Veterans Homelessness Prevention

Demonstration Evaluation

Final Report

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).

Other services of HUD User, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest

reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public

use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.

Veterans Homelessness Prevention

Demonstration Evaluation

Final Report

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Mary Cunningham

Jennifer Biess

Dina Emam

Martha Burt

Urban Institute

November 2015

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Urban

Institute is grateful to its funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. It is important to note that funders do not determine the Urban Institute’s research findings or the insights and

recommendations of its experts.

The authors thank the service providers, Continuums of Care (CoCs), the U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) medical centers, and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) partners that participated in

the study.

• Service providers:

͹ The Salvation Army of Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas.

͹ Veterans Village of San Diego, St. Vincent de Paul Village, and Interfaith Community

Services, California.

͹ Catholic Community Services of Western Washington and Washington State Department

of Veterans Affairs.

͹ The Homeless Coalition of Hillsborough County, Tampa Crossroads, and the Agency for

Community Treatment Services, Florida.

͹ Central New York Veterans Outreach Center and Transitional Living Services of Northern

New York.

• CoCs:

͹ Ending Community Homelessness Coalition, Texas.

͹ City of Waco Housing & Community Development, Texas.

͹ Texas Homelessness Network.

͹ San Diego Regional Continuum of Care Council, California.

͹ San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless, California.

͹ Pierce County Community Connections, Washington.

͹ Washington State Department of Commerce.

͹ Seattle Human Services Department, Washington.

͹ Mohawk Valley Housing and Homeless Assistance Coalition, New York.

͹ Points North Continuum of Care, New York.

͹ Tampa Hillsborough Homeless Initiative, Florida.

͹ Homeless Coalition of Polk County, Florida.

͹ Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, Inc.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Acknowledgments

• VA medical centers:

͹ Central Texas Veterans Health Care System.

͹ James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Florida.

͹ Rome VA Medical Center, New York.

͹ Syracuse VA Medical Center, New York.

͹ VA Puget Sound Health Care System, American Lake Division, Washington.

͹ VA San Diego Healthcare System, California.

• DOL partners:

͹ Texas Veterans Commission.

͹ State of California Employment Development Department.

͹ Washington State Employment Security Department, Veterans Services.

͹ Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.

͹ New York State Department of Labor, Veterans Services.

The authors also thank Ken Fenner of DOL and Robert Thompson of the VA. National Center on

Homelessness Among Veterans staff Ann Elizabeth Montgomery, Riccardo Aiello, Vincent Kane, and

Dennis Culhane provided essential data and help navigating the VA.

The authors express the deepest gratitude to the veterans who shared their stories with us.

The authors thank Urban Institute staff, including communication editors Elaine Eldridge and Elizabeth

Forney, who provided editorial assistance, and Timothy Triplett, who provided technical assistance on

statistical analysis.

Finally, the authors thank Elizabeth Rudd at HUD for her insight and guidance throughout the study.

The Urban Institute strives for the highest standards of integrity and quality in its research, analyses, and policy recommendations. Urban Institute scholars believe that independence, rigor, and transparency

are essential to upholding those values. Funders do not determine research findings or influence

scholars’ conclusions. As an organization, the Urban Institute does not take positions on issues. Urban

Institute scholars and experts are independent and empowered to share their evidence-based views and

recommendations shaped by research.

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban

Institute, its trustees, or its funders and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Foreword

Foreword

This report documents the outcomes of Veterans served by the Veterans Homelessness Prevention

Demonstration program (VHPD), one element of the Obama administration’s signature initiative to

end Veteran homelessness. It describes the housing, employment, and health of Veterans before they

entered VHPD and 6 months after leaving the program. It discusses the lessons learned through VHPD,

strongly emphasizing how important it is to reach out to Veterans in ways that appeal to them (including

peer-to-peer outreach and having Veterans on staff) and the benefits of bringing together housing

assistance, case management, and employment services.

Implemented in 2011, the 3-year demonstration was intended to shed light on the potential to prevent

or quickly end homelessness, coordinating the efforts and resources of the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the U.S. Department

of Labor (DOL) to serve those at risk in the growing population of newer (post-September 11, 2001)

Veterans—a group that includes more women, parents, and members of the National Guard and

Reserves than ever before. VHPD offered short-term financial assistance (including assistance for rent,

utilities, and arrears), case management by VA social workers, and DOL employment services.

Congress funded the VHPD to include a program evaluation so that VHPD’s lessons could be shared.

The evaluation’s Interim Report (Cunningham, 2013) describes implementation of the VHPD in its five

sites. In contrast, the report you are now reading is about Veterans’ outcomes. Key findings include the

following:

• Housing stability increased—at program entry, about 74 percent of clients were at risk

of homelessness and 26 percent were homeless, but by program exit, 85 percent were

stably housed.

• Employment increased—only 25 percent of VHPD clients were working at program entry,

compared to 43 percent at the follow-up interview 6 months after leaving the VHPD.

• Income increased—average monthly income increased from $1,076 at program entry to $1,519

at the follow-up interview, partly due to improved or increased access to VA benefits.

The VHPD evaluation also draws general lessons. Homeless and at-risk Veterans need providers and

services that recognize their experiences as Veterans, including having peer-to-peer programs and

Veterans on staff. They also benefit from the local-level coordination of HUD, VA, and DOL services, a

feature of VHPD that was fostered by the Federal collaboration that took place from the beginning of

planning through implementation of the VHPD. As one provider interviewed for this study explained, “It

takes a community to serve a Veteran.”

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

v

Foreword

When launched, the VHPD filled a critical gap in services. By offering short-term assistance, it

complemented more intensive programs like the VA Grant and Per Diem Program and HUD-VASH. Now

the VA runs the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program, which is designed to provide

services similar to those offered by VHPD; for example, short-term assistance for Veterans and their

families, including case management and financial assistance.

As of this writing, our focus is on literal homelessness but as the number of homeless Veterans

decreases, our focus will turn toward prevention. The findings of the VHPD can inform these future

prevention efforts.

In closing, we remember President Barack Obama’s declaration that “Until we reach a day when not a

single Veteran sleeps on our nation’s streets, our work remains unfinished.”

Julián Castro

Robert A. McDonald

Secretary

Secretary

U.S. Department of Housing and

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Urban Development

Thomas E. Perez

Secretary

U.S. Department of Labor

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

vi

Contents

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ xi

Chapter 1. Ending Homelessness Among Veterans ................................................................................ 1

Efforts To End Veteran Homelessness................................................................................................... 1

Progress in the Plan To End Homelessness ........................................................................................... 3

Homeless Veterans’ Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 4

Reasons for Homelessness ................................................................................................................... 6

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2. Study Overview ...................................................................................................................... 9

Study Research Questions .................................................................................................................... 9

Research Design ................................................................................................................................... 9

Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 3. Program Description and Implementation Challenges .......................................................17

VHPD Program .................................................................................................................................... 17

Program Costs .................................................................................................................................... 21

Implementation Challenges ................................................................................................................ 22

Chapter 4. VHPD Households ................................................................................................................ 25

Reaching Veteran Target Populations ................................................................................................. 25

Profile of Veterans Served .................................................................................................................. 26

How VHPD Veterans Compared With Those Served Through HPRP ..................................................34

Chapter 5. Housing Stability .................................................................................................................. 37

Housing Status at Program Entry ........................................................................................................ 37

History of Homelessness .................................................................................................................... 38

Housing Status at Program Exit ......................................................................................................... 40

Housing Situation at Follow-Up .......................................................................................................... 42

Use of Homeless Services After VHPD ................................................................................................ 43

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 45

Chapter 6. Income and Employment ..................................................................................................... 47

Variations in Cost of Living by Site ...................................................................................................... 47

Income Levels and Sources at Program Entry and Survey Baseline ....................................................47

Employment Rates at Survey Baseline ............................................................................................... 51

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

vii

Contents

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Survey Baseline .........................................51

Change in Income and Sources of Income at Program Exit and Follow-Up Survey ............................52

Change in Employment at Follow-Up Survey ..................................................................................... 58

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Follow-Up Survey ......................................60

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 61

Chapter 7. Veteran Perspectives ........................................................................................................... 63

Reasons for Housing Instability and Homelessness ............................................................................ 63

Finding VHPD ...................................................................................................................................... 65

Experiences With VHPD Services, Effectiveness of Those Services, and Unaddressed Challenges ....66

Prospects for the Future ..................................................................................................................... 68

Chapter 8. Lessons Learned for Serving Veterans at Risk of Homelessness .........................................71

Identifying At-Risk Veterans ................................................................................................................ 71

Serving Veterans Through Interagency Collaboration ........................................................................ 72

Ensuring Veteran Cultural Competency ............................................................................................. 72

Addressing Veterans’ Mental Health and Physical Health Needs .......................................................73

Overcoming Service-Related Employment Barriers ........................................................................... 73

Accessing a Greater Array of Benefits ................................................................................................ 74

Changing Discharge Status To Obtain Services ................................................................................... 74

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix A. Definitions of Terms .......................................................................................................... 77

Appendix B. Qualitative Data Collection Methods ............................................................................... 83

Early Program Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................... 83

Key Informant Interviews ................................................................................................................... 85

Focus Groups With Program Participants ........................................................................................... 87

Appendix C. Round 1 Key Informant Interview Instrument ................................................................. 89

Appendix D. Round 2 Key Informant Interview Instrument ................................................................. 99

Appendix E. Focus Group Guide .......................................................................................................... 101

Appendix F. Baseline Survey Methods ................................................................................................ 103

Appendix G. Baseline Survey Instrument ........................................................................................... 105

Appendix H. Follow-Up Survey Methods ............................................................................................ 139

Appendix I. Follow-Up Survey Instrument ......................................................................................... 141

Appendix J. Survey Data Cleaning and Survey Timing ........................................................................ 171

viii

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Contents

Appendix K. Administrative Data Elements ........................................................................................ 181

Appendix L. Survey Weighting ............................................................................................................. 183

Appendix M. Annual Performance Report Data Imputation Approach .............................................187

Appendix N. References ...................................................................................................................... 189

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

ix

x

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Concerned about the increasing risk of homelessness among veterans returning from the recent

wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in 2009 Congress authorized the Veterans Homelessness Prevention

Demonstration (VHPD), a joint program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD), the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Part

of the Obama Administration’s plan to end veteran homelessness by 2016, VHPD was one of the first

homelessness prevention programs to exclusively serve homeless and at-risk veterans and their families.

VHPD provided short- to medium-term housing assistance (up to 18 months), including security

deposits, rent, rental arrearages (up to 6 months back rent), moving cost assistance, and utilities; case

management; and referrals to community-based services and supports. Service providers could also

use VHPD funds for childcare, credit repair, and transportation expenses. In addition to providing these

supports, VHPD intended to connect veterans to needed health services through the VA’s healthcare

system and employment services through local workforce agencies, so the program could provide

veterans with a more comprehensive set of supports and better prepare them to sustain housing on

their own.

HUD, in consultation with VA and DOL, selected the following five military bases and their surrounding

communities to participate in VHPD:

1. Camp Pendleton in San Diego, California (San Diego).

2. Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas (Central Texas).

3. Fort Drum in Watertown, New York (Upstate Northern New York),

4. Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma).

5. MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida (Tampa).

HUD allocated $10 million in demonstration funds ($2 million for each site) directly to the largest

Continuums of Care (also called CoCs) in the geographic areas covered by the VHPD programs. VA also

awarded $5 million to VA grantees to provide case management and outreach services to veterans

served by VHPD. DOL did not receive specific VHPD funding but was directed to serve VHPD veterans

through its existing veteran employment programs. The 3-year demonstration program operated from

2011 to 2014. During that time, the program served 4,824 adults and children, including 2,023 veterans,

in 1,976 households.1

1 These numbers are derived from HUD Annual Performance Report (APR) data submitted by the grantees. Three

APRs were not submitted: Tampa Year 2, Tacoma Year 3, and Upstate Northern New York Year 3. Because Tampa

and Tacoma submitted all of their quarterly reports, the research team was able to approximate the number

served for the missing year based on the quarterly reports. These numbers, however, do not include those served by Upstate Northern New York in Year 3, because the site also failed to submit 4 of 12 quarterly reports, making imputation impossible in this case. For more details on the imputation process, see appendix L.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

xi

Executive Summary

VHPD Evaluation

HUD contracted with Silber & Associates and the Urban Institute to evaluate VHPD. The evaluation

examined the following research questions.

• Were the services provided through VHPD effective for veterans served?

• What happened to program participants after receiving VHPD program benefits? Did program

participants avoid homelessness? Did they experience housing stability?

• Did program participants increase employment, earnings, and income (including VA pensions,

other VA benefits, and other mainstream benefits)?

To answer these research questions, the research team enrolled 509 study participants from September

2012 to October 2013. Team members collected information from program administrative data on

the status of VHPD study participants when they entered the program (program entry) and exited the

program (program exit). In addition, study participants responded to a baseline survey (N=424) shortly

after entering the program and a follow-up survey (N=315) at least 6 months after exiting the program.

With data collected from program reconnaissance, two waves of site visits, program administrative data,

and data from baseline and follow-up surveys, this final report describes outcomes from VHPD.

VHPD Target Populations

The VHPD program provided rapid re-housing and homelessness prevention services to veterans at risk

of homelessness and veterans who were homeless for less than 90 days. The program targeted specific

populations: recent veterans who served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom

(OIF), and Operation New Dawn (OND); female veterans; and veterans with children. Overall, VHPD

programs successfully engaged those target populations.

• Across all the sites, more than one-half (55 percent) of all study participants served were

veterans of OEF, OIF, or OND, more than three times the share of the overall veteran population

(16 percent; Byrne et al., 2014).

• Veterans with children also made up a substantial portion of those served under VHPD.

Approximately 43 percent of VHPD study participants had children in their household.

• VHPD was successful in targeting women veterans, with women constituting more than one-

fourth (27 percent) of VHPD study veterans, considerably more than their 8-percent share of the

veteran population overall.

Characteristics of Military Experience

• Almost all VHPD veterans (96 percent) were former active-duty members in the Armed Forces

of the United States, and about 4 percent of veterans served by VHPD were activated National

Guard members and Reservists.

• Approximately 41 percent of veterans had been exposed to combat, and, of those exposed, 56

percent reported a high level of exposure to friendly and/or unfriendly fire and about one-half

(48 percent) had been deployed to combat zones two or more times. VHPD veterans served for

an average of 6 years before being discharged.

xii

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Executive Summary

Demographic Characteristics

• About one-half (51 percent) of the veterans served by VHPD were White, and about 43 percent

were African-American. About 10 percent identified as Hispanic, 3 percent identified as Alaska

Native or Native American, and 2 percent identified as multiracial.

• Few VHPD veterans (about 5 percent) were very young—ages 18 to 24—at program enrollment,

indicating they began and ended military service recently. The largest share (46 percent) of VHPD

clients were between the ages of 25 and 40, 19 percent were between the ages of 41 and 50,

and 28 percent were between the ages of 51 and 64. A very small share (3 percent) of clients

were 65 years of age or older.

• Roughly one-third (32 percent) of VHPD clients were married, and another one-third (31

percent) were single and had never been married. The remaining one-third were either divorced

(27 percent) or separated (9 percent).

• Educational attainment among VHPD veterans was relatively high: almost all veterans (98

percent) had at least a high school diploma or General Educational Development credential

(commonly known as the GED®), and the majority (61 percent) had some college or an

associate’s degree. A much smaller subset (10 percent) had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Housing Stability

• At program entry, about one in four (26 percent) veterans across all five sites were literally

homeless.

• Overall, VHPD served more veterans who were at some level of homelessness risk, with most (72

percent) being judged by providers to be imminently at risk of losing their housing or unstably

housed.

Income Level and Employment Status

• Most adults (75 percent) served by VHPD were unemployed at the time of the baseline survey,

15 percent had full-time employment, and 11 percent had part-time employment.

• A large share (23 percent) of VHPD clients had no income at program entry. The others reported

monthly incomes as follows: 27 percent reported between $1 and $999, 20 percent reported

between $1,000 and $1,499, 16 percent reported between $1,500 and $1,999, and 14 percent

reported $2,000 or more.

Physical and Mental Health Conditions

• On a scale of poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent, a substantial share (44 percent) of

VHPD clients rated their health as poor or fair across all sites. This rate of poor or fair health is

remarkably high, especially when compared with the general population in which fewer than 1

in 10 people are in fair or poor health (Adams, Kirzinger, and Martinez, 2013).

• A substantial share (43 percent) of veterans reported being prevented from working because of

a disability. Of those veterans, the majority (74 percent) said the disability was related to their

military service.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

xiii

Executive Summary

• A large subset of veterans reported serious mental health problems. Two-thirds of VHPD

veterans indicated experiencing serious depression, anxiety, and/or tension. About 43 percent

of VHPD veterans said they experienced symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (commonly

known as PTSD), and 12 percent were dealing with the repercussions of a head injury or a

traumatic brain injury (also known as a TBI). Further, about one-half (51 percent) reported

“being easily startled, not being able to relax your guard,” and a similar share (46 percent) said

they had “trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering.”

VHPD Services, Length of Stay, and Program Costs

At program entry, most (74 percent) of the veteran households were at risk of homelessness, and about

26 percent were homeless. While in the program, the households received a mix of financial assistance

and case management for varying lengths of participation. Median length of stay in the program

was 84 days, but it ranged appreciably by site, from 39 days at one site to 146 days at another. Per-

household HUD-funded costs varied significantly by site, ranging from $3,513 to $5,626. The amount of

direct financial assistance per household also varied, ranging from $2,513 to $3,837. Site costs reflect

differences in program design, including length of stay and intensity of services provided, local cost of

living, and housing costs.

VHPD Outcomes

VHPD aimed to help veterans and their families become stably housed and sustain that housing after

VHPD assistance ended by increasing their income from employment or connecting them to the benefits

for which they were eligible. As such, this evaluation focused on outcomes in three areas: (1) housing

stability, (2) income, and (3) employment.

Housing Stability

As households exited VHPD, program staff categorized their housing status into one of the following four

categories defined by HUD:

1. Literally homeless: The individual or family lacked a fixed regular or adequate nighttime residence.

2. Imminently at risk of losing housing: The individual or family was currently housed but at immi-

nent risk of losing housing and without subsequent options or the resources or support net-

works needed to remain in current housing or obtain other temporary or permanent housing

3. Unstably housed: The individual or family was currently housed but experiencing housing insta-

bility, with one or more other temporary housing options but lacking the resources or support

networks to retain or obtain permanent housing.

4. Stably housed: The individual or family was not at risk of losing housing and did not meet the

criteria for any of the previous housing categories.

By analyzing program administrative data and the study follow-up survey, the research team found the

following housing outcomes for VHPD veterans:

xiv

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Executive Summary

• At program exit the vast majority (95 percent) of VHPD veteran households were in housing (85

percent were stably housed and 10 percent were unstably housed).

• Only 5 percent of veteran households were either literally homeless or at imminent risk of losing

housing when they exited VHPD.

• At the time of the follow-up interviews, most of which occurred between 6 and 12 months

after program exit, the majority (76 percent) of veteran households lived in their own homes or

apartments. The second most common arrangement (18 percent) was for veterans to be staying

with friends or family. A small percentage (6 percent) of veterans were homeless at follow-up.

Across sites, 10.5 percent of those interviewed at follow-up reported experiencing homelessness

at some point since their baseline interview (this includes those homeless at follow-up).

• Overall, very few veteran households returned to shelter or transitional housing within 180 days

of their program exit: only six veterans total had a return to emergency shelter or transitional

housing.

• At follow-up, most veterans reported being able to pay housing-related expenses. Of those

paying rent, only about 24 percent were struggling to meet that obligation each month, and only

13 percent of those paying utilities struggled to do so.

Overall, the program, which came for many veterans at a point of crisis, showed positive results in

helping the VHPD clients get back on their feet. One veteran said, “I just want to say I was really down. I didn’t know what to do, and they gave me help. Basically, they saved me. They helped me with my rent,

with my bills. They gave me information. Like [my veterans’ employment representative], he taught me

how to get jobs.”

Income and Employment

To sustain stable housing requires a reliable and adequate income. Most of the veterans served by VHPD

had obstacles to employment, including physical and mental health disabilities that prevented them

from working. It was also difficult for young returning veterans, who lacked job search experience and

often had gone straight from school into the military, to apply military skills to civilian employment.

One VHPD participant said, “When you come out of the military, there’s acronyms and roles and titles

that don’t exist in the civilian world. It was really difficult to try to take your [Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report] and turn it into a résumé.”

In part, VHPD focused on increasing income through employment for those who could work and through

connection to benefits for those who could not. By analyzing program administrative data and the study

follow-up survey, the researchers found the following income and employment outcomes for VHPD veterans:

• Between program entry and exits, veterans increased their income by about $460: the mean

household monthly income at program exit was $1,535 across all five sites, up from $1,076.

Between program exit and the 6-month follow-up survey, mean income had declined slightly to

$1,519, but it was up from $991 at baseline, and the mean difference was an increase of $525.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

xv

Executive Summary

• Between program entry and the follow-up survey, the veterans’ employment rate increased from

25 to 43 percent. Further, at follow-up, a larger share of veterans reported income from a job and

veterans pension payments, and a smaller share of veterans reported income from unemployment.

