict the
symptoms of failure and prevent these symptoms from pushing that individual
into the homeless trap. Indeed, affordable housing production and higher
minimum wages are important to stop the present bleeding of increasing
homelessness in the nation, but what is more important is to prevent it from
happening any further. Prevention and outreach activities will be in the near
future the major tools addressing homelessness once the current crisis is
stabilized, hopefully within the promised ten years.
Establishing a local/national network of data bases on the homeless population is
the most urgent and achievable step towards further policies to provide a more
accurate picture of the count and demographics of the homeless population.
Interagency coordination especially on the State-wide level is also essential for
coordinating the exhausted efforts and budgets, and especially to plan and manage
the discharge and release from local/national mental and health institutions and
well and correctional facilities and the foster care system that are key contributors
to the chronic homeless population. Until and unless such critical issues have
been aggressively resolved and adequately funded, there can be no accurate
estimate of the actual permanent and supportive housing needed, or the amount of
appropriations required to achieve stated and widely politicized objectives.
This almost ball park estimate of the cost of permanent housing has indicated that
on the national level we need at least 1.3 billion each year for the first ten years to
build and maintain adequate housing units for the chronic homeless population. In
addition to that, there need to be enough funding to provide that population with
their special needs and services. These are the figures we shall consider if we
11
continue carrying on our noble goal. Given the potentials and capacity of the
United States, these are reasonable figures. Yet, we do not know for sure if we are
even close to any such figures. We still do not know the right numbers and we do
not know if the money is there to provide the service. The new Samaritan
Initiative appears promising, only if it is appropriately funded. This paper has
shown that this year’s proposed budget for the initiative ($70 million) is no where
near realistic.
However, and since HUD funds several supportive and homeless services through
a variety of programs, not necessarily dedicated to chronic homelessness, it is
recommended that the chronic homeless population be addressed and dealt with
separately – fiscally as well as administratively, for its unique characteristics and
expensive needs and services. This would be the following most important step
toward managing the overall problem.
References
Bassuk, E. (1984) The Homeless Problem. Scientific American, Vol. 251(1)
Burt, M., Aron, L., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., and Iwen, B. (1999) Homelessness:
Programs and the People they Serve. Summary Report, The Urban institute,
Washington DC.
Burt, M., Hedderson, J., Zweig, J., Mary Jo Ortiz, M., and Aron-Turnham, L., and
Johnson, S. (2004). Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homelessness. The
Urban Institute, Washington, DC, on-line @
http://www.huduser.org/publications/povsoc/chronichomelessness.html
Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation (2003) Holes in the Safety Net: Mainstream
Systems and Homelessness. A report by Katharine Gale Consulting, Berkeley,
CA.
Culhane, D., Dejowski, E., Ibanez, J., Needham, E., and Macchia, I. (1994) Public
Shelter Admission Rates in Philadelphia and New York: The Implications of
Turnover for Sheltered Population Counts. In Understanding Homelessness: New
Policy and Research Perspectives, Fannie Mae Foundation, pp.101-134.
Culhane, D., Metraux, S., and Hadley, T. (2001) The Impact of Supportive Housing for
Homeless People with severe Mental Illness on the Utilization of Public Health,
Corrections, and Emergency shelter Systems: The New York Initiative. Fannie
Mae Foundation.
Dennis, M. (1991) Changing the Conventional Rules: Surveying Homeless People in
Nonconventional Locations. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 2(3), pp.701-732.
Hals, K. (2003) From Locked Up to Locked Out: Creating and Implementing PostRelease Housing for Ex-prisoners. AIDS Housing of Washington, Seattle.
Hopper, Kim (2003) Reckoning with Homelessness. (Cornell, Cornell University Press)
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2003) The State of the Nation’s
Housing. (Cambridge, MA, John F. Kennedy School of Government)
Koebel, C., Murphy, P., and Brown, A. (2001). The 2001 Virginia Rural Homeless
Survey. Center for Housing Research, Virginia Tech @
http://www.arch.vt.edu/caus/research/vchr/pdfreports/VaRuralHomeless_sum.pdf
12
Koebel, T. (2003) Towards Ending Chronic Homelessness. A presentation at the Virginia
Governor’s Housing Conference, Norfolk.
Koebel, T. and Abdelfattah, R. (2003) Ending Chronic Homelessness in Virginia, an
unpublished discussion paper, Virginia Tech Center for Housing Research,
Blacksburg.
Rossi, P. H. (1990) The Old Homeless and the New Homelessness in Historical
Perspective. American Psychologist, Vol. 45(8), pp.954-959.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003). Ending Chronic Homelessness:
Strategies for Action. Report from the Secretary’s Work Group on Ending
Chronic Homelessness, on-line @
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/strategies03/
13