Conclusion

Overall, the results from VHPD are promising. After leaving the program, veterans had low rates of

return to homeless shelters in their community, high rates of housing stability, and increased rates of

employment and income, although a subset of those living on their own still struggled to pay rent, and

many were living with friends or family. Because of the lack of a comparison group, the researchers

cannot say what would have happened absent the VHPD program, so they cannot fully attribute the

results, but the evaluation suggests that VHPD was helpful to veterans who participated.

In addition to understanding if homelessness prevention programs are effective, this study examined the

question Is serving veterans and their families different from serving nonveterans? The study reveals that veterans’ needs, in many ways, are similar to those of nonveterans who are at risk of homelessness: they

need short-term help paying for housing and some mix of supportive services. The VHPD evaluation also

highlights ways veterans are different. VHPD used different outreach strategies than homeless service

programs, and service providers highlighted that veterans have greater physical and mental health needs

and different employment assistance needs. At the same time, compared with nonveterans, veterans

have more benefits available to them through the VA. Finally, it is very important for service providers

to have veteran “cultural competency”—that is, to have staff who are familiar with how members of

the military experience civilian life. Veterans are accustomed to being part of a team. In the military,

they relied on their team members; now, outside the military, they naturally turn to other veterans for

support. A service provider can build the cultural competency to communicate effectively with veterans

by hiring veteran caseworkers and providing opportunities for peer-to-peer support. These efforts are

critical to meeting the needs of veterans at risk of homelessness.

xvi

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 1

Chapter 1. Ending Homelessness Among Veterans

The Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD), a five-site pilot of a homelessness

prevention and rapid re-housing program, operated from 2011 to 2014. As one component of the

Obama Administration’s plan to end veteran homelessness by 2016, VHPD was innovative both in whom

it served and how it intended to serve them. It was one of the first homelessness prevention programs to

target veterans, and it was among the first homelessness programs of any type to target post–September

11, 2001 (post-9/11) veterans. In addition to its focus on recent veterans, the program also targeted

women veterans and paid special attention to the homelessness risk of members of the National Guard

and Reserve (see appendix A for definitions of these terms and others used in this report). The program

was designed as a collaboration among the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to provide a

comprehensive suite of services, including housing assistance, health care, and employment services, to

put veterans on paths for long-term housing sustainability.

Efforts To End Veteran Homelessness

President Obama made ending homelessness among veterans a national priority, noting his

administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for veterans sleeping on the street or in a shelter.2 His

administration established Opening Doors, a plan that set the target of ending homelessness among

veterans by 2016 (USICH, 2013a). One key component of the Opening Doors plan was increasing

programs specific to homeless veterans. To accomplish this, Congress initiated and expanded several

programs that target veterans across different federal agencies, including the HUD-Veterans Affairs

Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program, the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program,

and the Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program, in addition to VHPD.

The HUD-VASH program combines VA services, including case management and clinical care, with HUD

housing choice vouchers for rental assistance. Since 2008, the first year vouchers were awarded, HUD-

VASH has awarded nearly 70,000 vouchers to jurisdictions across the country to help house homeless

veterans (HUD, n.d.). Its federal appropriation for case management has increased over the length

of the program, reaching $321 million in 2015 (USICH, 2015). A rigorous evaluation of HUD-VASH

found that the program improves housing stability for veterans compared with standard care and case

management-only models (Rosenheck et al., 2003).

SSVF funds local nonprofits to provide supportive services and limited financial assistance to low-income

veterans and their families as they try to access permanent housing. For fiscal year (FY) 2012 and FY

2013 combined, SSVF served nearly 100,000 individuals, including nearly 60,000 veterans, and its federal

appropriation expanded from $60 million in FY 2011 to $300 million in FY 2013 (Byrne et al., 2014;

USICH, 2013b). Results from SSVF show great promise: only a small share of veterans became homeless

2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/08/07/president-obama-signs-bill-give-va-resources-it-needs

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

1

Chapter 1

after exiting SSVF. Single veterans and veterans who received rapid re-housing services (those who were

homeless at entry) were more likely to become homeless after exiting SSVF than those who received

prevention services (Byrne et al., 2014). To be specific, within the first year after exiting the program,

7 percent of veterans in families receiving prevention services and 9 percent of veterans in families

receiving rapid re-housing services became homeless, as compared with 10 percent of single veterans

receiving SSVF prevention services and 16 percent of single veterans receiving SSVF rapid re-housing

services. Within 2 years after exiting the program, the shares of veterans experiencing homelessness

increased to 11 percent of veterans in families receiving prevention services, 16 percent of veterans in

families receiving rapid re-housing services, 18 percent of single veterans receiving prevention services,

and 27 percent of single veterans receiving rapid re-housing services (Byrne et al., 2014).

In 2010, the Obama Administration reauthorized the Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program,

which aimed to help homeless veterans gain meaningful employment and connections to mainstream

benefits and opportunities for education and also to foster a more effective service system for homeless

veterans. Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program grantees provided veterans with job placement

services, career counseling, job-training programs and workshops, education and literacy workshops,

and resume-writing assistance within the context of a “client-centered case-management approach” that

also focused on linking veterans to the other services and supports for which they are eligible (USICH,

n.d.). Although VHPD programs more commonly worked with employment staff funded through other

veterans employment programs, such as the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program and Local Veterans’

Employment Representatives program, more than one-half of the Homeless Veteran Reintegration

Program grantees also operated SSVF programs, providing an avenue for veterans eligible for both

programs to receive both employment and housing supports (Shaheen, Lacourte-Klein, and Rio, 2013).

Amid support for these other veterans homelessness programs, Congress launched VHPD in 2009 to test

the efficacy of homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing programs that target veterans. According

to HUD, “the purpose of VHPD is to explore ways for the Federal Government to offer early intervention

homelessness prevention, primarily to veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” (HUD, 2009).

The demonstration was innovative because it was designed to be a collaborative effort of three federal

agencies (HUD, VA, and DOL) that aimed to provide veterans who were either already experiencing short-

term homelessness or at risk of homelessness with the housing, healthcare, and employment supports

needed to help them sustain their housing in the long term. HUD received $10 million to conduct the

demonstration, the VA received $5 million to provide case management and supportive services, and DOL

helped veterans access employment and job-training programs through its existing veterans employment

specialists located in One-Stop Career Centers, but without additional staff or resources. The program

was also one of the first homelessness prevention programs to target veterans and among the first

homelessness programs of any type to target veterans serving in the post-9/11 era.

In addition to establishing and expanding housing and homeless programs that target veterans, the

Obama Administration in 2014 increased its efforts to eradicate homelessness by launching the 25 Cities

Campaign. The 25 Cities Campaign is a collaboration among the VA, HUD, and the U.S. Interagency Council

on Homelessness to provide support and technical assistance to cities with many veterans experiencing

chronic homelessness. Coinciding with the 25 Cities Campaign, in June 2014, Michelle Obama announced

the Mayors’ Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness, which is a national challenge to mayors to end

2

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 1

veteran homelessness within their cities. By the end of July 2014, 182 local leaders had signed on to the

challenge and pledged to end veteran homelessness within their cities by the end of 2015.

In 2009, the VA launched the National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, which supports the

implementation of Opening Doors. The center is tasked with examining the prevalence of veteran

homelessness, determining best practices for serving homeless veterans, and examining ways to take

these practices to scale. Its work involves four main strategic activities: (1) policy analysis, (2) model

development and implementation, (3) education and dissemination, and (4) research and methodology.

These activities enable the National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans to produce more reliable

estimates of the prevalence of veteran homelessness, identify predictors of homelessness among

veterans, and create an evidence base for interventions targeted toward this population.

Progress in the Plan To End Homelessness

HUD’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress monitors trends in veteran homelessness

over time. HUD’s 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part I, released in October

2014 (HUD, 2014a), provides data from the 2014 point-in-time count conducted in January 2014 and

historical data from previous point-in-time counts. Point-in-time counts revealed that on a single night

in January 2014, approximately 49,933 veterans were homeless (figure 1.1). Despite about 245,000 to

285,000 active-duty service members separating from the military each year between 2009 and 2013,

the number of homeless veterans has declined steadily in recent years from a high of 74,770 veterans in

2010, which represents a 33-percent decline between 2010 and 2014 (HUD, 2014a).

Figure 1.1

Total Number of Military Separations and Homeless Veterans in the United States, 2009–2014

Military separations

Homeless veterans

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

Number of veterans

100,000

50,000

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Sources: Number of homeless veterans from point-in-time count data (HUD, 2014b); number of returning veterans data from U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Policy and Planning (Special tabulations produced at the request of the Urban Institute for this report)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

3

Chapter 1

HUD also reports on homeless service use by using Homeless Management Information System data

from a nationally representative sample of Continuums of Care for each fiscal year. The most recent

data available at the time of reporting were for FY 2013 (October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2013;

HUD, 2014b). According to HUD’s analysis, 139,857 veterans received emergency shelter or transitional

housing services in FY 2013. This number represents a slight increase from 2012, when 137,995 veterans

stayed in shelter or transitional housing, but the number is still much less than the 149,635 veterans

served by these programs in 2009, the first year for which data are available (HUD, 2014b). Further, HUD

found that four of the five states involved in VHPD had the largest populations of homeless veterans

nationwide: California, with 12,096 homeless veterans; Florida, with 4,552; Texas with 2,718; and New

York, with 2,542 (HUD, 2014a).

Homeless Veterans’ Characteristics

Veterans are overrepresented in the homeless population: although they make up only 8 percent of the

total U.S. population, they comprised about 11 percent of all homeless adults counted in the January

2014 point-in-time counts (HUD, 2014a). According to data for FY 2013, veterans made up 12.7 percent

of the adult homeless population (HUD, 2014b).

Although HUD does not report data on the demographic characteristics of homeless veterans and

other subgroups of homeless people based on the point-in-time counts that include the unsheltered

population, it does publish these characteristics for the sheltered population by using annualized data.

As is true for the overall homeless population, African-Americans and Latinos are overrepresented

among the sheltered homeless veteran population: in FY 2013, about 39 percent of homeless veterans

were African-American compared with 11 percent of all veterans, and about 7 percent of homeless

veterans were Hispanic compared with 5 percent of all veterans (HUD, 2014b). Among those using

shelters or transitional housing, veterans were also more likely than the nonveteran homeless population

to be single individuals: in the 2009-to-2013 period, the share of homeless veterans who were single

ranged from 97.4 to 97.9 percent, but, in 2013, single individuals accounted for only 64 percent of

homeless nonveterans (HUD, 2014b).

The majority (54.3 percent) of sheltered homeless veterans were older than age 50 in 2013—old enough

that many are still likely to be struggling with the devastating and enduring effects of serving in Vietnam.

The share of homeless veterans older than age 50 has been shifting slowly upward, from 47.1 percent of

the sheltered population in 2009 to a high of 54.5 percent in 2012, a pattern that suggests that already-

homeless veterans are getting older (HUD, 2013). In 2013, more than one-third (36.1 percent) of the

sheltered homeless veteran population was between the ages of 31 and 50, and only 9.6 percent of

the homeless veterans were young (between the ages of 18 and 30). Although young veterans made

up a small portion of the overall sheltered homeless veteran population, they are overrepresented in

comparison with their share (5.6 percent) of the general veteran population (HUD, 2014b).

The number of women in the military has increased substantially during the past decade. The National

Center on Homelessness Among Veterans more recently reported that, in FY 2013, 10 percent of

veterans were women (Byrne et al., 2014). HUD annualized Annual Homeless Assessment Report data

4

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 1

show that, despite declines in the overall homeless veteran population, the number of homeless women

veterans is growing: 1,891 more women veterans received emergency shelter or transitional housing

services in 2013 than in 2012 (HUD, 2014b). Further, women are growing as a share of the sheltered

population: in 2009, women made up 7.5 percent of sheltered homeless veterans, and, by 2013, they

comprised 9 percent of the population (HUD, 2014b). Women represent a growing subpopulation of

homeless veterans, with unique obstacles and barriers to stable housing.

Although the Department of Defense was still in the process of integrating women fully into front-

line combat positions at the time of this report, women were exposed to combat-related situations in

the recent wars in the Middle East, including defending military bases against attacks from insurgents

(Patten and Parker, 2011). Further, women are also more likely to experience military sexual trauma

(MST), which the Veterans Health Administration describes as “severe or threatening forms of sexual

harassment and sexual assault sustained in military service” (Kimerling et al., 2007: 2160). According to

VA administrative records, a substantial share of women veterans (22 percent, or nearly 30,000 patients)

who completed an MST screening reported experiencing MST (Kimerling et al., 2007: 2160).3 The study

found that reports of MST were correlated with mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress

disorder (PTSD), some of which have been found to increase homelessness risk (Metraux et al., 2013).

Veterans tend to experience homelessness for slightly longer periods than nonveterans (100,000 Homes,

2011). Some evidence suggests that homeless veterans may face more challenges in finding affordable

housing than their nonveteran counterparts. HUD’s affordable housing programs, for example, serve

a smaller share of eligible veterans (11 percent) than eligible nonveterans (19 percent), although the

reasons for this discrepancy are unclear (GAO, 2007). Veterans are also more likely than nonveterans to

have PTSD, mental health conditions related to traumatic brain injury, and substance abuse issues that

require special attention (USICH, 2010). These factors contribute to high rates of incarceration among

veterans; according to the most recent survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2004 about 140,000

veterans accounted for 10 percent of state and federal inmates (Noonan and Mumola, 2007). These

statistics are notable not only for their large numbers but also because people leaving prison are at high

risk for homelessness (Elbogen et al., 2013).

Reports show that a small number of veterans who served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF),

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), or Operation New Dawn (OND) are trickling into homeless shelters across

the country. In 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, the VA identified 12,700 OEF/

OIF/OND veterans as homeless (National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, n.d.).

Returning veterans face a host of challenges, including reentering life with friends and family and

finding employment (Institute of Medicine, 2010). According to a Pew Research Center survey of 1,842

veterans, 44 percent of veterans who served after 9/11 say that reentry was difficult (Morin, 2011). The

3 This study, reported in the American Journal of Public Health, examined administrative records collected by the Veterans Health Administration, which has a universal screening program for MST. The authors found that 70

percent of Veterans Health Administration patients were screened for MST.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

5

Chapter 1

VA faces severe shortages in mental healthcare professionals and long backlogs for accessing disability

benefits, leaving many veterans vulnerable (Institute of Medicine, 2010). According to the Bureau of

Labor Statistics, veterans also experience higher rates of unemployment: about 12 percent for veterans

who served in the military after 9/11 compared with about 8 percent for nonveterans (DOL, 2013). It is

not surprising, then, that, as research suggests, veterans are at greater risk of homelessness than their

civilian counterparts.

Reasons for Homelessness

Many factors that affect the general population’s risk of homelessness also affect veterans; in addition,

veterans have some unique experiences that may increase their risks for homelessness. Understanding

causes and risk factors for homelessness among veterans is important for developing identification

strategies and homelessness prevention programs.

Structural factors, such as the loss of affordable housing, rising unemployment, unprecedented numbers

of foreclosures, and an erosion of the safety net, contribute to homelessness among veterans and the

general population alike. In addition, a single event (for example, health problem, job loss, rent burden,

eviction) may often precipitate homelessness. Although veteran renters were somewhat more likely

to have cost burden than nonveteran renters, a subgroup—approximately one-half million low-income

veteran renters—had severe housing cost burden in 2005 (Cunningham, Henry, and Lyons, 2007; GAO,

2007). With no room for basic necessities in their monthly budget, let alone unexpected expenses

because of job loss or troubles related to physical or mental health problems, households paying a large

share of income for rent are at risk of becoming homeless. Individual risk factors, including poverty,

mental and physical health, substance use, and incarceration, are associated with greater risk of

homelessness (Burt, 2001).

For programs providing homelessness prevention services, such as VHPD, the ability to predict who

is most likely to become homeless is critically important for targeting services to those veterans most

in need. A review of the research literature (Burt, 2001; Burt et al., 1999; Shinn and Baumohl, 1999;

Shinn et al., 2013) suggests narrowing down the pool to veterans with one or more of the following risk

factors:

• Living in overcrowded units.

• Excessive housing cost burden (more than 50 percent of income).

• Recent loss of income or unemployment.

• Young households, pregnant, or with children under age 5.

• Recent homelessness.

• Health problems or chronic illness.

• Traumatic life event.

Even among veterans with these risk factors, however, some will become homeless and some will not.

Predicting homelessness is extremely difficult. As Shinn and colleagues wrote, “attempts to identify

individuals at risk are inefficient, targeting many people who will not become homeless for each person

who will” (Shinn, Baumohl, and Hopper, 2001: 95).

6

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 1

Despite these challenges, recent research focused specifically on the veteran population has made

strides in identifying the characteristics of veterans at risk of homelessness. Some studies find that

military service alone does not increase risk for homelessness (Mares and Rosenheck, 2004), but a more

recent study by Metraux et al. (2013), which used VA administrative data on 310,685 veterans who

separated from the military between July 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006, found that serving in OEF/

OIF increased homelessness risk after military separation. The study looked at risk factors separately

for different subgroups: men who served in OEF/OIF, women who served in OEF/OIF, men who did not

serve in OEF/OIF, and women who did not serve in OEF/OIF. The researchers calculated 5-year adjusted

homeless incidence rates for veterans who served in OEF/OIF to be about 5 percent (4.8 percent for

women and 4.9 percent for men); the same rates for non-OEF/OIF veterans were slightly lower at around

4 percent (4.1 percent for women and 3.7 percent for men). They found that for all four groups, low pay

grade in the military and younger age (ages 25 to 34) were significant risk factors for homelessness after

separation. Among OEF/OIF veterans only, being diagnosed with PTSD at discharge was a significant risk

factor for homelessness, increasing homelessness risk by a modest amount. Further, serving in OEF/OIF

was a significant risk factor for homelessness, increasing risk by 34 percent. The study found that gender

did not affect homelessness risk.

Another study (Elbogen et al., 2013) showed that money mismanagement—defined as writing bad

checks, forging checks, falling victim to a money scam, or going over one’s credit limit—also significantly increased the odds of being homeless after separating from the military, controlling for other factors.

Studies using data from the VA’s homelessness screening clinical reminder, which screens all veterans

accessing healthcare services through the Veterans Health Administration for homelessness and risk of

homelessness, found that women had higher rates of homelessness and risk for homelessness than men

and that veterans living in nonrural areas had higher rates of homelessness and risk for homelessness

than those living in rural areas (Montgomery, 2014). Information gathered upon rescreening veterans

who previously indicated homelessness or risk of homelessness showed that most veterans were able

to resolve their homelessness quickly. Those who remained homeless for longer periods typically fell

into four categories: (1) older veterans with mental health issues, (2) older veterans with physical health issues, (3) older veterans with a mix of mental and physical health issues who were not receiving VA

service-connected disability payments, and (4) younger veterans making the transition from military

service to the civilian workforce (Fargo et al., 2014).

Recent research has identified risk factors for subsequent homelessness among veterans served by SSVF

after they leave the program. Byrne (2014) found that having a prior history of homelessness increased

risk of subsequent homelessness among single veterans, and Byrne et al. (2014) created models for four

subpopulations of veterans who participated in SSVF: (1) veterans living alone (singles) who were housed

at entry and received homelessness prevention services, (2) singles who were homeless at program

entry and received rapid re-housing services, (3) veterans living as part of a household (families) who

received prevention services, and (4) veterans in families who received rapid re-housing services. They

found that having received VA homeless services before the veteran’s involvement with SSVF (indicating

a prior history of homelessness) increased the veteran’s risk of becoming homeless after leaving SSVF

services for three of the four subgroups: singles who received prevention services, singles who received

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

7

Chapter 1

rapid re-housing services, and families who received prevention services. Veterans who exited to HUD-

VASH or other permanent housing destinations, which included unsubsidized rental housing and other

subsidized housing situations, had a lower risk of becoming homeless after exit (Byrne, 2014). Among

single veterans, men were at greater risk for homelessness than women, but no gender differences were

indicated for veterans in families (Byrne et al. 2014). Income at program entry did not affect post-SSVF

homelessness risk (Byrne, 2014).

Conclusion

Efforts to end homelessness among veterans are working, at the federal level and in communities around

the country. Homelessness among veterans is decreasing; however, even if homeless service providers

across the country helped every currently homeless veteran find housing, homelessness for this group

would not end. New episodes of homelessness would occur. The recurrent nature of the problem and

new entrants into homelessness are why preventing homelessness is critical to ending homelessness

among veterans. VHPD was one of the first homelessness prevention programs to target veterans, and

it was among the first homeless assistance programs of any type to target post-9/11 veterans. The

researchers know that the number of OEF/OIF/OND veterans and women veterans grew significantly

because of the country’s involvement in Middle East conflicts. The data also indicate that homelessness

among these populations is increasing as well. The VHPD evaluation helps to fill in some of the research

gaps on the pathways to homelessness and identifying risk factors, including barriers to employment,

that leave these veterans vulnerable. The evaluation also provides insight into how to best identify

veterans for prevention services and what types of services should be provided to be effective.

8

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 2

Chapter 2. Study Overview

The Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) was among the first homelessness

prevention and rapid re-housing programs to specifically target veterans. Many gaps exist in what is

known about promoting housing stability and sustainability among homeless or at-risk veterans. This

chapter highlights how the VHPD evaluation contributes to closing gaps in that knowledge by providing

the research questions and study methodology.

Study Research Questions

This study asks the following research questions.

• Implementation questions:

͹ What are effective ways to identify and reach veterans who are at risk for homelessness

or experiencing short-term homelessness? Are there important differences between

subgroups of veterans, in particular women, families, and veterans of conflicts

in Afghanistan and Iraq? How do these methods differ from those used to reach

nonveterans?

͹ What barriers exist to providing homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing

services to veterans, and, among them, to women, families, and veterans of conflicts

in Afghanistan and Iraq? Are these barriers different from those faced when serving

nonveterans?

͹ How well did the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the U.S. Department of Labor,

and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) work together in

each site?

• Program effectiveness questions:

͹ Were the services provided through VHPD effective for veterans served?

͹ What happened to program participants after receiving VHPD program benefits? Did

program participants avoid homelessness? Did they experience housing stability?

͹ Did program participants increase employment, earnings, and income (including

veterans pensions, other VA benefits, and other mainstream benefits)?

Research Design

To answer these questions, the research team adopted a mixed-methods research approach that

included several data collection activities for the process study and outcomes evaluation. To answer the

implementation questions presented in the previous section, the research team conducted a program

reconnaissance, conducted interviews with key informants involved in program design and service

delivery, and completed focus groups with veterans. Findings on implementation are described in the

evaluation interim report (Cunningham et al., 2013). While the process study focused on questions

regarding program design and implementation, the outcomes component answered the question of

whether VHPD prevents homelessness among veterans and helps veterans increase income so they can

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

9

Chapter 2

sustain housing over time. To be specific, the researchers examined (1) housing stability (for example,

housing status at program exit, returns to homelessness within 6 months, and housing stability at 6

months) and (2) employment and income (for example, employment and income at program exit,

employment and income at follow-up). They collected Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS) and VA administrative data and completed baseline and follow-up surveys to measure these

outcomes.

One of the biggest challenges to understanding program effects in nonexperimental designs such as

the VHPD evaluation is selection bias. To understand the true impact of VHPD on program participants,

it would have been necessary to create a counterfactual that answered this question: All things equal,

what would have happened without the VHPD intervention? Creating such a counterfactual would have

required selecting samples of one or more groups that did not receive VHPD but that looked similar to

the group of program participants who did receive services. The researchers explored the feasibility of

constructing a comparison group of similar veterans and identified a comparison group that was not

served by VHPD but was served by VA homeless services. After creating the comparison group, however,

it was not possible to access the outcomes data needed to make comparisons. As a result, the evaluation

does not include a comparison group, which limits the findings (this limitation is described in more

detail in the section “Comparison Group Strategy”). In addition to answering questions of effectiveness,

the research team wanted to compare characteristics of veterans served by VHPD to characteristics of

veterans and nonveterans served by other homeless service programs, specifically the Homelessness

Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP). As described in the following Data Collection

section, the researchers collected data on participants served through the HPRP program to make these

comparisons.

Data Collection

Congress directed HUD to conduct an evaluation of program outcomes. HUD contracted with Silber

& Associates and the Urban Institute to describe program models at each of the five VHPD programs,

evaluate VHPD’s efficacy in preventing homelessness among veterans, and provide policymakers with

greatly needed knowledge on how to design effective prevention programs. The evaluation began in

September 2011. The challenge for the VHPD outcomes evaluation was to compensate for the fact that

the VHPD programs had been serving veteran households for more than a year before the evaluation

team had Office of Management and Budget clearance. It would have been ideal to begin recruiting

households for the study at the moment the VHPD programs began their recruitment; however, that was

not possible given the study start date.

Recruitment for study participants occurred between September 12, 2012, and October 7, 2013.

All study participants for whom signed informed consent forms were received were contacted to

complete the baseline survey as soon as possible after program enrollment. All baseline interviews were

completed by December 31, 2013. Study participants were contacted for the follow-up survey starting

from the date 6 months after they exited the VHPD program as reported to the research team by local

VHPD program staff. All follow-up interviews were completed by October 31, 2014. During this time, the

research team also conducted two waves of site visits to the five programs. The first wave of visits was

completed between April and May 2012, during which time the researchers conducted key informant

10

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 2

interviews with program staff and community stakeholders. The second wave of visits was completed

between July and November 2013, during which time they conducted key informant interviews with staff

and focus groups with program participants.

Process Study Data Collection

For the process study, the research team conducted initial program reconnaissance, key informant

interviews with program staff and other stakeholders, focus groups with veterans who received VHPD

services, and a review of program documents. Interviews and focus groups were conducted during

site visits to each program. Members of the research team visited each VHPD program twice: once

about 1 year after implementation began and again about 6 months before the program ended.

Process study findings based on program reconnaissance, document review, and the key informant

interviews conducted during the first site visit were summarized in the VHPD evaluation’s interim report

(Cunningham et al., 2013).

Program Reconnaissance

Beginning in the fall of 2011, the research team conducted a series of telephone calls with VHPD

grantees, VA medical centers (VAMCs) working with VHPD, and Continuum of Care (CoC) and HMIS

administrators. The team collected information on each site’s VHPD program, including what types of

data the grantees collected and entered into HMIS, and the written consent and data-sharing protocols

the sites currently had in place. Team members also ascertained the capacities and preferences of HMIS

systems for providing some or all of the data they would need to answer the study’s research questions

and the best approach for gaining permission to use the HMIS data for their purposes. Appendix B

contains the reconnaissance call protocol.

Key Informant Interviews

The research team conducted semistructured interviews with program staff and other knowledgeable

stakeholders during site visits conducted in April and May 2012 and the summer of 2013. The team

interviewed the following types of respondents at each VHPD site:

• VHPD grantee staff (agency director; program director; direct line workers doing intake,

assessment, housing search, placement, stabilization, and ongoing case management; and data

and management information people).

• VAMC staff (VHPD director, director of all VA homeless assistance, VHPD caseworkers, and

clinical staff, as appropriate).

• CoC representatives (convener, HMIS administrator, and others, as appropriate).

• One-Stop Career Centers and workforce development staff (director and staff working directly

with VHPD households).

• Other stakeholders suggested or recommended by local informants.

The research team used a field discussion guide to gather information relevant to all the process

research questions (see appendix C). Before any site visits occurred, all staff conducting visits

participated in field staff training that reviewed the goals and questions outlined in the interview guides and onsite protocols.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

11

Chapter 2

During the second site visit, team members reinterviewed key program staff to identify ways the

program had changed, challenges the program had faced, ways those challenges were or were not

overcome, program successes, and recommendations for how the program could be improved. Again,

all researchers used the same interview protocol during the interviews to ensure that the same types

of information were gathered in each interview and in each site. The interview protocol for the second

round is in appendix D.

Focus Groups

During the second site visit to each program, the research team conducted at least one focus group

with VHPD program participants. When possible, team members conducted two focus groups and held

homogeneous groups of certain VHPD target populations, including (1) veterans who cared for minor

children, (2) single adults, (3) female veterans, and (4) Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi

Freedom veterans. Researchers recruited focus group participants by phone from the group of veterans

who had agreed to participate in the study. For more details, see appendix B.

Conducting focus groups enabled the research team to collect perspectives directly from veterans

about the housing barriers they faced and the efficacy of VHPD in helping them to overcome those

barriers. Focus group questions were open ended, allowing for more complicated answers and personal

narratives. The focus groups concentrated on (1) participants’ own reasons for their housing instability

and pathways to VHPD; (2) participants’ own experiences with VHPD, the services they received, and

the effectiveness of those services (that is, what they thought did and did not help them); and (3)

participants’ prospects for the future. Within these three topics, the researchers developed a focus

group discussion guide (see appendix E) that included probes to keep the conversations going, made

certain they covered relevant aspects of each topic, and discussed challenges specific to each of the

identified subgroups.

Focus groups were held at VHPD program offices and lasted no more than 2 hours. Participants received

an incentive of $50 as a thank you for their participation. Focus groups were audio recorded and

transcribed.

Document Review

During the program reconnaissance and site visit activities, the research team collected examples of

forms and other documents that the programs used to administer the VHPD program. Examples of

documents collected include program screening forms, intake and assessment forms, program service

plans, and budgeting worksheets. The research team used this information in addition to interview notes

from the first round of site visits to understand program operations and procedures.

Outcomes Study Data Collection

Baseline And Follow-Up Surveys

The research team conducted baseline and follow-up telephone interviews with VHPD participants who

had consented to participate in the study. VHPD program staff at each of the five sites began recruiting

veterans to participate in the outcomes evaluation (that is, to complete the baseline and follow-up

telephone surveys) in mid-September 2012. The study recruitment continued until October 7, 2013.

12

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 2

Veterans were contacted within a few weeks of agreeing to participate in the study to complete the

baseline survey, and again 6 months after they exited the program to complete the follow-up survey.

The baseline survey data collection period ended on December 31, 2013, and the follow-up survey data

collection period ended on October 31, 2014.

The surveys cover the major areas on which VHPD interventions were expected to have an impact or

that were important baseline characteristics for understanding veterans’ situations at intake and how

those situations might affect their experience with and outcomes from VHPD. The team specifically

asked about—

• Housing status, including nature of current housing, housing stability (for example, number of

recent moves), housing costs, brief homeless history.

• Veteran’s status, including active duty, period served, stationed in a war zone, ever exposed to

combat, exposed to friendly or unfriendly fire, multiple tours of duty, challenges since leaving

the military, impact of military on housing situation.

• Household composition.

• Income level, sources, and noncash benefits for head of household and all other adults.

• Employment, including current and brief history; completed education and any current or recent

education, including training and certifications.

• Presence of mental health issues, use of VA healthcare services, and health insurance.

Interviews were about 30 minutes in duration. Participating veterans were paid $30 for their time for

each interview. The baseline interview was conducted as soon as possible after program enrollment,

and the follow-up interview was conducted 6 months after the veteran exited the VHPD program. More

details on the baseline survey methods are in appendix F, and the survey instrument is in appendix G.

More information on the follow-up survey methods is in appendix H, and the instrument is in appendix I.

More information on the survey data cleaning and survey timing is in appendix J.

The research team recruited 509 veterans into the study, of whom 424 completed the baseline survey,

a response rate of 83 percent. Of those who completed the baseline survey, 315 also completed the

follow-up survey, a response rate of 74 percent (table 2.1).4 Although the research team’s goal was to

recruit 100 veterans from each site, the program enrollment pace at the five sites varied. Some sites

(Central Texas, San Diego, and Tampa) were able to recruit more than 100 participants, but other sites

(Tacoma and Upstate Northern New York) recruited fewer veterans.

4 An analysis of nonresponders for those veterans who did not consent to be in the study and for those who did not complete a follow-up interview is included in appendix L.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

13

Chapter 2

Table 2.1

Survey Response Statistics

Cross-Site Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Number of study participants

509

129

128

84

100

68

Baseline survey

Interviews completed (N)

424

113

100

70

89

52

Response rate (%)

83.3

87.6

78.1

83.3

89.0

76.5

Follow-up survey

Interviews completed (N)

315

85

75

49

63

43

Response rate (%)

74.3

75.2

75.0

70.0

70.8

82.7

Administrative Data

The research team also collected administrative data from the HMIS of local CoCs and the VA’s Homeless

Registry. Administrative data from the local CoCs and the National Center on Homelessness Among

Veterans were gathered in the summer and fall of 2014. These data were used to supplement the

data collected in the surveys, provide information on homelessness after VHPD program exit, create

comparison groups, and conduct nonresponse analysis. The types of administrative data the researchers

collected from HMIS and the VA are described in the following sections. The full list of indicators is in

appendix K.

HMIS Data

VHPD program data entered into HMIS for VHPD study participants. The research team collected

identified HMIS universal and program-specific data elements from each lead VHPD CoC and attached

the data to the survey data files. Team members obtained consent to collect identified HMIS data from

study participants in the consent form veterans signed to enroll in the study. The team specifically

collected the following indicators: race, ethnicity, gender, age, veteran status, presence of children in

the individual’s household, disabling condition, physical disability, developmental disability, chronic

health condition, HIV/AIDS, mental health, substance abuse, income at VHPD entry, income at VHPD exit,

housing status at VHPD entry, housing status at VHPD exit, HPRP program entry date, HPRP program exit

date, VHPD program entry date, VHPD program exit date, and any emergency shelter and transitional

housing entry and exit dates.

VHPD program data entered into HMIS for VHPD program participants who did not participate in the

study. The researchers collected deidentified data from all five lead CoCs for veterans who did not participate in the VHPD evaluation in order to conduct nonresponse analysis. They collected the same

indicators they collected for the study participants listed in the previous paragraph.

Shelter and transitional housing use data entered into HMIS for VHPD study participants. The team also collected emergency shelter and transitional housing entry and exit dates for VHPD study participants

from CoCs that were with the VHPD program catchment area but were not the lead CoC—the one to

14

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 2

which the VHPD program submitted its program data. Team members provided these CoCs with a list of

names and birthdates for study participants so they could find these veterans in their HMIS and identify

their homeless service use from August 28, 2012, to July 31, 2014, an activity for which the researchers

got consent from the study participants.

HMIS data for a comparison group of HPRP participants. To determine how veterans experiencing

short-term homelessness or risk for homelessness differed from nonveterans, the researchers collected

deidentified data on all HPRP participants from the lead VHPD CoC. They specifically collected the

following indicators: race, ethnicity, gender, age, veteran status, presence of children in the individual’s household, disabling condition, physical disability, developmental disability, chronic health condition,

HIV/AIDS, mental health, substance abuse, income at VHPD entry, income at VHPD exit, housing status

at VHPD entry, housing status at VHPD exit, HPRP program entry date, HPRP program exit date, VHPD

program entry date, VHPD program exit date, and any emergency shelter and transitional housing

entry and exit dates. The research team used these data to compare characteristics of veterans and

nonveterans served by HPRP.

VA Data

VA Homeless Registry, VA Homeless Operations Management and Evaluation System, and other VA

homeless data for a comparison group of veterans who did not receive VHPD. To create a comparison

group of veterans who would have been eligible for VHPD services but did not receive them, the

research team collected data on veterans served by the VHPD VAMCs who were short-term homeless or

unstably housed before the start of the VHPD program. The research design called for comparing returns

to homelessness in HMIS and VA homeless services. The researchers were successful in creating a

comparison group with these data, but they had some challenges with outcomes data, which made this

comparison unusable. These data challenges and limitations are outlined in the next section.

Comparison Group Strategy

To understand the impact of the VHPD intervention, the research team needed to know what would have

happened in the absence of the intervention. Because a randomized control trial was not possible in this

case, the researchers instead attempted to create a comparison group by using VA administrative data

to answer this question.5 With the assistance of the National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans,

they pulled demographic and VA homeless service use data from the VA Homeless Registry on veterans

who completed a Health Care for Homeless Veterans intake form between March 1, 2010, and February

29, 2011, and who were either at risk of homelessness or homeless for a short time (less than 6 months)

and from the VAMC service areas for the five VHPD sites. They then used propensity score matching to

weight each observation so that in the aggregate the VA group resembled the VHPD study participant

group as closely as possible (see appendix L for a complete description of this process). The team had

5 A randomized control trial is a design in which study participants are randomly assigned to either the treatment condition (in this case, receiving VHPD assistance) or the control condition (in this case, receiving no VHPD

assistance). Because the groups are assigned randomly, this design is intended to rule out the possibility that differences between the groups are driving the differences in outcomes and to provide a truer test of the effect of the intervention. The research team was unable to implement a randomized control trial design for this evaluation because the sites were not expected to enroll and did not enroll a large enough number of veterans during the time period when the research team was able to recruit veterans for the study (September 12, 2012, to October 7, 2013) to have a sufficient number of veterans in the treatment and control groups.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

15

Chapter 2

planned to compare the number of nights spent in homeless services between the VA administrative data

comparison group and the VHPD study participant group to determine how effective the VHPD program

was at helping participants avoid using homeless services, a measure of maintained housing stability.

Although the research team was able to create a comparison group with similar baseline characteristics

to its study participant group, the team determined that, for several reasons, the comparison of

homeless service use outcomes between the groups was not helpful in understanding the effect of the

VHPD intervention. First, the homeless services researchers were examining differed between the study

participants and the comparison group. For the study participants, they were only able to obtain data on

the use of homeless services that are entered into the HMIS system of the lead VHPD CoC’s service area,

and, for the comparison group, they were only able to obtain data on the homeless services used from

the VA. They were unable to obtain data on the use of a consistent set of homeless services for the two

groups because of informed consent issues.6

Second, the data on the VA comparison group provided outcomes such as the number of nights spent in

VA homeless service programs within 24 months of the Health Care for Homeless Veterans intake date.

The outcomes period for the VHPD study participant group was within 6 months of program exit. The

different timeframes made the data noncomparable.

Third, the comparison group was intended to measure the effectiveness of the VHPD intervention

by approximating what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. Of the weighted

comparison group, however, 62 percent were referred to a VA homelessness program at intake. Although

the researchers do not know what share of those people were admitted into services in response to

that referral, this percentage of referrals suggests that a share of the VA comparison group did receive

a homeless service intervention, muddling the comparison with VHPD. For all these reasons, these

comparisons cannot inform this evaluation.

In the absence of a control group of veterans who were similarly situated but did not receive any

intervention, the research team cannot fully attribute the results presented in this report to VHPD.

6 The research team did not ask for consent to obtain identified data from the VA for the study participants because researchers were advised that doing so would deter veterans from agreeing to participate in the study. Team members never came in contact with the members of the VA comparison group because it was pulled from an

earlier time period, so they never had an opportunity to ask their consent to get their HMIS data.

16

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 3

Chapter 3. Program Description and Implementation

Challenges

This chapter describes the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) program at each

site and provides information on the types of assistance provided to participants and how long they

stayed in the program. It also briefly summarizes some of the implementation challenges and lessons

that were highlighted in the interim report (Cunningham et al., 2013).

VHPD Program

VHPD was designed to target veterans who were homeless or at risk for homelessness, with a special

emphasis on the following subpopulations: recent veterans who served in Afghanistan and Iraq under

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), or Operation New Dawn (OND);

female veterans; and veterans with children. Overall, the program served 4,824 adults and children,

including 2,023 veterans, in 1,976 households.7 VHPD provided short- or medium-term housing

assistance (up to 18 months), including security deposits, rent, rental arrearages (up to 6 months back

rent), moving cost assistance, and utilities, and also case management and referrals to community-

based services and supports. Service providers could use VHPD funds for childcare, credit repair, and

transportation expenses. VHPD sites were required to spend 65 percent of their grant on housing

assistance, but beyond that requirement, they had discretion to develop program activities that reflected

local need. VHPD grantees and their subgrantees provided a range of financial, case management, and

housing location services to homeless households and those at risk of homelessness.

Grantees had discretion in targeting veterans most in need of homelessness prevention and rapid

re-housing. Eligibility criteria set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

included veteran status, eligibility for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care, and

income requirements (household at or below 50 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]). The eligible

groups were veterans and veterans with families at risk of homelessness or experiencing short-term

homelessness (less than 90 days). Veterans from all periods of service (for example, Vietnam, Persian

Gulf) were eligible, but, as noted in the previous paragraph, HUD encouraged focused outreach to OEF/

OIF/OND veterans. National Guard members and those who served in the Reserve and served on active

duty for 2 years or more were also eligible for the program. HUD required that grantees check to see

that all enrollees would have become homeless “but for this assistance” and that they could sustain the

cost of housing after the program ended. The household also had to meet at least one of the following

“instability criteria”:

7 These numbers are derived from HUD Annual Performance Report (APR) data submitted by the grantees. Three

APRs were not submitted: Tampa Year 2, Tacoma Year 3, and Upstate Northern New York Year 3. Because Tampa

and Tacoma submitted all of their quarterly reports, the research team was able to approximate the number

served for the missing year based on the quarterly reports. These numbers, however, do not include those served by Upstate Northern New York in Year 3, because the site also failed to submit 4 of 12 quarterly reports, making imputation impossible in this case. For more details on the imputation process, see appendix M.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

17

Chapter 3

• Short-term homelessness (homeless for less than 90 days).

• Rental arrearages (at least 1 month behind in rent).

• Pending eviction in 2 weeks.

• Institutional discharge (within 2 weeks from an institution where the person had been a resident

for more than 180 days; for example, prison, mental health institution, or hospital).

• Condemned housing.

• One month of utility arrears.

• Housing cost burden greater than 50 percent of household income.

• Sudden loss of significant income (defined as greater than 25-percent decrease in income).

• Recent traumatic life event (for example, divorce, death of a spouse, or health crisis) that

prevented the household from meeting financial obligations.

• Imminent unemployment.

• Mental health or substance use issue (treatment by time in housing encouraged).

Program Timeline

The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-8, signed into law on March 11, 2009)

authorized funding for VHPD (HUD, 2009). HUD issued the program notice to the selected Continuums of

Care (CoCs) in July 2010, and the CoCs accepted the program by August 2010 and submitted a business

plan by October 2010. HUD signed the grant agreements by November 2010. The VHPD programs began

enrolling clients in March, April, or May of 2011 (Cunningham et al., 2013), and the VHPD program

officially ended on January 31, 2014.

VHPD Sites

HUD, in consultation with VA and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), selected five military bases

and their surrounding communities to participate in VHPD: Camp Pendleton in San Diego, California

(San Diego); Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas (Central Texas); Fort Drum in Watertown, New York (Upstate

Northern New York); Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma); and MacDill Air

Force Base in Tampa, Florida (Tampa). HUD demonstration funds were allocated directly to the largest

CoCs in the geographic areas covered by the VHPD programs: the City and County of San Diego; Austin,

Travis County; Utica and Rome, Oneida County; Tacoma and Lakewood, Pierce County; and Tampa,

Hillsborough County.

These five sites were selected based on the following criteria: (1) the number of homeless veterans in

the geographic area, (2) the number of unique returned OEF/OIF/OND veterans who accessed health

care through the VA between FY 2002 and the first quarter of FY 2009, (3) the number of homeless

veterans reported through the VA’s CHALENG report, (4) the range and diversity of military represented

in the selected sites (for example, all branches, including the National Guard and Reserve), (5) access to

and availability of VA health care, (6) overall geographic distribution, and (7) capacity of the community

to carry out the demonstration project (Cunningham et al., 2013).

18

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 3

HUD awarded each grantee $2 million for a period of 3 years; grants went to homeless assistance

programs in designated CoCs or to the CoC itself to deliver housing and supportive services in

collaboration with VA medical centers (VAMCs) and DOL One-Stop Career Centers (One-Stops). The

following sections provide brief descriptions of each selected VHPD grantee program. More detailed

information on the VHPD sites is available in the VHPD interim report (Cunningham et al., 2013). Table

3.1 shows several key program characteristics for the five sites.

Central Texas—Fort Hood

The Austin, Travis County CoC selected the Salvation Army to run the program, which served as the VHPD

grantee for Central Texas and received HUD’s $2 million directly; the program had no subgrantees. One

of the Salvation Army’s VA partners was the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, the local agency

for the VA, located in Killeen. The program also involved another VA partner—the Killeen Heights Vet

Center, which did some outreach for VHPD and other programs serving veterans. The program’s DOL

partner in Central Texas was the Texas Veterans Commission, which oversees the work of veteran-specific

employment specialists for disabled and other veterans. Each of the three key partners (the Salvation

Army, the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, and the Texas Veterans Commission) dedicated

staff to work together to operate the VHPD program. The three partners worked together to develop a

service plan for each veteran, and the veteran was required to meet regularly (that is, weekly from the

beginning of the veteran’s program involvement) with his or her case manager from each agency.

The VHPD service area in Central Texas was large and included Bell, Coryell, McLennan, Travis, and

Williamson Counties. The Salvation Army VHPD staff were based in Austin and at the VA VHPD office in

Harker Heights; the Austin-based Salvation Army case manager primarily served program participants

in Travis and Williamson Counties, and the Harker Heights–based case manager primarily served

participants residing in Bell, Coryell, and McLennan Counties.

San Diego—Camp Pendleton

The San Diego Regional Continuum of Care Council, the local CoC, was the grantee and recipient of

HUD’s $2 million for this program. The CoC named the Veterans Village of San Diego to act as the VHPD

grantee on its behalf; Veterans Village of San Diego in turn regranted funds to two local nonprofit

organizations, Interfaith Community Services and St. Vincent DePaul Village, to provide the program’s

direct services as subgrantees. The VA partners included staff at the San Diego VAMC and the San

Diego Vet Center. The DOL partner was the regional office of the California Employment Development

Department. Although the program’s case management component was initially less intensive and

mostly involved referrals to other programs, midway through implementation, San Diego began doing

more intensive case management.

The VHPD program served all of San Diego County, which includes the City of San Diego—a very large

urban center that includes seven military bases, many of which contributed participants in VHPD. For

purposes of VHPD program administration, the service area was divided into northern and southern

halves, with Interfaith Community Services serving veterans in the northern part and St. Vincent DePaul

Village serving those in the southern part of the area.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

19

Chapter 3

Tacoma—Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord

The CoC for Tacoma and Lakewood, Pierce County selected a community agency, Catholic Community

Services of Western Washington, to serve as grantee and receive HUD’s $2 million directly. The

Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs was a subgrantee to Catholic Community Services ,

assisting with outreach and facilitating interactions with the state offices that handle discharge status

and disability ratings. The American Lake Medical Center, located close to Tacoma, was the VAMC

affiliated with the program. The DOL partner in Tacoma was the Washington State Employment Security

Department, which oversees and supervises the specialized employment staff at the various One-Stops

in the VHPD catchment area whose job is to facilitate veteran employment. Tacoma’s VHPD program

served veterans living in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Thurston Counties.

Tampa—Macdill Air Force Base

The Homeless Coalition of Hillsborough County, the local CoC, was the grantee and recipient of HUD’s

$2 million for this program. The grantee invited all interested community-based organizations to apply

for VHPD funds and worked with two subgrantees, Tampa Crossroads and the Agency for Community

Treatment Services. The VA partners included the James A. Haley VAMC and the Tampa Vet Center. The

DOL partners were the Tampa Bay Workforce Alliance in Hillsborough County, Polk Works in Polk County,

and Career Central in Pasco and Hernando Counties.

The VHPD service area included Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Polk Counties. Tampa Crossroads

served veterans in Hillsborough County, including Tampa, and the Agency for Community Treatment

Services served veterans in Hernando, Pasco, and Polk Counties.

Upstate Northern New York—Fort Drum

The Central New York Veterans Outreach Center was the grantee and recipient of HUD’s $2 million in

funds for the VHPD program. Because the catchment area is extensive, covering six counties, the grantee

sought a partner to serve the northern three counties, including the one where Fort Drum is located.

Transitional Living Services of Northern New York was chosen as the subgrantee. VA partners included

the Donald J. Mitchell VA Outpatient Clinic in Rome, the Syracuse VAMC, and the Watertown Vet Center.

DOL partners included the New York State Department of Labor in Albany, the Utica Workforce Solutions

One-Stop Center in Utica, and The Work Place in Watertown.

This site covered Herkimer, Madison, and Oneida Counties at the southern end of the catchment area

and Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties at the northern end. Upstate Northern New York is the

only VHPD site classified by HUD as rural.

20

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 3

Table 3.1

Key Program Characteristics

Site

Rapid Re-housing (%)

Prevention (%)

Median Length of Stay (days)

Central Texas

20.2

79.8

95

San Diego

18.2

81.8

39

Tacoma

28.1

71.9

94

Tampa

31.0

69.0

146

Upstate Northern New York

39.9

60.1

55

Note: Percentages for rapid re-housing and prevention are calculated for data on study participants (all veterans) that have been weighted to be reflective of all veterans who enrolled during the study recruitment period (see appendix L for a discussion of the weighting).

Source: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration Homeless Management Information System weighted administrative data Program Costs

Understanding how much a program costs is important information for policymakers to evaluate as they

are considering the benefits of an intervention. HUD-funded program costs per household for VHPD ranged

significantly by site, ranging from $3,513 in San Diego to $5,626 in Tacoma. This cost includes everything

but program administrative costs. HUD also tracked the amount of financial assistance provided to each

household; these costs also ranged by site, from $2,513 in San Diego to $3,837 in Tacoma (table 3.2).

Table 3.2

VHPD Assistance Funds Disbursed

Site

Average Amount of Funds

Average Amount of Grant

Average Amount of Financial

Disbursed per Person Served

Funds Disbursed per

Assistance Provided to Each

($)

Household Served ($)

Household Served ($)

Central Texas

1,589.11

4,269.37

3,098.70

San Diego

1,579.12

3,513.24

2,512.86

Tacoma

2,165.59

5,626.43

3,836.65

Tampa

1,759.03

4,770.91

3,686.15

VHPD = Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration.

Notes: Calculations for Tacoma and Tampa are based on total numbers of people and households served that involved missing data imputation. Data for Upstate Northern New York are not included because the issues with missing data could not be resolved through imputation. See appendix M for more details. Amount of funds disbursed includes grant funds spent on financial assistance, supportive services, and data collection and evaluation. Financial assistance includes rental assistance payments, rental application fees, payments of arrearages, security deposits, utility deposits and payments, and moving cost assistance. Supportive services include costs for case management, outreach and engagement, housing search and placement, credit repair, childcare, and transportation.

Data collection and evaluation costs include those for software and user license fees, Homeless Management Information System training and staffing, data collection and entry, and costs to lease or purchase computer equipment.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development financial and performance report data

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

21

Chapter 3

Implementation Challenges

As part of the data collection effort, the research team conducted qualitative interviews with key

stakeholders at each site to try to identify lessons learned, implementation challenges to service

provision, and best practices in VHPD. It was apparent that each program faced its own unique set of

barriers, but certain obstacles were common across the five programs.

Identifying Homeless and At-Risk Veterans

VHPD was meant to serve a specific population: veterans with household incomes at or below 50 percent

of the AMI who were either at imminent risk of becoming homeless or who had already been homeless

for a short time (90 days or less). Programs were also supposed to target veterans who had served in the

recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, women veterans, and veterans with children. To identify these

veterans, the five VHPD sites engaged in several outreach activities to ensure that local agencies that

would likely encounter these veterans would know about the program and be able to make referrals.

Before launching the VHPD program locally, sites used public announcements or meetings to inform

the community about the program. Outreach workers for the program engaged with staff across their

local VA systems who might encounter homeless veterans or veterans facing homelessness. They also

participated in transition-assistance events at local military bases held for service members separating

from the military and informed other non-VA homeless service programs about VHPD, who was eligible,

and what the program provided. Outreach workers also adapted their strategies to better reach target

populations, including reaching out to local universities and community colleges to reach OEF/OIF/OND

veterans who were continuing their education under GI Bill benefits.

In addition to finding the VHPD program through these program-specific outreach efforts, veterans

found VHPD through existing hotlines and word of mouth. Program participants and staff noted that

veterans were directed to the VHPD program after calling the VA’s National Call Center for Homeless

Veterans (1–877–4AIDVET) or general purpose hotlines, such as 211 and Courage to Call. Some veterans

noted, however, that they found VHPD only as part of a time-consuming and complicated assistance

search. As the program became more established, veterans and staff noted the importance of word

of mouth in informing the veteran community about the VHPD program (see chapter 7 for more on

veterans’ perspectives on finding the program). Word of mouth was a particularly important strategy for

reaching veterans who did not already engage with the VA or other service providers. Taken together,

these strategies seemed to be successful at reaching target population veterans, as evidenced by the

relatively high share of women and OEF/OIF/OND veterans among those served by VHPD compared with

their shares of the overall veteran population (see chapter 4).

Deciding Who To Serve: Balancing Eligibility Criteria and Target Populations

VHPD was intended to serve veterans who had been homeless for a short time or were at imminent

risk of homelessness. VHPD programs served far more prevention cases (those in which the household

was not homeless at program entry but was at risk of homelessness) than rapid re-housing cases (those

in which the household was homeless at program entry). In part, this distribution of cases served was

due to local program staff interpreting HUD regulations to mean there was a strict cut-off for VHPD

eligibility. Program staff thought the regulations said that all veterans who were homeless for longer

22

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 3

than 90 days were ineligible for the program. Midway through implementation, at a convening of VHPD

local program and federal staff, HUD indicated that this was not in fact a strict rule, but that there was

flexibility with regard to this criterion. Only one site (San Diego), however, noted serving veterans who

did not meet the 90-day “rule” during the second site visit, so this guideline did in fact act as an eligibility rule in most cases, regardless of HUD’s intention. As a consequence, the perceived 90-day rule limited

the programs from serving veterans who were currently homeless for longer than 90 days and who may

have benefited from rapid re-housing. Program staff noted this assumed rule limited the pool of veterans

eligible for rapid re-housing assistance and would have liked more flexibility to define short-term

homelessness in other ways, although they did not make specific suggestions for alternative definitions.

Because the programs focused more on prevention services, program staff had to make critical decisions

for eligibility around how to define imminent risk and how to weigh that risk against other HUD eligibility guidelines. HUD set out two guidelines for the program: first, that the household would be homeless

“but for” the assistance provided by VHPD (practitioners referred to this guideline as the “but for” rule)

and, second, that, although the household currently faced a housing crisis, the household would likely

be able to maintain its housing after receiving assistance from the program (the sustainability criterion).

In addition to weighing these two criteria, programs were also trying to target the VHPD priority

populations (that is, OEF/OIF/OND veterans, women veterans, and veterans with children).

Program staff noted it was difficult to juggle these competing factors. This difficulty was partially because of a lack of clear guidance from HUD on how to operationalize the four housing status categories

(literally homeless, at imminent risk, unstably housed, and stably housed) to enable program staff to

more clearly understand who should be served with prevention resources. Although HUD provided

definitions of these terms (see the Definitions of Terms in appendix A for the HUD definitions), program

staff found applying these definitions to families’ actual housing situations to be a subjective process.

Further, program staff encountered trade-offs between the “but for” and sustainability criteria: often a

veteran with a more acute housing crisis would be less likely to be self-sufficient after assistance and vice versa. To deal with this problem, programs chose which criterion they would emphasize. Most programs

leaned more heavily on the “but for” rule, but San Diego, citing high housing costs, decided to place

more emphasis on the sustainability criterion. Staff also noted they often had to decide between serving

a veteran with more acute needs who was not a member of a target population group and serving a

target population veteran with less severe issues.

Building Strong Partnerships

Because VHPD was intended to be a collaborative effort—not just among the three federal agencies but

also among local arms of those agencies—collaboration and strong partnerships were critical to program

success. Relationships between some partners were strengthened throughout the course of program

operations, but other relationships, as described briefly in the following paragraphs and in more detail in the interim report (Cunningham et al., 2013), were less successful.

In particular, program staff in most sites credited the VHPD program with helping improve relationships

between the HUD grantees and subgrantee homeless service agencies and the VA. By working more

closely with the VA, the homeless service agencies were better able to link veterans with the health

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

23

Chapter 3

services they needed and provide more comprehensive supports to maintain housing stability. Site staff

also commented that they engaged with other community providers across their CoCs through the VHPD

program, which could help foster more collaboration beyond this project. Program staff noted these

improved relationships as a key success of the VHPD program.

Developing relationships with the local DOL-funded One-Stop Career Centers was more difficult. Part of

the challenge in engaging the local employment services providers could have been because DOL did

not receive any funding for VHPD implementation. Therefore, local agencies had to add VHPD clients

onto the caseloads of existing veterans’ employment staff, which included Disabled Veterans’ Outreach

Program staff and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives staff. Further, key informants noted

that DOL staff were more accustomed to serving clients who present as “job ready,” and they were

described as either ill equipped or unwilling to serve the VHPD clients with greater needs. The exception

was Central Texas, which included the local employment agencies in VHPD from the beginning of the

planning period and was the only site to truly integrate the DOL arm into its team. The importance of

this partnership was underscored by participating veterans. Veterans who received employment services

said they valued that assistance, and those who did not said they wished they could have received such

services (see chapter 7 for more detail).

Large Service Areas

The VHPD sites were selected intentionally to include one rural site, which is a key reason why Upstate

Northern New York was chosen. Although Upstate Northern New York was the only site explicitly

classified as rural, the service areas for all the programs were large, and program staff in all the sites

reported challenges related to the size of their service areas. San Diego, which served only one large

county, was able to overcome this challenge by enlisting one subgrantee located in the northern part

of the county to serve veterans in that area and another subgrantee located in the southern part of the

county to serve veterans in the southern area.

The other four sites all included rural counties and consistently noted challenges reaching veterans and

facilitating their access to services because of remoteness and transportation issues. Some veterans lived

in rural areas that were far from the offices of VHPD service providers, other community-based services,

and employment opportunities. These significant distances affected their ability to engage with services

and take advantage of employment opportunities. Further, some areas, particularly in the Tacoma

program’s service area, were insular and difficult to reach because of geographic barriers such as Mount

Rainier, large forests, and the Olympic Peninsula.

Program staff observed that clients in rural areas often did not have their own vehicles or had a vehicle

in disrepair they could not afford to fix, and they noted particular challenges serving these clients.

When clients did not have their own transportation, case managers often had to travel long distances,

sometimes 3 or more hours round trip, to meet with clients. In addition to driving to their own meetings

with the client, case managers also noted they spent time driving clients to other appointments with the

VA and DOL because the client had no other means to get there. These hours devoted to transportation

significantly increased the time allocated per case and limited the number of veterans the programs

were able to serve. To help overcome these challenges, program staff noted they would have liked more

resources to assist clients with transportation-related issues.

24

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 4

Chapter 4. VHPD Households

This chapter describes the households that participated in the Veterans Homelessness Prevention

Demonstration (VHPD) and provides data on study participants by target population, military experience,

and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Reaching Veteran Target Populations

The VHPD program was designed to provide rapid re-housing and homelessness prevention services

to at-risk veterans at five sites across the country. This program was also designed to target specific

populations, including recent veterans who served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi

Freedom (OIF), or Operation New Dawn (OND), and also female veterans and veterans with children. The

research team used VHPD survey and administrative data to answer two important questions: Was VHPD

successful in reaching the target populations? Who were the veterans served by the VHPD program?

Overall, VHPD successfully reached the target populations it was intended to serve. Across the five sites,

more than one-half (55 percent) of veterans served in either OEF, OIF, or OND. In the veteran population

at large, only about 16 percent of veterans have served in these conflicts, which indicates the VHPD

programs successfully targeted these recent veterans (Byrne et al., 2014). In targeting veterans from

recent wars, VHPD was intended to serve younger veterans. Of all veterans served through VHPD, 22

percent were between the ages of 18 and 30, and 5 percent were very young (ages 18 to 24). Veterans

with children also made up a substantial portion of those served under VHPD. Approximately 43 percent

of veterans had children in their household. The program also successfully engaged women veterans.

About 27 percent of veterans across sites were women, much higher than their 10 percent share in the

overall veteran population.

Although all sites engaged veterans in the target population groups, Central Texas was best able to reach

the targeted groups. It served the highest share of women veterans (40 percent), OEF/OIF/OND veterans

(74 percent), and veterans with children (58 percent). The share of women veterans in the other sites

ranged from 10 percent in Upstate Northern New York to 30 percent in Tampa, and the share of OEF/

OIF/OND veterans ranged from 43 percent in San Diego to 58 percent in Tacoma. Central Texas served

the second highest share of young veterans at 30 percent, behind Upstate Northern New York at 36

percent. Some of Central Texas’s success, however, could be due to the large number of veterans from

recent conflicts being discharged from its local military base, Fort Hood (Cunningham et al., 2013). Table

4.1 shows target populations of veterans by site.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

25

Chapter 4

Table 4.1

VHPD Study Veterans by Target Populations by Site

Cross-Site

Central

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Texas

Northern New

York

Women veterans

Number

135

48

32

17

33

6

Percent of study veterans

26.7

39.9

22.6

21.3

30.4

10.3

OEF/OIF/OND veterans

Number

240

82

47

38

46

27

Percent of study veterans

55.1

74.0

43.1

57.5

46.3

53.8

Young veterans (ages 18 to 30)

Number

110

36

22

16

15

22

Percent of study veterans

21.7

30.0

15.6

19.5

14.1

35.5

Veterans with children in household

Number

222

70

43

40

53

16

Percent of study veterans

43.8

57.8

30.7

50.7

50.0

26.1

OEF = Operation Enduring Freedom. OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom. OND = Operation New Dawn. VHPD = Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration.

Notes: Gender, age, and presence of children in the household came from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) (N = 509), and whether the veteran served in OEF, OIF, or OND came from the baseline survey (N = 424).

Sources: Weighted VHPD baseline survey; HMIS administrative data

Profile of Veterans Served

This section provides a detailed description of VHPD veterans, looking at demographic characteristics,

income levels and employment status, deployments and combat exposure, and presence of physical and

mental health conditions.

Characteristics of Military Experience

Across sites, 96 percent of the veterans served by VHPD served on active duty, ranging from 91 percent

in Tampa to 99 percent in Tacoma. About 4 percent served in the National Guard or Reserve only, which

mirrors their share in the general veteran population (National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, 2011). Tampa had the highest share of National Guard members and Reservists, at 8 percent, and the other

four sites’ shares ranged from 2 percent (San Diego, Tacoma, and Upstate Northern New York) to 4 percent

(Central Texas). Table 4.2 shows characteristics of VHPD participants’ military experience.

Veterans across sites served for an average term of about 6 years on active duty and a median term of 4

years on active duty. This finding was fairly consistent across sites. A military service term typically ranges from 2 to 6 years, so this finding indicates that most of the veterans served only one term (U.S. Army, n.d.).

26

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 4

Further, about 40 percent of VHPD participants across sites reported serving in combat. This share

ranged from about 32 percent in San Diego and Tampa to 56 percent in Central Texas. Of those veterans

reporting exposure to combat, nearly one-half (48 percent) deployed to serve in combat multiple times.

Although Central Texas, San Diego, and Upstate Northern New York had a similar share of veterans who

experienced multiple deployments, Tacoma served a larger share (58 percent) of veterans with multiple

deployments, and Tampa served a smaller share (39 percent). Further, of those veterans who were

exposed to combat, the vast majority (97 percent) were exposed to friendly or unfriendly fire, and 56

percent said they were exposed to “a lot” of it.

One feature of VHPD of particular note was the relationship between discharge status and program

eligibility. Everyone served by VHPD had to be eligible for VA health services, which meant their

discharge status had to be honorable or general. Bad conduct discharges and dishonorable discharges

limit a veteran’s access to VA services, and, without qualifying for VA health services, the veteran was

not eligible for VHPD services. This issue was noted particularly at the Upstate Northern New York site,

where case managers claimed they had to turn away veterans from VHPD because they did not meet the

discharge standards. Other sites also mentioned this problem. Among VHPD veterans, 82 percent had

honorable discharges, and 17 percent had some form of general discharge.

Table 4.2

Characteristics of Military Experience

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by type

of active duty status

No

0.6

0.0

0.8

0.0

1.5

0.0

Yes, active duty in the

3.8

4.1

2.4

1.5

7.7

1.9

National Guard or

Reserve only

Yes, active duty in the

95.6

95.9

96.8

98.5

90.8

98.1

Armed Forces of the

United States in the past,

but not now

Mean years on active duty

5.8

6.1

5.7

6.5

5.2

5.3

Median years on active

4.0

5.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

4.0

duty

Percent exposed to combat

40.5

56.5

31.9

39.4

31.9

42.4

Percent of veterans

exposed to combat by

whether they were exposed

to unfriendly or friendly fire

No

3.0

0.0

8.7

4.3

0.0

5.0

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

27

Chapter 4

Table 4.2

Characteristics of Military Experience (continued)

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Yes, a little

40.9

35.0

36.5

23.5

58.0

60.6

Yes, a lot

56.1

65.0

54.9

72.3

42.0

34.4

Percent of veterans

exposed to combat by

number of deployments to

serve in combat

0 to 1

51.7

51.6

50.8

42.1

61.1

51.7

2 or more

48.3

48.4

49.3

57.9

38.9

48.3

Percent of veterans by self-

reported discharge status

Honorable discharge

82.3

80.3

87.7

85.8

79.8

75.6

General discharge, under

16.6

16.8

11.5

14.2

19.4

24.4

honorable conditions

Note: Categories for discharge status do not add to 100 percent in the cross-site total, Central Texas, San Diego, and Tampa columns because a small number of veterans self-reported other discharge statuses that could not have been correct, because those discharge statuses would have made the veteran ineligible for VHPD.

Source: Weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration baseline survey data (N = 424)

Demographic Characteristics

A slight majority of veterans across sites identified as White (51 percent), and a slightly smaller share

of veterans identified as Black (43 percent). The remaining 6 percent of veterans identified as either

American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiracial. This pattern

differed from the veteran population overall: according to 2011–13 American Community Survey

estimates, about 84 percent of all veterans in the United States identified as White and 11 percent

identified as Black. The racial makeup, however, differed by site. Veterans in Upstate Northern New

York more predominantly identified as White (81 percent), but, in Central Texas, 61 percent of veterans

identified as Black. These differences roughly reflect the demographic composition of the service areas

(Cunningham et al., 2013). The majority of veterans across sites and within each site identified as non-

Hispanic. Across sites, 90 percent identified as non-Hispanic; this share ranged from 87 percent in Tampa

and San Diego to 94 percent in Central Texas. The researchers found the small proportion of Hispanics in

Central Texas to be surprising. According to the 2010 decennial census, 28 percent of the population in

the Central Texas service area identified as Hispanic or Latino. The researchers posit that the small share of Hispanic or Latino veterans in Central Texas (6 percent) is due to differences in the ethnic backgrounds of those discharging from Fort Hood and the area’s population in general (Cunningham et al., 2013).

Table 4.3 lists demographic characteristics by site.

28

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 4

Table 4.3

Demographic Characteristics by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by race

Alaska Native or American Indian

2.8

0.0

5.7

3.5

2.3

1.5

Asian

0.9

0.0

1.9

2.4

0.0

0.0

Black or African-American

42.6

60.8

42.5

33.5

46.7

11.7

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific

0.7

0.7

0.0

3.5

0.0

0.0

Islander

White

50.8

38.6

49.3

48.7

51.0

80.8

Multiracial

2.2

0.0

0.7

8.5

0.0

6.0

Percent of veterans by ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino origin

10.3

5.9

12.6

8.2

13.0

11.9

Not of Hispanic or Latino origin

89.7

94.1

87.4

91.8

87.0

88.1

Percent of veterans by gender

Male

73.1

60.1

76.4

78.7

69.7

89.7

Female

26.7

39.9

22.6

21.3

30.4

10.3

Percent of veterans by marital status

Now married

31.7

39.2

26.2

38.8

28.5

24.1

Widowed

0.9

0.0

1.5

0.0

1.5

1.7

Divorced

27.1

25.8

29.7

34.0

19.8

29.2

Separated

9.1

8.3

2.3

5.9

15.4

17.8

Never married

31.2

26.7

40.3

21.4

34.8

27.1

Percent of veterans by age group

18 to 24

4.5

3.1

1.9

1.1

6.2

15.0

25 to 30

17.1

26.8

13.7

18.5

7.8

20.6

31 to 40

28.5

37.1

29.9

26.4

24.3

18.5

41 to 50

19.0

17.0

17.6

19.0

28.1

10.2

51 to 64

27.6

14.0

31.0

32.6

31.8

32.8

65 and older

3.2

2.1

5.9

2.4

1.7

3.0

Percent of veterans living with own

45.3

63.0

37.6

44.7

41.9

30.3

children

Percent of veterans living alone

33.5

24.9

38.1

35.2

31.6

44.0

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

29

Chapter 4

Table 4.3

Demographic Characteristics by Site (continued)

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by educational

attainment level

Less than high school diploma/

2.2

1.9

2.8

4.3

0.9

1.7

GED®

High school diploma/GED®

27.2

24.9

20.2

29.0

25.7

47.5

Some college or associate’s degree

60.5

66.6

62.3

62.3

59.1

43.9

Bachelor’s degree or higher

10.1

6.7

14.7

4.4

14.3

6.9

GED® = General Educational Development credential.

Note: Race, ethnicity, and age came from Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) administrative data (N = 509), and marital status, whether the veteran lived alone, whether the veteran lived with his or her own children, and educational attainment came from the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) baseline survey (N = 424).

Sources: Weighted HMIS administrative data; weighted VHPD baseline survey data

About 45 percent of households served were veterans living with their children. Central Texas served

the highest share (63 percent) of families, and Upstate Northern New York served the lowest share

(30 percent). About one-third of veterans across all sites were living alone, and the remaining veterans

(about 12 percent) were living with other adults (for example, family members, spouses, significant

others, roommates).

Variation existed across sites in terms of veteran marital status (see table 4.3). Roughly one-third of

VHPD clients were currently married (32 percent) or were single and had never been married (31

percent). More than one-third were either divorced or separated (27 and 9 percent, respectively).

Tacoma had the lowest rate of singles (21 percent) and highest rate of divorce (34 percent) across all the

programs. Central Texas had the highest share of married VHPD veterans (39 percent) and veterans living

with their children (63 percent) and the lowest share of veterans living alone (25 percent).

Although, overall, veterans lag behind the nonveteran population in terms of completing bachelor’s

and graduate degrees, they are more likely to have achieved at least a high school diploma/General

Educational Development credential (GED®) or some college than the nonveteran population, which

is likely related to the fact that a high school diploma or GED® is a requirement for military service.

According to 2011–13 American Community Survey estimates, a larger percentage of the overall U.S.

veteran population (92.6 percent) has at least a high school diploma compared with the nonveteran

population (85.6 percent), and 63.3 percent of veterans have at least some college compared with

57.6 percent of nonveterans. A slightly smaller share of veterans (26.6 percent) achieve bachelor’s

or graduate degrees compared with nonveterans (29.4 percent). By comparison with the veteran

population overall, larger shares of VHPD participants had at least a high school diploma or GED® (98

percent) and at least some college (70 percent), but a much smaller share had a bachelor’s or graduate

degree (10 percent).

30

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 4

Income Level and Employment Status

Overall, it was common for veterans to enter the VHPD program with no income: across sites, about

one in four veterans had no income at entry. This share ranged from 14 percent in San Diego to 37

percent in Upstate Northern New York. Few veterans had monthly household incomes of $2,000 or more

at program entry, except in San Diego, where the share was 29 percent, about twice the next highest

share. This higher income was likely because San Diego placed greater emphasis on the sustainability

component of program eligibility than did the other sites (Cunningham et al., 2013). Table 4.4 shows

VHPD veterans’ income and employment characteristics across the five sites.

Table 4.4

Income and Employment Characteristics by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by monthly

income at program entry

No income

23.1

19.2

14.2

17.6

35.1

37.0

$1 to $499

13.0

15.0

6.5

22.3

8.8

18.9

$500 to $749

4.7

4.8

1.3

8.8

4.6

7.3

$750 to $999

8.9

8.3

10.1

12.2

7.9

4.5

$1,000 to $1,499

20.6

23.3

19.2

24.0

19.4

16.6

$1,500 to $1,999

15.8

21.3

20.2

9.3

9.7

14.3

$2,000 or more

13.9

8.2

28.6

5.8

14.5

1.4

Percent of veterans by employment

status at baseline

Working full time

14.4

19.2

24.3

8.8

5.2

8.0

Working less than full time

10.8

12.4

7.5

10.5

12.1

12.2

Not working

74.8

68.4

68.2

80.8

82.7

79.9

Percent of veterans by household

income sources at baseline

From a job

29.6

38.5

37.2

15.5

22.7

25.9

Unemployment

10.6

10.8

5.9

12.6

8.3

21.5

Supplemental Security Income

5.4

2.1

9.2

5.7

2.7

9.3

Social Security Disability Income

11.7

11.8

17.2

10.1

7.9

9.0

Veterans pension/payment

32.4

31.3

33.8

43.7

26.4

28.5

Temporary Assistance for Needy

3.1

1.8

3.2

3.2

4.1

3.5

Families

Family or friends

3.8

4.5

0.9

6.4

2.6

7.3

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

31

Chapter 4

Table 4.4

Income and Employment Characteristics by Site (continued)

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by receipt of

benefit at baseline

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

60.5

66.6

33.9

81.0

66.8

65.6

Program

Medicaid

23.8

36.4

9.0

19.5

27.1

27.7

Medicare

11.3

10.5

7.3

11.1

14.9

14.7

Children’s Health Insurance Program

4.3

5.7

5.2

5.8

1.0

3.5

Notes: Income came from Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) administrative data (N = 509). Employment status came from the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) baseline survey (N = 424).

Sources: HMIS administrative data; weighted VHPD baseline survey data

About three of four veterans across the sites were not working at baseline, but this share varied

appreciably by site. In Central Texas and San Diego, about 68 percent were not working, but the other

sites’ shares ranged from 80 percent in Upstate Northern New York to 83 percent in Tampa. San Diego

had the highest share of veterans working full time (24 percent), but this share was 19 percent in Central

Texas and appreciably lower in the other sites, ranging from 5 percent in Tampa to 9 percent in Tacoma.

Although nearly three-fourths of all veterans reported their households had income from some source at

program entry, less than one-third (30 percent) reported their households had income from employment

at baseline. The majority of veterans’ households received some form of cash assistance or veterans

pension payments. Overall, 32 percent of veterans received income from a veterans pension. This share

ranged from 26 percent in Tampa to 44 percent in Tacoma. About 11 percent of veterans across sites

were also receiving unemployment benefits at program entry, ranging from 6 percent in San Diego to 22

percent in Upstate Northern New York. Of VHPD participants, 5 percent were receiving Supplemental

Security Income and 12 percent were receiving Social Security Disability Income at program entry.

VHPD veterans were also receiving noncash benefits at program entry (see table 4.4). Overall, 61 percent

of veterans were receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits at baseline, with the

highest proportion being in Tacoma (81 percent) and the lowest proportion in San Diego (34 percent).

More than one-third of veterans across sites were enrolled in either Medicaid or Medicare at baseline.

Physical and Mental Health Conditions

The prevalence of physical and mental health issues among veterans is of great interest to policymakers

because they are among the predictors of who becomes homeless. Across all sites, on a scale including

poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent, a substantial share (44 percent) of veterans rated their health as poor or fair; in Tampa, more than one-half (51 percent) of VHPD veterans ranked their health as fair or

poor. This is an exceptionally high rate of poor or fair health, especially when compared with the general

population, in which fewer than 1 in 10 people are in fair or poor health (Adams, Kirzinger, and Martinez,

2013).

32

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 4

The high unemployment and benefit uptake numbers among VHPD veterans are not surprising, given the

high percentage (43 percent) of veterans who report a disability that prevents them from working. Of

these, 74 percent report their disability is related to their military service. Table 4.5 shows the physical and mental health issues reported by VHPD veterans.

Table 4.5

Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Issues

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by self-rating of

overall health

Excellent, very good, or good

56.3

58.8

55.9

54.5

49.1

68.3

Fair or poor

43.7

41.2

44.1

45.6

51.0

31.8

Percent of veterans with a disability

42.5

38.2

44.5

51.8

40.3

39.4

that prevents them from working

Percent for whom that disability is

73.7

87.7

73.4

73.9

71.8

47.5

related to military service

Percent of veterans reporting the

following conditions

Serious depression, anxiety, and/or

66.6

65.0

64.7

72.0

73.2

54.7

tension

Being easily startled, not being able

51.2

61.4

44.6

51.5

51.2

43.1

to relax your guard

Trouble understanding,

45.9

49.2

39.1

55.0

47.6

38.4

concentrating, or remembering

Trouble controlling anger or violent

14.4

18.8

9.2

14.0

14.3

16.5

behavior

Symptoms of posttraumatic stress

43.1

51.0

41.0

48.2

37.1

35.1

disorder

Trouble with use of alcohol or drugs

5.7

6.2

2.6

2.5

7.7

11.9

Problems dealings with the results of

11.7

10.2

9.7

17.2

11.0

13.0

head injury or traumatic brain injury

Experiencing serious thoughts of

3.4

1.7

2.9

6.3

4.0

3.5

suicide

Source: Weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration baseline survey (N = 424)

Overall, two-thirds of veterans report experiencing serious depression, anxiety, and/or tension. Of

veterans in VHPD, 43 percent reported experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (also

called PTSD), with the highest prevalence occurring in Central Texas (51 percent) and the lowest in

Upstate Northern New York (35 percent). Other mental health symptoms with high prevalence rates

among VHPD veterans across sites were “being easily startled, not being able to relax your guard” (51

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

33

Chapter 4

percent) and “trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering” (46 percent). Approximately 12

percent of the veterans were also dealing with the repercussions of a head injury or traumatic brain

injury (also called TBI).

How VHPD Veterans Compared With Those Served Through HPRP

To understand how veterans served through VHPD compare with other veterans and nonveterans served

by other homelessness programs, the research team compared VHPD study participants with veterans

who participated in the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP; table 4.6).

Compared with veterans who participated in HPRP, VHPD veterans were more likely to be female, part of

families, and younger, which suggests, again, that VHPD was successful in reaching its target populations.

According to the HUD Special Needs Assistance Programs office, these differences also reflect the fact

that HPRP grantees were encouraged to serve veterans who were not eligible for VA healthcare services

(for example, those with dishonorable discharges). To the extent that HPRP grantees targeted non-VA-

eligible veterans, HPRP served a population of veterans distinctly different from those served by VHPD,

which exclusively served those eligible for VA health care. The data suggest that the veterans whom the

Continuums of Care served through HPRP may reflect more typical veterans experiencing homelessness

or the risk of losing housing, who tend to be single and older. Larger shares of veterans who participated

in VHPD reported physical and mental health issues compared with both those veterans who

participated in HPRP and nonveterans who participated in HPRP.

Table 4.6

Comparison of VHPD Veterans With HPRP Adult Participants

All VHPD

HPRP Adults—Veterans

HPRP Adults—Nonveterans

Veterans

Percent of adults by race

Alaska Native or American Indian

1.9

1.2

0.8

Asian

0.9

0.2

1.3

Black or African-American

43.7

28.9

31.3

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific

1.6

0.2

1.1

Islander

White

48.5

33.6

55.0

Multiracial

3.4

35.7

10.4

Other

0.1

0.2

0.3

Percent of adults by ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino origin

10.0

10.9

32.7

Not of Hispanic or Latino origin

90.0

89.1

67.3

Percent of adults by gender

Female

28.0

17.8

66.0

Male

71.8

82.0

34.0

(continued)

34

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 4

Table 4.6

Comparison of VHPD Veterans With HPRP Adult Participants (continued)

All VHPD

HPRP Adults—Veterans

HPRP Adults—Nonveterans

Veterans

Percent of adults by age group

18 to 24

5.0

2.9

16.8

25 to 30

18.3

8.7

16.4

31 to 40

27.4

11.6

27.8

41 to 50

20.8

27.0

23.5

51 to 64

25.3

44.7

13.6

65 and older

3.2

5.1

1.9

Percent of adults in households

48.4

30.3

68.8

with children

Percent of adults by household

income at program entry

No income

21.9

26.6

33.7

$1 to $499

11.5

9.3

9.2

$500 to $749

6.7

6.5

10.6

$750 to $999

8.2

13.9

10.2

$1,000 to $1,499

19.9

13.7

13.9

$1,500 to $1,999

17.4

12.9

9.8

$2,000 or more

14.6

17.1

12.7

Percent of adults by type of health

issue

Physical health issue

36.5

20.1

5.8

Mental health issue

27.4

15.5

6.0

Chronic health condition

7.9

3.5

1.0

Developmental disability

0.3

0.3

0.1

Substance abuse issue

5.2

7.3

2.0

Note: This table does not include data from the Continuum of Care (CoC) for Utica and Rome, Oneida County.

Sources: Homeless Management Information System administrative data from the following CoCs: Austin, Travis County; San Diego City and County; Tacoma and Lakewood, Pierce County; and Tampa, Hillsborough County.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

35

36

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 5

Chapter 5. Housing Stability

This chapter examines how housing stability changed after participants received assistance from the

Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD). The research team found that at program

entry about three-fourths of veterans served were those at risk (either imminently at risk of losing

their housing or living in unstable housing), and the remaining one-fourth were homeless (sleeping in

emergency shelters or sleeping somewhere not meant for human habitation). The majority (54 percent)

of veterans had been homeless at some point in their lives, which suggests a greater likelihood that

they were at real risk of becoming homeless, because some studies suggest that prior homelessness is

predictive of subsequent homelessness (Byrne, 2014; Byrne et al., 2014). By program exit, the majority

(85 percent) of veterans were considered stably housed, and, by follow-up, most (76 percent) were

still living in their own homes or apartments. Some veterans experienced homelessness between the

baseline interview and the follow-up interview. Across sites, 10.5 percent of those interviewed at follow-

up reported experiencing homelessness since their baseline interview. This finding suggests that VHPD

participants largely avoided subsequent need of either non-VA or VA homeless service systems; however,

several limitations restrict the team’s ability to draw firm conclusions on the impact of the VHPD

intervention on housing stability.

Housing Status at Program Entry

VHPD program rules allowed service providers to enroll veteran households that were at risk of

homelessness and those that were homeless for a short period (less than 90 days). As households

entered VHPD, their housing status was categorized into one of the following four categories defined by

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program guidance.

1. Literally homeless: The individual or family lacks a fixed regular or adequate nighttime residence.

2. Imminently at risk of losing housing: The individual or family is currently housed but at imminent

risk of losing housing and without subsequent options or resources or support networks needed

to remain in current housing or obtain other temporary or permanent housing.

3. Unstably housed: The individual or family is currently housed but experiencing housing insta-

bility, with one or more other temporary housing options but lacking the resources or support

networks to retain or obtain permanent housing.

4. Stably housed: The individual or family is not at risk of losing housing and does not meet the

criteria for any of the previous housing categories.

At program entry, about one in four (26 percent) veterans across all five sites were literally homeless. San Diego and Central Texas served the smallest shares of literally homeless veterans, at 18 and 20 percent,

respectively. The other three sites had larger proportions of literally homeless veterans at entry, at 28,

31, and 40 percent in Tacoma, Tampa, and Upstate Northern New York, respectively.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

37

Chapter 5

Overall, VHPD served far more veterans who were at some level of homelessness risk rather than those

who were actually homeless when they enrolled in the program (table 5.1). They were housed when

they entered the program (although not necessarily in their own place), but their risk of becoming

homeless varied. The majority (57 percent) of all veterans served across sites were imminently at risk

of losing their housing. Within the sites, a majority of clients were at imminent risk in Central Texas (80

percent), Tampa (64 percent), and Upstate Northern New York (50 percent). In San Diego and Tacoma,

the share of clients at imminent risk was lower, at 39 and 46 percent, respectively. These two sites also

had significant shares of unstably housed veterans at program entry (40 and 25 percent, respectively).

Central Texas and Upstate Northern New York served no veterans in this category and, in Tampa, a very

small share (3 percent) was unstably housed. Very few veterans were stably housed at program entry.

Only one site served a substantial portion of stably housed veterans at program entry: Upstate Northern

New York, where 10 percent of veterans were judged to be stably housed compared with 2 percent or

less in the other four sites. It is unclear why the site served this many participants judged to be stably

housed and raises questions about the interpretation of these HUD categories.

Table 5.1

Housing Status at Program Entry by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by housing status

at program entry

Literally homeless

25.6

20.2

18.2

28.1

31.0

39.9

Imminently at risk of losing housing

56.5

79.8

39.4

45.8

64.0

49.9

Unstably housed

15.6

0.0

40.3

24.8

3.3

0.0

Stably housed

2.4

0.0

2.1

1.3

1.7

10.2

Note: This table does not include data from the Continuum of Care (CoC) for Utica and Rome, Oneida County.

Although the data on housing status at entry generally suggest that Central Texas, Tampa, and Upstate

Northern New York served veterans in more risky housing situations at entry than did San Diego

and Tacoma, it is important to note that these categories are somewhat subjective. Although literal

homelessness has a clear definition among homeless service providers, at the VHPD evaluation’s cross-

site meeting with program staff, the researchers learned that program staff across the sites did not have

a clear and consistent understanding of what situations fell under each of HUD’s four categories. Because

of this, some of the cross-site differences could be because of differences in staff interpretation of the

categories rather than true differences in the housing situations of veterans at program entry.

History of Homelessness

The survey at baseline enabled the research team to collect data on each VHPD participant’s history of

homelessness (table 5.2). The survey found that, overall, 54 percent of veterans reported experiencing

homelessness at some point in their lives. In four of the five sites, the share of veterans who had ever

experienced homelessness ranged from 57 and 59 percent in San Diego and Upstate Northern New

38

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 5

York to 63 and 66 percent in Tampa and Tacoma, respectively. Central Texas was the only site where the

majority of veterans did not have any experience with actual homelessness. In Central Texas, only 34

percent had ever been homeless.

Table 5.2

History of Homelessness by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by whether they

had ever been homeless and number

of times homeless

Yes

54.1

34.0

57.1

65.9

63.1

58.6

Once

51.5

53.6

51.3

38.5

48.8

73.9

Twice

25.6

20.1

22.7

31.2

32.1

17.3

Three or more times

22.8

26.4

17.0

30.4

19.1

8.8

No

45.9

66.0

42.9

34.1

36.9

41.4

Percent of veterans who had ever

been homeless by their age when

they first became homeless

As a child (less than age 18)

11.7

10.2

9.3

16.1

12.4

10.7

As an adult

88.3

89.9

90.8

84.0

87.7

89.3

Ages 18 to 24

19.7

18.6

24

15.5

17.2

24.1

Ages 25 to 34

30.5

37.2

27.9

35.4

24.8

32.1

Age 35 or older

38.1

34.1

38.9

33.1

45.7

33.1

Percent of veterans by whether they

had been homeless for at least 12

months in their lifetime

Yes

16.0

8.0

20.9

16.7

18.5

16.9

No

84.0

92.0

79.1

83.3

81.5

83.1

Source: Weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration baseline survey

Of all veterans in the study, only a small share (16 percent) said they had been homeless for at least

12 months cumulatively during their lifetimes. This share was smallest in Central Texas at 8 percent.

Tacoma and Upstate Northern New York had the next lowest shares, and at 17 percent they were double

Central Texas’s share. Tampa and San Diego had even larger proportions of veterans with these homeless

histories at 19 and 21 percent, respectively.

Of those veterans who reported being homeless at some point, across all five sites, the majority (52

percent) had been homeless only once. In Upstate Northern New York, 74 percent of veterans with

some homeless history had experienced only one episode of homelessness. Central Texas, San Diego,

and Tampa clustered together between 49 and 54 percent, and, in Tacoma, only 39 percent of veterans

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

39

Chapter 5

with some homeless history had been homeless only once. Across the sites about one-fourth of veterans

with some homeless history were homeless twice. Within sites, this share was highest in Tacoma and

Tampa, at 31 and 32 percent, respectively, and lowest in Upstate Northern New York, at 17 percent. The

remaining 23 percent of veterans with homeless history were homeless three or more times in their

lifetimes. Again, this share was lowest in Upstate Northern New York (9 percent) and highest in Tacoma

(30 percent).

Of those who had ever been homeless, the vast majority (88 percent) of all veterans across the sites had

their first homeless episode as adults (after they reached the age of 18), and only 12 percent had their

first homeless episode as children. The sites were largely consistent on these measures. Tacoma had the

largest share (16 percent) of veterans who had their first homeless episode as children, and San Diego

had the smallest (9 percent).

Housing Status at Program Exit

At program exit, the vast majority (95 percent) of veterans were in housing (85 percent as judged by

providers were stably housed and 10 percent were unstably housed). For this purpose, “after program

exit” is defined as starting the month after receipt of the last housing subsidy payment from VHPD. The

share of veterans stably housed ranged from 70 percent in Tampa to 94 percent in Upstate Northern

New York, with the remaining three sites being between 86 and 91 percent. The share unstably housed

ranged from 6 percent in Upstate Northern New York to 13 percent in San Diego.

Very few veterans (5 percent) were either literally homeless or at imminent risk when they exited VHPD.

In four of the five sites, less than 2 percent of veterans were either literally homeless or at imminent risk at exit, with Upstate Northern New York noting no one in those conditions. By contrast, Tampa had about

20 percent of veterans exit as either literally homeless (5 percent) or at imminent risk (15 percent). As

noted previously, to some degree, these improvements from program entry and differences between

sites could be because of differences in how the site program staff understood the housing status

categories and to the unique data limitations in Upstate Northern New York.8 Table 5.3 shows housing

status at program exit by site.

8 The lead CoC in Upstate Northern New York, the Utica and Rome, Oneida County CoC, does not record housing status at exit in their Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) system. They capture housing destination only at exit. The HMIS administrator for this CoC advised the research team on how to recode the housing

destinations into the four housing status categories. Permanent supportive housing, any rental by client (either subsidized or unsubsidized), or a permanent situation staying with friends or family was recoded as stably housed.

Staying with friends or family in a temporary situation or staying in an institution (for example, jail, prison) was recoded as unstably housed. Because housing status was recoded based on the short destination description with the help of the HMIS administrator rather than at the actual time of program exit by the veteran’s case manager, who would likely have had a more nuanced knowledge of the stability of that situation, the Upstate Northern New York data may not be as consistent as the data from the other sites.

40

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 5

Table 5.3

Housing Status at Program Exit by Site

Cross-Site Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by housing status at

program exit

Literally homeless

1.6

0.7

0.8

1.3

5.0

0.0

Imminently at risk of losing housing

3.4

0.8

0.7

0.0

14.5

0.0

Unstably housed

10.1

10.8

12.9

8.1

10.2

6.0

Stably housed

84.8

88.2

85.7

90.7

70.3

94.0

Source: Weighted Homeless Management Information System administrative data

The research team examined how housing status changed over time by comparing housing at program

entry and housing at program exit (table 5.4). Among those who were either homeless, at imminent risk,

or unstably housed at program entry, a high and consistent share (84 to 87 percent) were stably housed

at exit. The shares of unstably housed veterans at exit were also similar among the other three groups,

ranging from 10 percent among those literally homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness at entry

to 13 percent among those unstably housed at entry. Only sites with veterans who were either literally

homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness had any veterans who exited in these conditions, although

the shares were small (5 percent among those literally homeless at program entry and 7 percent of those

at imminent risk of homelessness at entry). Further, the vast majority (more than 90 percent) of both the

veterans who were literally homeless at entry and the veterans at imminent risk at entry improved their

housing status by exit to either unstably or stably housed.

Table 5.4

Housing Status at Program Entry Compared With Housing Status at Program Exit Across All

Five Sites

Housing Status at Program Entry

Stably

Literally Homeless

At Imminent Risk

Unstably Housed

Housed

Total

Housing Status

at Program Exit

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Literally

homeless or at

imminent risk

7

5.2

19

6.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

26

5.1

Unstably housed

13

10.2

27

9.5

10

12.8

0

0.0

51

10.0

Stably housed

110

84.7

240

83.8

69

87.2

12

100.0

431

85.0

Total

130

100.0

286

100.0

79

100.0

12

100.0

507

100.0

Note: Statistical tests were not possible because of small sample size and limited variation in the housing status at exit variable.

Source: Weighted Homeless Management Information System administrative data

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

41

Chapter 5

Housing Situation at Follow-Up

At the time of the follow-up interviews, most of which occurred between 6 months and 1 year after

program exit, about three-fourths of veterans were living in their own homes or apartments (table 5.5).

This share was lowest in Tampa (66 percent) and highest in Central Texas (87 percent). The remaining

three sites clustered together between 73 and 78 percent. The second most common arrangement was

for veterans to be staying with friends or family. Across sites, 18 percent of veterans were staying with

someone else; this share was smallest in Central Texas, at 9 percent, and highest in Tampa, at 25 percent.

Across sites, 6 percent of veterans were homeless at follow-up. San Diego, Central Texas, and Tacoma

had the smallest shares of veterans homeless at follow-up, at 3, 4, and 5 percent, respectively. The rates

in Tampa and Upstate Northern New York were somewhat higher, at 7 and 10 percent, respectively.

The small number of veterans who identified as being homeless at follow-up and the small sample size

resulted in having insufficient variation to conduct any multivariate analyses to identify risk factors for homelessness.

Table 5.5

Housing at Follow-Up by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by housing

situation at follow-up

In own place

75.8

86.6

73.0

78.0

66.0

73.6

Staying in someone else’s place

17.6

9.3

20.5

17.5

24.5

17.3

Homeless

5.5

4.1

3.3

4.5

9.5

7.0

Other

1.1

0.0

3.2

0.0

0.0

2.1

Percent of veterans living in their

23.7

35.9

2.9

20.2

26.7

44.0

own place at follow-up who

struggled to pay rent

Percent of veterans by whether

they struggled to pay utility bills at

follow-up

Did not pay utilities

71.0

65.9

69.7

76.0

70.0

79.2

Paid utilities

29.0

34.1

30.3

24.0

30.0

20.8

Struggled to pay utility bills

13.4

24.2

7.0

7.9

15.5

0.0

Did not struggle to pay utility bills

86.6

75.8

93.0

92.1

84.5

100.0

Percent of veterans reporting

10.5

5.9

7.9

11.2

19.4

9.6

homelessness since baseline

interview

Notes: The “homeless” category for housing situation included emergency shelter, a hotel or motel room, housing through the VA’s Grant and Per Diem program, transitional housing, and anywhere not meant for human habitation. The “other” category included residential treatment programs, hospitals, jail or prison, permanent supportive housing programs, and any other situations besides those included under homelessness, living with friends or family, or living in the respondent’s own place.

Source: Weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration follow-up survey data

42

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 5

We examined the occurrence of self-reported homelessness between the baseline interview and

the follow-up interview. Across sites, 10.5 percent of those interviewed at follow-up experienced

homelessness since their baseline interview (this includes those who were homeless at follow-up).

Central Texas reported the lowest share of veterans experiencing homelessness at 5.9 percent. Results in

San Diego, Tacoma, and Upstate New York were 7.9 percent, 11.2 percent, and 9.6 percent, respectively.

At 19.4 percent, Tampa had the highest rates of veterans experiencing homelessness between

interviews.

Please note that differences between sites could be influenced by many factors, including how different

programs operated and the types of veterans they served. For example, Tampa and Upstate New

York served more homeless veterans and San Diego and Central Texas served more veterans at risk of

homelessness. Sites also selected veterans of varying income levels.

Ability to pay rent and utility bills provided additional information on the likelihood that a veteran

would be able to sustain his or her housing beyond the time of the follow-up interview. At follow-up,

about 24 percent of veterans who were paying rent reported struggling with meeting that obligation.

This percentage varied considerably by site, from only 3 percent in San Diego reporting challenges

paying rent to 44 percent in Upstate Northern New York. The survey also asked about the ability to pay

utilities. The researchers found that about 29 percent of veterans paid for utilities across sites. Those

veterans who did not pay utilities either lived in a place where utilities were included in their rent or

did not live in their own place. Of those who paid utilities, the majority (87 percent) across sites did

not report ever struggling to pay their utility bills between the baseline and follow-up surveys, but 13

percent reported struggling; however, substantial differences on this measure existed among the sites. In

Upstate Northern New York, no one reported struggling to pay utilities, but 7 and 8 percent of veterans

in San Diego and Tacoma, respectively, did. The largest proportions of veterans struggling to pay their

utility bills were in Tampa and Central Texas, where 16 and 24 percent, respectively, reported having this

problem.

Use of Homeless Services After VHPD

Overall, very few veterans returned to shelter or transitional housing within 180 days of exiting VHPD.

After weighting, only six veterans total across the sites had a return to emergency shelter or transitional housing. Those six were pretty evenly spread between the sites with only one site (Tacoma) having

zero returns, two sites (San Diego and Upstate Northern New York) having one veteran return, and the

remaining two sites having two veterans each return. These numbers are notably lower than the number

of veterans who self-identified as homeless at the time of the follow-up survey. There are several

reasons for this discrepancy. First, the research team was able to include data only from the five lead

CoCs, so veterans could have sought services recorded in other Homeless Management Information

Systems (HMISs) that the researchers have not captured, including the other eight CoCs within the VHPD

service areas. Second, HMIS data do not capture instances of sleeping on the street or in other places

not meant for human habitation, but self-reported homelessness on the follow-up survey included these

instances. Third, the HMIS data were limited to 180 days from program exit, but the follow-up survey

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

43

Chapter 5

was conducted at least 6 months from the date of program exit but often occurred later than that (see

appendix J for more details on survey timing). Because of this latter factor, some veterans had a longer

period to become homeless again by the time the follow-up survey was conducted than was captured by

the HMIS data.

In addition to using HMIS data, the research team obtained aggregate information from the VA about

VHPD participants’ (all VHPD participants, not just those included in this study) use of VA homeless

services after they exited VHPD. This information sheds some light on the extent of homeless service

use through the VA system. In general, the VA data suggest that entering VA homeless services after

leaving VHPD was quite uncommon. Of all VHPD veterans who had been out of the program for at least

30 days at the time of analysis, only 12 veterans entered any VA homeless service during those 30 days;

of those who had been out of VHPD for at least 90 days, 20 entered VA homeless services between 31

and 90 days from program exit; and of those who had been out of VHPD for at least 180 days, 24 entered

VA homeless services in the 91 to 180 days after VHPD exit (table 5.6). These data show that VHPD

participants also entered HUD-VASH and returned to VHPD for a second time. Nine veterans entered

HUD-VASH within 30 days of exit, 8 entered within 31 to 90 days, and 17 entered within 91 to 180 days.

Only 1 veteran returned to VHPD within 30 days of exit, but 11 returned within 31 and 90 days of exit

and 31 returned within 91 and 190 days.

Table 5.6

VHPD Veterans Entering VA Homeless Services After VHPD Program Exit by Type of Service

and Length of Time

Any VA

Time Period

Homeless

HUD-VASH

SSVF

GPD

DCHV

VHPD

Service

0 to 30 days

22

9

9

2

1

1

31 to 90 days

39

8

17

3

0

11

91 to 180 days

72

17

18

6

0

31

DCHV = Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans. GPD = Grant and Per Diem. HUD-VASH = HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing. SSVF = Supportive Services for Veteran Families. VA = U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. VHPD = Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration.

Notes: SSVF is a VA homeless service program similar to VHPD that provides case management and limited financial assistance.

GPD is a VA program that provides funding to community service agencies providing assistance to homeless veterans. DCHV

provides housing for disabled veterans.

Sources: VA Homeless Registry; tabulations generated by the National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans The extent of subsequent homelessness the research team detected may understate the true extent

of homelessness for several reasons. One of the most important reasons is that VHPD service areas

were defined by the VA medical center service areas, rather than by the boundaries of the CoC leading

the program and running the program HMIS. In all the sites except San Diego, the VHPD service area

spanned multiple CoCs. Only the lead CoCs were able to give the team members data on all veterans in

44

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 5

the study; some other CoCs contributed data also, but, because the researchers could not get data from

all the CoCs involved, they decided not to include data from any of the secondary CoCs. The researchers

know from the qualitative interviews that many veterans lived outside the service area of the lead

VHPD CoC. It is likely that those veterans would have sought services where they lived rather than in

the territory of the lead VHPD CoC. Any entries into the homeless service system in these areas are not

included in this analysis. This limitation is not unique to this study; it is a common shortcoming of any

data collection and research effort that relies on administrative data.

Another important limitation of these data for measuring returns to homelessness is that HMIS data

are limited to veterans who received homeless services from providers who report data into the HMIS

system. This limitation means that the data do not capture any episodes of homelessness for which the

veteran did not receive services, even if the veteran sought services but could not get them. Further,

because of privacy and confidentiality issues, the VA could not share identified data on the study

participants, and the study could not include receipt of VA homeless services in analysis of individual

outcomes unless such receipt was also recorded in an HMIS. The VA tracks data for four primary

homelessness programs: Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans (DCHV), the Grant and Per Diem

program, the HUD-VA Supportive Housing program, and Supportive Services for Veteran Families9. If

a local homeless assistance provider supplies these services, is it likely they will be recorded in HMIS;

however, if the services come through the VA itself, it is likely they will not be recorded in HMIS. The data least likely to be included in HMIS are from DCHV.

Conclusions

VHPD participants’ housing stability improved from program enrollment through program exit to the

follow-up period. Most (75.8 percent) of the participants were in their own residences at the time of

the follow-up survey, though some were living with friends or family (17.6 percent); of those who were

paying rent, a subset (23.7 percent) was struggling. At program enrollment, about 26 percent of veterans

were literally homeless and 72 percent were at risk for homelessness. Across sites, 10.5 percent of

those interviewed at follow-up reported experiencing homelessness at some point since their baseline

interview (this includes 6 percent who were homeless at follow-up). Few veterans accessed homeless

services after VHPD, but the research team’s data on subsequent homeless service use are limited and

researchers do not know to what extent this level of homeless service use would have been different

in the absence of the intervention. Overall, VHPD showed significant promise in improving veterans’

housing stability. Data limitations, however, impede the researchers’ ability to draw firm conclusions

about the effects of the VHPD intervention on participants’ housing stability.

9 To obtain identified data from the VA to match the study participants’ VA and HMIS homeless service records, which would have created a more comprehensive picture of homeless service use after VHPD, the research

team would have had to have asked each veteran for consent to get his or her identified data from the VA. VHPD

program staff warned the researchers that doing so would likely deter veterans from agreeing to participate in the study, because many veterans have negative impressions of or experiences with the VA. To maximize sample size, the researchers elected to forgo asking for the consent for VA-identified data.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

45

46

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

Chapter 6. Income and Employment

The Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) was designed to include a partnership

with local employment centers to provide veterans participating in the program with access to

employment, training, and education resources. The goal was to help veterans who were able to work

to get jobs that would set them on a course for long-term self-sufficiency. The program also aimed to

connect veterans who were not able to work to appropriate benefits (for example, veterans pension],

service-connected disability, Social Security Disability Insurance [SSDI]) to increase their incomes

and promote sustainability. These program goals made veterans’ income and employment outcomes

centrally important for this study of the VHPD program.

Veterans increased their income from program entry to program exit. Veterans also were employed at

higher rates at follow-up than at baseline. These findings varied significantly by site. The implementation study component of the VHPD evaluation showed that some sites were more successful in engaging their

local U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) partners than others. Central Texas was the most successful site in

linking VHPD program participants with the employment and educational supports they needed.10 The

effects of this disparate implementation of the employment component can be observed by examining

the employment and income outcomes for veterans participating in VHPD. This chapter addresses the

income and employment characteristics of veterans at program entry (as recorded by the Homeless

Management Information Systems [HMIS]) and baseline survey and how their circumstances changed by

program exit (as recorded by HMIS) and follow-up survey.

Variations in Cost of Living by Site

To frame the subsequent discussion of income, it is first important to acknowledge local household

income and cost-of-living differences across VHPD sites. According to data from the 2011–13 American

Community Survey estimates, which largely coincide with the period VHPD was in operation, Tampa and

Upstate Northern New York had the lowest median household incomes and San Diego and Tacoma had

the highest, with Central Texas falling in between. The median incomes in the counties in the Tampa and

Upstate Northern New York regions were $3,613 and $3,889 per month, respectively. Central Texas had

a higher median income, at $4,760 per month, but this figure was influenced by the much higher median

income in Williamson County (Waco), which has a much higher median income than the other counties

in the site’s service area, where VHPD participants, according to key informants, are more likely to live.

The median incomes for Tacoma and San Diego were the highest, at $5,228 and $5,115 per month on

average, respectively. The following discussion of income should be interpreted with these differences in

mind.

Income Levels and Sources at Program Entry and Survey Baseline

Part of a veteran’s eligibility for VHPD required having a household income below the Area Median

Income (AMI), according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) AMI

10 See Cunningham et al. (2013).

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

47

Chapter 6

guidelines, which are adjusted for local costs of living and household size. At program entry, the mean

monthly household income across all five sites was $1,097, with households in San Diego having by far

the highest average income ($1,589). This observation is consistent with the San Diego program’s choice

to target households they expected to be able to achieve self-sufficiency within 3 months. This decision

meant the San Diego program served a larger proportion of veterans who had jobs and income at entry.

In the rest of the sites, the average incomes were all less than $1,000 per month, ranging from $608 in

Upstate Northern New York to $997 in Central Texas.

The information in the previous paragraph comes from program administrative databases in which client

characteristics at intake were stored. A second source of information about income during a veteran’s

early days in VHPD comes from the baseline survey the research team conducted with veterans recruited

to be in the evaluation sample. Reported income could differ in the two data sources. These differences

could be because household income changed between program entry and taking the survey, or because

veterans’ self-reported income differed from the income amount determined by VHPD case managers

after reviewing their income documentation. Overall, the mean household income at baseline was

slightly lower than at program entry, at $991, across sites. The baseline survey income data showed that

San Diego still had the highest average household income, at $1,283, though it was about $300 less than

what was reported at entry, and Central Texas still had the second highest average household income,

at $1,157 per month, based on survey data, which was $160 more than what was recorded at entry. The

average household income at baseline for Tacoma was about the same as at program entry, at $837, but

Tampa’s was nearly $300 less, at $676, and Upstate Northern New York’s was more than $200 more, at

$815. Despite this lack of congruence between the income at program entry and baseline survey data,

both sources indicate that San Diego and Central Texas served veterans with higher incomes at the

outset than the other sites.

Most veteran households had some income at VHPD program entry. Across all five sites, only 23 percent

had no income when they entered VHPD. The sites varied appreciably on this factor, however. San Diego

served the smallest share of no-income veterans, at 14 percent, and the rates in Central Texas and

Tacoma were also less than average, at 19 and 18 percent, respectively. By contrast, Tampa and Upstate

Northern New York served much larger shares of veterans whose households had no income at entry, at

35 and 37 percent, respectively.

The baseline survey showed a smaller share of respondents reported having no income across all

five sites and within each site than at program entry. This finding could be driven by veterans being

connected with some income between enrollment and the baseline survey. Across all five sites, 16

percent of VHPD veterans reported having no income at survey baseline, which is 7 percentage points

lower than at program entry. Central Texas, San Diego, and Tacoma still reported lower shares of no

income than Tampa and Upstate Northern New York at baseline. In Central Texas, San Diego, and

Tacoma, the shares were 10, 8, and 14 percent, respectively, and in Tampa and Upstate Northern New

York, the shares were 28 and 26 percent, respectively.

At baseline, veterans noted receiving income from a range of sources, with the most commonly noted

sources being income from jobs and veterans pensions. Across all five sites, 30 percent of veterans’

households received income from a job. This rate was highest in Central Texas and San Diego (39 and

48

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

37 percent, respectively) and lowest in Tacoma (16 percent). Tampa and Upstate Northern New York fell

in the middle, at 23 and 26 percent, respectively. Across all five sites, about 32 percent of households

received income from a veterans pension/payment. This rate was highest in Tacoma, at 44 percent. In

Central Texas and San Diego, it was somewhat lower, at 31 and 34 percent, respectively. It was lowest in

Tampa and Upstate Northern New York, at 26 percent and 29 percent, respectively.

Although less commonly noted, some veterans reported their households received income from

unemployment insurance and SSDI benefits. Across sites, about 11 percent of veterans’ households

had income from unemployment insurance at baseline. This rate was highest in Upstate Northern New

York, where about one in five (21.5 percent) households received unemployment insurance, and lowest

in San Diego, where about 6 percent did. Across all five sites, about 12 percent of households received

income from SSDI. The share was highest in San Diego (17 percent) and lowest in Tampa (8 percent).

The remaining sources of income—Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (also called TANF), and money from family and friends—were noted among only 5 percent or

less of veterans across sites, but they were more common in certain sites than others. For example,

in San Diego and Upstate Northern New York, about 9 percent of veterans received SSI, and about 7

percent of veterans in Upstate Northern New York also noted receiving income from family and friends.

Veterans also noted receiving some non-U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) public benefits. Across

all types, the rates of benefit receipt were substantially lower in San Diego than at the other sites (table 6.1). The most commonly received benefit was from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP). Across sites, about 60 percent of veteran households received SNAP. The rate of SNAP receipt

was lowest in San Diego (34 percent) and highest in Tacoma (81 percent). In the remaining three sites,

about two-thirds of households received it. Medicaid participation was less common, with a little less

than one-fourth of the veterans saying their household was enrolled in the program. This rate was again

lowest in San Diego, at 9 percent. It was highest in Central Texas, at 36 percent. Receipt of Medicare was

noted less frequently, as would be expected given the age composition of the participants. Across all five

sites, 11 percent received Medicare benefits, ranging from 7 percent in San Diego to 15 percent in Tampa

and Upstate Northern New York.

Table 6.1

Total Household Income and Benefits Receipt at Enrollment and Baseline by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by monthly income

amount at program entry

No income

23.1

19.2

14.2

17.6

35.1

37.0

$1 to $499

13.0

15.0

6.5

22.3

8.8

18.9

$500 to $749

4.7

4.8

1.3

8.8

4.6

7.3

$750 to $999

8.9

8.3

10.1

12.2

7.9

4.5

$1,000 to $1,499

20.6

23.3

19.2

24.0

19.4

16.6

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

49

Chapter 6

Table 6.1

Total Household Income and Benefits Receipt at Enrollment and Baseline by Site (continued)

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

$1,500 to $1,999

15.8

21.3

20.2

9.3

9.7

14.3

$2,000 or more

13.9

8.2

28.6

5.8

14.5

1.4

Mean income amount at program

1,076

997

1,589

820

956

608

entry ($)

Percent of veterans by monthly income

amount at baseline

No income

16.0

10.4

8.0

13.5

28.3

25.5

$1 to $499

12.9

10.1

9.7

23.6

13.6

10.2

$500 to $749

9.7

6.4

7.3

8.7

15.4

12.4

$750 to $999

11.7

8.7

16.4

12.5

9.5

11.6

$1,000 to $1,499

25.0

28.7

22.6

25.4

22.1

26.9

$1,500 to $1,999

14.6

24.2

19.4

9.0

6.6

5.9

$2,000 or more

10.1

11.6

16.6

7.2

4.6

7.7

Mean income amount at baseline ($)

991

1,157

1,283

837

676

815

Percent of veterans by household

income sources at baseline

From a job

29.6

38.5

37.2

15.5

22.7

25.9

Unemployment

10.6

10.8

5.9

12.6

8.3

21.5

SSI

5.4

2.1

9.2

5.7

2.7

9.3

SSDI

11.7

11.8

17.2

10.1

7.9

9.0

Veterans pension/payment

32.4

31.3

33.8

43.7

26.4

28.5

TANF

3.1

1.8

3.2

3.2

4.1

3.5

Family or friends

3.8

4.5

0.9

6.4

2.6

7.3

Percent of veterans by receipt of benefit

at baseline

SNAP

60.5

66.6

33.9

81.0

66.8

65.6

Medicaid

23.8

36.4

9.0

19.5

27.1

27.7

Medicare

11.3

10.5

7.3

11.1

14.9

14.7

CHIP

4.3

5.7

5.2

5.8

1.0

3.5

CHIP = Children’s Health Insurance program. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security Disability Income. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Note: Income at program entry came from weighted Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) administrative data (N = 509), and the rest of the data came from the weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) baseline survey data (N = 424).

Sources: HMIS administrative data; weighted VHPD baseline survey

50

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

Employment Rates at Survey Baseline

The majority (about 75 percent) of veterans across all five sites said they were not working at the time

of their baseline interview. Some sites had larger shares of employed veterans at baseline than others.

About 32 percent of the veterans in Central Texas and San Diego were working at baseline, but only

between 17 and 20 percent of veterans in the other three sites were employed. Of those veterans who

were working, the majority, about 57 percent, were working full time (at least 35 hours per week) across

all five sites. These shares were also larger in Central Texas, at 61 percent, and San Diego, at 77 percent.

In the remaining three sites, less than one-half of the employed veterans were working full time, with

shares ranging from 30 percent in Tampa to 40 percent in Upstate Northern New York and 46 percent

in Tacoma. Of all veterans in the study, 14 percent were working full time at baseline across sites, and

a similar pattern emerged when rates were compared between sites. The rates were again higher in

Central Texas and San Diego, at 19 and 24 percent, respectively, and the remaining three sites had much

lower rates (9 percent in Tacoma, 8 percent in Upstate Northern New York, and 5 percent in Tampa).

Table 6.2 shows veterans’ employment status at baseline by site.

Table 6.2

Employment at Survey Baseline by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by employment

status at baseline

Working

25.2

31.6

31.8

19.2

17.3

20.2

Full time (percent of those working)

57.2

60.8

76.5

45.5

30.1

39.6

Less than full time (percent of

42.8

39.3

23.5

54.5

69.9

60.4

those working)

Not working

74.8

68.4

68.2

80.8

82.7

79.9

Percent of all veterans working full

14.4

19.2

24.3

8.8

5.2

8.0

time at baseline

Source: Weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration baseline survey (N = 424)

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Survey Baseline

Across all five sites, at baseline, a minority of veterans, about 28 percent, were participating in some

type of education or training (table 6.3). Central Texas had by far the highest share, at 37 percent. The

remaining four sites clustered more closely together: their shares ranged from 22 percent in Upstate

Northern New York to 28 percent in San Diego. Veterans most commonly reported participating in

regular schooling leading to a degree and regular schooling leading to a vocational or professional license or certification. Across all five sites, about one in five veterans was participating in regular schooling

leading to a degree at baseline. San Diego and Central Texas had slightly higher rates (22 and 24 percent,

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

51

Chapter 6

respectively), and the remaining three sites’ shares were lower, at 15 or 16 percent. Across all five sites, at baseline, about 6 percent of veterans were participating in schooling leading to a professional license

or certification. This share was nearly twice as high in Central Texas (11 percent). In the remaining

four sites, the share ranged from 3 percent in Tampa to 5 percent in San Diego, Tacoma, and Upstate

Northern New York. A small number of veterans noted participating in other education or training

opportunities, including General Educational Development credential (called GED®) programs, English

as a second language courses, computer training, apprenticeships, and vocational rehabilitation. Across

sites, only 1.5 percent of the veterans participated in vocational rehabilitation; among Tacoma veterans,

however, the share was nearly three times as high, at 4.2 percent.

Table 6.3

Participation in School or Training at Baseline by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans participating in any

28.3

37.3

28.4

25.7

23.0

21.8

type of school or training at baseline

Regular schooling leading to a degree

19.6

24.4

22.4

15.6

16.3

14.6

Regular schooling leading to a

6.1

11.0

5.0

4.7

3.3

5.2

vocational or professional license or

certification

Source: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration weighted baseline survey (N = 424)

Change in Income and Sources of Income at Program Exit and

Follow-Up Survey

Household incomes increased from program entry to exit (and from baseline survey to follow-up

survey). The average household incomes for veterans across all five sites and within each site were

higher at program exit than at entry using HMIS data and higher at follow-up than at baseline using the

survey data. The mean household income at program exit was $1,535 across all five sites, but there was

variation by site. It was highest in Central Texas, at $2,159 per month, and lowest in Upstate Northern

New York, at $662 per month. The remaining three sites were at between $1,290 and $1,620. The

difference between the mean household income at program entry and exit was $458 across sites. The

average household income in Central Texas more than doubled, increasing by $1,162, and it increased

by $618 in Tacoma and $334 in Tampa. In Upstate Northern New York and San Diego the increase was

minimal, only $54 and $31, respectively. The extent of the change in income between program entry

and exit, however, could have been affected by veterans leaving the program immediately before they

were expecting to receive an increase in their income (for example, getting a higher paying job, starting

to receive their service-connected disability payment) that would have put them above the program’s

maximum income level. At the study grantee meeting, some program staff indicated they thought they

needed to exit veterans before they would be income ineligible, so income at program exit might actually

understate the change in income for some sites.

52

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

Although levels of income reported at follow-up were somewhat different from those reported at

program exit, the same pattern emerged among the sites. Central Texas had the highest average monthly

income at follow-up, at $1,795, and San Diego had the second highest, at $1,740. Tacoma and Tampa

had similar average incomes, at $1,315 and $1,311, respectively. Upstate Northern New York still had the

lowest average income, at $1,144, but it was significantly higher than what was reported at program exit

and more in line with the incomes reported by veterans in other sites. This increase lends support for the

research team’s hypothesis that income at program exit could be understated in some sites. Using paired

t-tests to compare the incomes reported at baseline and follow-up, the researchers found the increase in income was significant across sites and within each site. This finding suggests the increase in income

observed is greater than what could be due to chance; however, without a comparison group of similarly

situated veterans who did not receive VHPD services, they cannot determine whether this increase is

due to the intervention or other factors (for example, improving economic conditions).

The research team did some exploratory multivariate analyses to identify characteristics that contributed

to income level at exit and determined the most important influence on this outcome was the VHPD

site at which a client was served. This analysis suggests that this influence could be due to the different choices the sites made around whom to serve and the robustness of the sites’ employment assistance.

San Diego, for example, selected veterans who had higher incomes at entry, and Central Texas was the

only site to form a strong partnership with the DOL grantees and consistently provide veterans with

employment services (Cunningham et al., 2013). Further analyses could build on these exploratory

analyses to create more robust models that unpack these issues.

The share of veterans reporting having no income was lower at follow-up than at baseline across

sites and in three of the five sites. At follow-up, 10 percent of veterans across sites had no income, 6

percentage points lower than at baseline. The share with no income declined in Tacoma, Tampa, and

Upstate Northern New York. In Tacoma and Upstate Northern New York, the share was 8 percent at

follow-up, a 6- and 18-percentage-point decline from baseline, respectively. In Tampa, the share was 15

percent at follow-up, a 13-percentage-point decline. The shares in Central Texas and San Diego stayed

about the same, with Central Texas’s follow-up share being 9 percent and San Diego’s being 10 percent.

Further, comparing whether the veteran’s household had income at follow-up by whether they had

income at baseline shows that those veterans who reported having income at baseline were more likely

to also have income at follow-up (93 percent) than those with no income at baseline (77 percent). The

difference between the two groups in their likelihood of having income at exit was statistically significant (table 6.4).

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

53

Chapter 6

Table 6.4

Presence of Income at Follow-Up by Presence of Income at Baseline

Presence of Income at Baseline

No Income

Income

Total

Presence of Income at

Follow-Up

N

%

N

%

N

%

No income

10

22.7

19

7.5

29

9.7

Income

33

77.3

236

92.5

269

90.3

Total

43

100.0

255

100.0

297

100.0

χ2 = 8.87 (p < .01).

Sources: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration weighted baseline; follow-up survey data

At follow-up, larger shares of veterans reported that their households received income from a job and a

veterans pension, and smaller shares of veterans reported that their households received income from

unemployment insurance. Across sites, 43 percent of veterans’ households received income from a job

at follow-up. This share ranged from 25 percent in Tacoma to 55 percent in Central Texas. The remaining

three sites had shares between 40 and 45 percent. Tacoma is likely the low outlier on this measure

because the program selected veterans with more significant mental and physical health issues for whom

work may not have been possible. Between baseline and follow-up, the proportion of veteran households

across sites that received income from a job increased by 13 percentage points, and the increase was

significant. The proportion also increased within each site, but the size of the increase varied substantially.

None of the differences were statistically significant due to the smaller sample sizes at each site. The

proportion with earned income increased only 3 percentage points in San Diego, where more people

had earned income to begin with, and the increases in the other sites ranged from 10 percentage points

(Tacoma) to 20 percentage points (Tampa).

At follow-up, 41 percent of veteran households across the sites were receiving income from a veterans

pension payment. The proportion within each site ranged from 28 percent in Upstate Northern New

York to 54 percent in Tacoma, with the remaining three sites’ shares falling between 37 and 43 percent.

The share receiving income from a veterans pension payment increased between baseline and follow-

up across sites and within all the sites except Upstate Northern New York, where the share stayed about

the same. The cross-site increase was 9 percentage points, and the within-site increase in the four sites

with increases ranged from 8 percentage points in San Diego to 11 percentage points in Central Texas and

Tampa. The change was significant at the cross-site level and within Central Texas, San Diego,

and Tacoma.

As would be expected with the increase in veteran households reporting income from a job, the share of

veteran households reporting income from unemployment benefits decreased. At follow-up, the share

reporting unemployment income was down to 3 percent across sites, ranging from 1 percent (Tampa)

to 5 percent (San Diego and Tacoma) within the sites. The decline in the share receiving unemployment

income was significant at the cross-site level and in Central Texas, Tampa, and Upstate Northern New

York.

54

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

In a similar way, receipt of several means-tested benefits (SNAP, Medicare, and Children’s Health Insurance Program [CHIP]) also declined from baseline to follow up both at the cross-site level and within each site.

For example, at follow-up, 43 percent of veteran households across the five sites were receiving SNAP

benefits, down from 61 percent at baseline. The share of veteran households reporting SNAP receipt at

follow-up, however, varied significantly by site. It was highest in Tacoma and Tampa, where 69 and 61

percent of veteran households, respectively, reported receiving it, and lowest in San Diego, where only 17

percent reported receiving SNAP. The remaining two sites, Central Texas and Upstate Northern New York,

fell in between: 39 percent of veterans in each of those sites reported that their household received SNAP

at follow-up. The changes in SNAP, Medicare, and CHIP receipt between baseline and follow-up were all

significant at the cross-site level and in Central Texas. In San Diego, only the changes in SNAP and CHIP

were significant, and only the decline in SNAP was significant in Tacoma and Upstate Northern New York.

None of the changes were significant in Tampa.

Change in Medicaid receipt, by contrast, was more varied. At follow-up, 20 percent of veterans reported

that their household received Medicaid. This percentage was down slightly from 24 percent at baseline.

This cross-site picture, however, masks substantial differences between sites. First, only three of the five sites saw declines, and the size of those declines varied. Central Texas’s share declined by 15 percentage

points between baseline and follow-up, Upstate Northern New York’s share declined by 10 percentage

points, and Tampa’s declined by 7 percentage points. By contrast, San Diego and Tacoma saw increases

in the shares of veterans reporting receiving Medicaid: in San Diego, the share increased by 8 percentage

points, and the Tacoma share increased by 6 percentage points. The changes in Medicaid receipt were

significant at the cross-site level and in Central Texas and Upstate Northern New York only. To some extent, changes in Medicaid receipt within sites could be influenced by states’ decisions to expand Medicaid, for

which this analysis does not account. During the time VHPD was in operation, California, New York, and

Washington expanded Medicaid in line with the Affordable Care Act. New York was the earliest adopter,

agreeing to expand coverage in June 2012, and the other two states did so in June 2013. The remaining

two states, Florida and Texas, had not yet expanded Medicaid coverage at the time of writing (Advisory

Board Company, 2015).

Table 6.5 shows household income and benefits receipt at program exit and follow-up survey by site, and

table 6.6 shows the mean difference between baseline and follow-up on income, employment, and benefit

measures.

Table 6.5

Total Household Income and Benefits Receipt at Program Exit and Follow-Up Survey by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by monthly income

amount at program exit

No income

19.1

9.0

20.1

14.3

24.0

34.0

$1 to $499

8.0

7.4

2.2

11.5

8.8

16.2

$500 to $749

4.1

2.9

0.7

6.3

5.5

8.6

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

55

Chapter 6

Table 6.5

Total Household Income and Benefits Receipt at Program Exit and Follow-Up

Survey by Site (continued)

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

$750 to $999

6.7

3.0

8.0

8.9

7.9

6.0

$1,000 to $1,499

17.6

17.4

15.6

21.8

17.2

18.0

$1,500 to $1,999

18.2

30.0

18.6

12.2

10.4

15.8

$2,000 or more

26.4

30.3

34.8

25.0

26.2

1.4

Mean income amount at program exit ($)

1,535

2,159

1,620

1,439

1,290

662

Percent of veterans by monthly income

amount at follow-up

No income

10.0

8.8

9.8

7.5

14.9

7.6

$1 to $499

9.0

6.1

7.3

5.7

9.8

20.5

$500 to $749

7.4

3.6

7.7

12.6

6.0

10.8

$750 to $999

5.4

2.5

6.8

8.4

4.1

7.4

$1,000 to $1,499

21.7

20.6

13.3

31.2

24.8

23.3

$1,500 to $1,999

15.3

19.0

16.0

14.2

13.3

11.5

$2,000 or more

31.2

39.5

39.1

20.5

27.3

19.0

Mean income amount at follow-up ($)

1,519

1,795

1,740

1,315

1,311

1,144

Percent of veterans by household income

sources at follow-up

From a job

42.9

55.2

40.4

25.1

42.6

44.8

Unemployment

3.2

3.2

4.5

4.5

1.4

1.9

SSI

3.4

1.9

1.3

8.5

4.3

2.6

SSDI

11.6

6.8

9.4

23.3

7.4

17.8

Veterans pension/payment

40.9

42.5

41.6

53.7

37.2

28.1

TANF

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Family or friends

0.5

1.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

Percent of veterans by receipt of benefit at

follow-up

SNAP

42.9

39.5

17.2

69.3

61.4

39.4

Medicaid

20.2

21.7

16.8

25.7

19.8

18.2

Medicare

5.1

4.4

3.4

7.0

4.5

8.4

CHIP

0.3

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.0

0.0

CHIP = Children’s Health Insurance program. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security Disability Income. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Note: Income at program entry came from Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) administrative data (N = 509), and the rest of the data came from the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) follow-up survey (N = 315) Sources: HMIS administrative data; weighted VHPD follow-up survey

56

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

Table 6.6

Mean Difference Between Baseline and Follow-Up on Income, Employment, and Benefit Measures by Site

Upstate Northern New

Cross-Site Total

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

York

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Diff.

Err.

Diff.

Err.

Diff.

Err.

Diff.

Err.

Diff.

Err.

Diff.

Err.

Monthly income ($)

525****

67.26

661****

126.9

460**

187.4

479***

130.8

620****

127.5

281**

144.2

Working full time (Yes/No)

0.14****

0.03

0.21***

0.06

0.03

0.05

0.12*

0.06

0.22***

0.06

0.08

0.07

Household receives income

from

A job (Yes/No)

0.08**

0.03

0.12

0.07

0

0.06

0.08

0.08

0.13

0.08

0.14

0.09

Unemployment insurance (Yes/

-0.11****

0.02

-0.09**

0.05

-0.03

0.03

-0.08

0.07

-0.13**

0.05

-0.32***

0.09

No)

SSI (Yes/No)

-0.02

0.02

-0.02

0.03

-0.06*

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.02

0.03

-0.1

0.08

SSDI (Yes/No)

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.05

-0.06

0.05

0.11

0.09

-0.01

0.06

0.09

0.1

Veterans pension (Yes/No)

0.12***

0.04

0.14*

0.08

0.15**

0.07

0.17*

0.09

0.1

0.14

-0.01

0.11

TANF (Yes/No)

-0.04***

0.01

-0.02

0.02

-0.05*

0.03

-0.06

0.04

-0.02

0.02

-0.06

0.04

Someone in household receives

benefits from

SNAP (Yes/No)

-0.18****

0.03

-0.27****

0.06

-0.18***

0.06

-0.14*

0.08

-0.02

0.07

-0.3***

0.09

Medicaid (Yes/No)

0.05*

0.03

-0.2**

0.08

0.07

0.05

0.08

0.47

-0.07

0.05

-0.13*

0.08

Medicare (Yes/No)

-0.07**

0.03

-0.12

0.08

-0.04

0.03

-0.02

0.05

-0.07

0.05

-0.07

0.06

CHIP (Yes/No)

-0.06**

0.03

-0.05**

0.02

-0.07**

0.03

-0.01

0.03

-0.01

0.01

-0.23

0.18

CHIP = Children’s Health Insurance program. Diff. = difference. Err. = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security Disability Income. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

* p < .1. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. **** p < .0001.

Cha

Notes: Monthly household income is in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. A small amount of the differences could be due to differences resulting from inflation between October 2012 and Augus pter 6

t 2014.

Sources: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration weighted baseline; follow-up surveys

57

Chapter 6

Change in Employment at Follow-Up Survey

Veterans were employed at higher rates at follow-up than at baseline. Overall, 43 percent of veterans

were working in some capacity (either full time or part time) at follow-up across sites, an 18-percentage-

point increase from baseline. The share of veterans employed within each site was also larger than the

share at baseline. Central Texas had the largest share of veterans employed at follow-up, at 53 percent,

and San Diego, Tampa, and Upstate Northern New York clustered together between 40 and 46 percent.

Tacoma was substantially lower, at 25 percent. Of those veterans who were working, the majority across

sites and within each site except Upstate Northern New York were employed full time (at least 35 hours

per week). In Upstate Northern New York, only two in five veterans were employed full time. Veterans

who were working at baseline were more likely to be working at follow-up (71 percent) than those who

were not working at baseline (32 percent). This difference was statistically significant (table 6.7).

Table 6.7

Employment Status at Follow-Up by Employment Status at Baseline

Working at Baseline

Not Working

Working

Total

Working at Follow-Up

N

%

N

%

N

%

Not working

155

68.0

25

29.5

181

57.4

Working

73

32.0

61

70.5

134

42.6

Total

229

100.0

86

100.0

315

100.0

χ2 = 34.74 ( p < .0001).

Sources: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration weighted baseline and follow-up surveys

Among all veterans, the share of veterans working full time (at least 35 hours) doubled between baseline

and follow-up across all five sites, reaching 29 percent at follow-up compared with 14 percent at

baseline. The share of veterans who were employed full time increased within each of the sites, but the

size of the increase varied (table 6.7). Central Texas had the largest share of veterans employed full time at follow-up (41 percent) and also had one of the largest increases: the rate doubled between baseline

and follow-up, increasing by 22 percentage points. San Diego had the second highest share at follow-

up, at 30 percent, but it also had the smallest increase (only 6 percentage points) between baseline

and follow-up. Tampa had the third highest share of veterans employed full time at follow-up; its share

increased fivefold from 5 percent at baseline. Tacoma and Upstate Northern New York had the lowest

shares of veterans employed full time at follow-up, at 20 and 17 percent, respectively, but, like Central

Texas, the shares in those two sites approximately doubled between baseline and follow-up. Paired

t-tests showed that the increases in full-time employment were significant across sites and in Central Texas, Tacoma, and Tampa.

58

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

The research team also conducted exploratory multivariate analysis to determine characteristics that

predicted the likelihood that veterans would be working full time at follow-up. As with the income

analysis discussed previously, this analysis showed that site variables (specifically whether the veteran

was from San Diego or from Central Texas) increased the likelihood that the veteran was employed

full time at follow-up. Veterans who were participating in schooling or training and veterans who had

a disability that prevented them from working were less likely to be employed full time. Veterans with

traumatic brain injury were more likely to be working full time. As with income, further analysis could

create more robust models to try to determine what factors in those programs are associated with the

changes (for example, who was selected to receive assistance and level of employment assistance).

Among the 57 percent of veterans who were not working at follow-up, slightly less than one-half (43

percent) were looking for work and slightly more than one-half (57 percent) were not. The share of

veterans not looking for work was largest in Tacoma (67 percent) and Upstate Northern New York (75

percent), the two sites with the highest rates of mental illness and disability. When asked for the main

reason they were not working or looking for work, those veterans who were not working or looking for

work most commonly noted health reasons related to military service (34 percent), being disabled (21

percent), being in school or training (20 percent), and health reasons unrelated to military service (15

percent). A smaller share of veterans (5 percent across sites) were retired, but this share was between

9 and 11 percent in Tacoma and Tampa. This result is consistent with the larger share of retirement-age

veterans in those sites. There was significant variation in the share of veterans who cited being engaged

in school or training as the reason for not working or looking for work. In Central Texas the share was at

38 percent, which was almost twice the share of the next highest site (San Diego at 21 percent), but, in

Tampa, it was only 6 percent. Table 6.8 shows veterans’ employment status at follow-up by site.

Table 6.8

Employment at Follow-Up by Site

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans by employment status

at follow-up

Working

42.6

52.6

40.1

25.1

46.1

42.7

Full time

67.2

78.0

74.2

78.7

57.0

39.5

Less than full time

32.8

22.0

25.8

21.3

43.0

60.5

Not working

57.4

47.4

59.9

74.9

53.9

57.3

Looking for work

43.2

38.9

58.2

33.5

49.7

24.9

Not looking for work

56.8

61.1

41.8

66.5

50.3

75.1

Percent of all veterans working full time

28.6

41.1

29.7

19.7

26.3

16.9

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

59

Chapter 6

Table 6.8

Employment at Follow-Up by Site (continued)

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans neither working

nor looking for work by main reason at

follow-up

Housing problems

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Health reasons related to military service

34.1

47.3

24.3

30.7

33.8

32.0

Health reasons unrelated to military

14.5

0.0

16.4

11.6

19.4

30.2

service

Has job but temporarily absent/seasonal

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

work

Could not find any work

0.6

0.0

0.0

2.5

0.0

0.0

Could not find a job that pays enough

1.5

6.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Childcare problems

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Family responsibilities

3.5

4.9

0.0

4.4

7.0

0.0

In school or other training

19.6

37.8

21.4

13.4

5.9

18.3

Waiting for a new job to begin

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Had enough money from other sources

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Retired

5.1

3.2

0.0

9.4

10.9

0.0

Disabled

21.1

0.0

37.8

28.1

22.9

19.4

Note: 10.17 percent of observations were missing on the reasons for not working or looking for work.

Source: Weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration follow-up survey (N = 315)

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at

Follow-Up Survey

A minority of veterans, about 3 in 10, were participating in education or training programs at follow-

up (table 6.9). The share was highest in Central Texas, at 41 percent, and lowest in Tampa and Upstate

Northern New York, at 20 and 21 percent, respectively. In San Diego and Tacoma, 28 and 30 percent of

veterans, respectively, were participating in education and training. The shares of veterans participating in education and training at follow-up were similar to those at baseline. At follow-up, 29 percent of veterans were participating in education and training across sites compared with 28 percent at baseline. In San

Diego, Tampa, and Upstate Northern New York, the shares at follow-up were also about the same as those

at baseline, but, in Central Texas and Tacoma, there were small increases of about 4 percentage points.

Follow-up survey responses reflected baseline responses in that veterans most commonly reported

participating in regular schooling leading to a degree (20 percent across sites) and regular schooling

leading to a vocational or professional license or certification (8 percent across sites). The share

participating in schooling leading to a degree was highest in Central Texas (30 percent) and lowest

in Tampa (10 percent), and the remaining three sites clustered together in the middle between 17

and 20 percent. The share participating in schooling leading to a vocational or professional license or

60

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 6

certification was highest in Central Texas and Tacoma (12 percent) and lowest in Upstate Northern New

York (2 percent).

Veterans who served after September 11, 2001 (veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom [OEF],

Operation Iraqi Freedom [OIF], or Operation New Dawn [OND]), may have been eligible for post-9/11 GI

Bill benefits from the VA, which include up to 36 months of education benefits, a housing allowance, a

stipend for books and supplies, and a one-time rural benefit payment. Of veterans in VHPD, 55 percent

were OEF/OIF/OND veterans and therefore likely eligible for the post-9/11 GI Bill, and about 17 percent

of VHPD veterans were receiving GI Bill benefits at follow-up. The share of veterans receiving GI Bill

benefits was highest in Central Texas, where one-fourth of veterans were receiving the benefit at follow-

up. Central Texas was also the site with the highest share (74 percent) of OEF/OIF/OND veterans. Tacoma

had the second highest share of veterans receiving GI Bill benefits, at 19 percent. In the remaining three

sites, this share was lower and ranged from 12 to 14 percent.

Table 6.9

Participation in School or Training at Follow-Up by Site

Cross-Site Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern

New York

Percent of veterans participating in any

29.0

41.0

27.6

29.9

20.2

21.4

type of school or training at follow-up

Percent of veterans participating in

school or training at follow-up by type

Regular schooling leading to a degree

19.7

29.9

19.9

16.9

10.3

17.4

Regular schooling leading to a

8.4

11.9

7.6

12.1

6.6

1.9

vocational or professional license or

certification

Percent of veterans receiving GI Bill

16.9

25.3

12.8

19.0

12.0

14.0

benefits that helped with school at

follow-up

Source: Weighted Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration follow-up survey (N = 315)

Conclusions

San Diego and Central Texas seem to have served veterans who were in better income and employment

circumstances at baseline compared with the other three sites. Because many respondents did not

complete the baseline survey within a few weeks of program entry, however, it is unclear whether this

difference was because of the veterans the programs decided to serve or whether the programs quickly

connected the veterans to employment and benefit resources after enrollment. Based on findings of the

implementation study, the former is more likely the case in San Diego, and the latter is likely at least part of the driver in Central Texas, given its success with the DOL partnership. (See Cunningham et al. [2013]

for a full discussion of these issues.)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

61

Chapter 6

The research team’s analysis shows that incomes increased between baseline and follow-up, as did rates

of full-time employment and receiving income from a job and from a veterans pension payment. Rates

of receipt of means-tested benefits also generally decreased between baseline and follow-up to a degree

that was significant at the cross-site level and within some sites. Because the researchers do not have a

comparison group, however, they cannot determine whether these changes were because of the VHPD

intervention or the result of other factors.

This analysis supports findings from the interim report that Central Texas’s VHPD program had the most

successful employment component. At program exit and follow-up, veterans from Central Texas had the

highest average household income, the highest rates of any employment, and the among highest rates

of full-time employment at follow-up and substantially higher rates of engagement in education and

training opportunities than the other sites, including the highest share of veterans receiving post-9/11

GI Bill benefits.

62

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 7

Chapter 7. Veteran Perspectives

Hearing directly from veterans about their experiences with homelessness is important. In addition to

conducting the baseline and follow-up surveys, the research team conducted focus groups in each of

the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) sites, talking to 49 veterans. Listening

and talking with VHPD participants during focus groups enabled researchers to hear first hand about

the veterans’ experiences: what led them to VHPD and how they found the program; how helpful they

thought the program was; and how they think the program has affected their long-term stability. This

chapter presents findings from these focus groups.

Reasons for Housing Instability and Homelessness

Veterans shared the challenges that led to their housing instability or homelessness and need for

VHPD services. For recent veterans, the research team heard about unexpected emergencies, including

family deaths and health problems, losing jobs, and struggling to find affordable housing and maintain

employment, especially for those who have physical health problems. Another common theme was

making the transition from base housing to housing in the private civilian market. Among veterans who

served in wars some decades ago, team members heard about issues related to chronic homelessness

(for example, substance use, serious mental and physical health problems).

Sudden Adverse Events

Homelessness is often the result of adverse events, and veterans participating in the focus groups

often told stories of adversity leading to homelessness. Many veterans reported experiencing sudden,

unexpected circumstances and facing housing instability for the first time.

I came to this program for assistance with housing, and my wife passed away in October of last year

and I got three boys, and so I’m running with that and I’m trying to deal with the military having to

fight my case for disability for about 19 years now, and the system is giving me a fit.

It’d been a long time since I’d been out of the military. I didn’t have a problem with the transition from military to civilian. My problems started from Hurricane Katrina and I moved up here. My son was

living here. He was stationed at Fort Lewis and getting a job. I had kids, three kids that live with me. I did take care of them and I didn’t really have a full-time job. I was in school and I just started having problems being able to pay my rent to survive, taking care of kids.

Some veterans, particularly women, described major changes in their household that precipitated their

housing instability. For example, one veteran shared that she had to take her mother in and provide her

with care. Another female veteran reported going through a divorce. Other veterans discussed losing

their jobs or having their hours cut.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

63

Chapter 7

But a lot of different things had happened in my household, and it had gotten to the point where it

was just insurmountable when I took in my mother to take care of her and everything that encompass

that. It just wasn’t enough money. Every month I was struggling to just pay the rent and then I was

trusting God to know what I was going to do to get . . . those food stamps were only so much and I’ve

got teenagers. They eat more than I do. I’ve got one boy and one girl, and it had gotten to the point

where my son was like—he told me later. He didn’t tell me while we were struggling then, but after

time had passed he said, “Well, mom, I just chose not to eat sometimes,” and that just broke my heart

because when you have your kid you want them to be able to at least eat. So anyway, I was getting to

that point where I decided it was time for us to leave, but I needed to plan.

Challenges Maintaining Employment

Without a steady income, veterans had trouble staying housed; many noted problems finding and

keeping a job. Some veterans described challenges with maintaining employment because of physical

disabilities related to their military service. One veteran sustained a back injury while in the military and had to leave his job as a truck driver because it aggravated the injury. Another veteran, who supports her

teenage sister, was unable to work because of her injuries; however, she did not have documentation of

those injuries upon leaving the military. This lack of documentation made her ineligible to receive other

public benefits (for example, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits).

Veterans without physical disabilities also reported challenges finding and sustaining employment. They

discussed not knowing how to translate their military experience into skills and experience valued by

civilian employers. One veteran explained, “When you come out of the military, there are acronyms

and roles and titles that don’t exist in the civilian world. It was really difficult to try to take your

[Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report] and turn it into a résumé.” Another veteran said, “I got out

in ‘09. That was the recession, prime recession time, and everybody was looking for work.”

Trouble Making the Transition to Civilian Life

Other veterans associated challenges with their discharge from the military with their housing instability.

Many veterans were forced out of the military earlier than they expected, which left them without a

plan in place for housing. One veteran described her experience after being told that her end of time in

service date, the date she had to leave the military and her on-base housing, was 3 weeks earlier than

she was initially told:

[They said,] “You’re getting out on this day. You will be out of housing on this day.” I said, “But I can’t even move into my apartment. I can’t afford another month of rent. I still have to feed my children, put gas in my car, still have 3 weeks’ worth of getting back and forth to post to get to work as it is, and now you want me to move out a month early?” She’s like, “I’m sorry. Maybe you can live at the hotel on

post.”

64

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 7

Another veteran, a father of two children with special needs, cited delays in receiving his final payment

from the Department of Defense as the reason for his housing instability. He described his situation after

leaving the military:

We had everything set up. School was on. We were waiting for our final check to come from the final

pay. I had sold [about 3 months] of leave; that’s a pretty good lump of money. It took the Army until

[about 6 weeks after my last day of active duty] to pay me. In that scope of time, all the savings that

we had saved up, we went through it.

Other veterans had problems finding affordable housing when they returned to civilian life:

I went back home and I struggled. I was unemployed for a little while. I found work. I finally got my GI Bill stuff situated. I was able to get enrolled in school and I was doing okay, but then other things kind of... life gets in the way. I ended up in a crummy situation and that’s why I had to leave New York and

come here. I relocated here to Texas from New York because I couldn’t afford to live there anymore

and I have a small child. I have family here in this area and I relocated here. I was staying with them

for a little while, but then it started to get a little crowded in their home. I had to start making moves but I didn’t know what to do, how to get started.

Finding VHPD

How can providers of services best target and reach homeless veterans? An answer to this question

is important for practitioners and policymakers designing programs. Veterans reported hearing about

VHPD in several main ways.

VA Medical Center and Community-Based Center Referrals

Some veterans said they heard about the VHPD program while meeting with staff at local U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) or VA community-based centers. For

veterans who were connected with the VA, especially those who regularly accessed healthcare services

through the VA, VA staff outreach was successful in informing veterans about the program. One veteran

reported learning about the program at several local VA healthcare centers. Another veteran said,

In my personal experience, wherever I’ve encountered or have the most interaction with other

veterans or people whose job it is to help veterans, it’s always at the VA hospital. That’s where I

received my care. That’s where I see my counselor once a month. That’s where I receive my physical

therapy for my injuries, and that’s where I get any information pertaining to any services that I’m

eligible for, through the VA.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

65

Chapter 7

Human Services Agency, Homeless Services Provider, or Hotline

Veterans often reported hearing about the program as part of a lengthy process searching for services

to assist them in their housing crisis. Some veterans looked up services on line, and others conducted

their search by phone. Veterans told stories of calling the VA’s homeless veterans 1–800 number and

other service hotlines, getting referrals, calling service providers, finding out they were ineligible, and ultimately working their way to VHPD. One veteran described her search like this:

There wasn’t really a specific way that I can remember because I called a lot of different programs but

I didn’t qualify for them, so they were more like, well try this, try this, and try this. I want to say one of the VA representatives at Temple . . . they told me about this program that I had heard again. It was the second time I heard [about] the program, so then I finally called and that’s how I found out about

it. But it was through just calling and [hearing] well, no you don’t qualify, no you don’t qualify, no

you don’t qualify.

Word of Mouth

Other veterans heard about the program by word of mouth, sometimes from other veterans or from

individuals who work with veterans. One veteran reported hearing about the program through her

veterans’ employment representative through DOL. Another veteran learned of the program after talking

with another veteran who directed him to the VA.

Experiences With VHPD Services, Effectiveness of Those Services, and

Unaddressed Challenges

The VHPD program offered participants a range of services, including financial assistance (for example,

payment of rent arrearages, rental assistance, payment of security deposits, utility payments), case

management services, access to health care through the VA, and employment services through DOL.

Veterans also commented on valuing the peer-to-peer support from other veterans because they could

identify with what they had been through and they trusted them.

Overall Satisfaction With VHPD

The research team asked veterans participating in the focus groups about their overall impressions

of VHPD and how the program helped with specific services like finding housing and employment. In

general, veterans reported satisfaction with the program and found the services helpful. Speaking of the

VHPD program, one veteran said,

I just want to say I was really down. I didn’t know what to do, and they gave me help. Basically, they

saved me. They helped me with my rent, with my bills. They gave me information. Like [my veterans’

employment representative], he taught me how to get jobs or what kind of questions they ask.

66

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 7

Another respondent described VHPD this way:

Well, they did help me, like I said, they were really good. They were there, like you said, when you

needed it because I was really stressed. It was holiday time. I’m thinking God where am I going to go,

what am I going to do. They were. They helped. That was my Christmas present or I would have been

out on the street.

Paying Rent Most Helpful Part of Program

When asked what was most helpful about the program, the most common response from veterans was

the help paying for rent (current or arrearages) and utilities. One veteran got behind on bills waiting for her VA disability claim to be processed and described how having VHPD assist her with expenses gave

her time to dig herself out of that debt. She noted,

I think the helpful part, of course, is the financial stability; that’s what you’re coming here [to VHPD]

for, so that was a major burden that let off and then—then once I finally did have my VA checks come

in, I could catch up on the stuff they weren’t paying for.

Case Managers, Especially Peer-to-Peer Support, Valued

Aside from the financial assistance, some veterans noted that the case management was helpful.

Veterans liked having someone to discuss what they were going through and in whom they could

confide. When asked what was helpful about the program, one veteran responded, “Just airing my

grievances, having someone to talk to because we all have certain issues, certain vices that we need to

just speak to someone about.”

Some programs employ case managers who are veterans, and other sites have specific peer-to-peer

support positions embedded in the program. Some veterans commented that having veterans as staff in

the program was beneficial. Veterans valued this because they thought that VHPD staff who were also

veterans had a better understanding of their experiences and struggles. One veteran said, “The ideal

situation for a person being a case manager would be someone who has walked in your shoes.” Another

veteran said, “It’s nice when you have somebody that knows you, knows your experiences, and can

be there.”

Even though veterans thought these services were valuable, they had some service needs the program

did not meet, although these needs differed by site because the programs varied locally. Some veterans

would have liked legal services. One veteran had been fighting a disability claim with the VA for about 20

years and needed legal assistance that the program was not able to provide. Some veterans experienced

challenges with sustaining housing. Veterans from the California focus groups discussed the short-term

nature of the program and how they thought it was not enough time to become fully self-sufficient.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

67

Chapter 7

Employment Support Helpful but Uneven

Veterans in most of the sites also noted challenges gaining and sustaining employment. When asked what

services they did not receive that would have been helpful, some veterans specified employment services

(that is, job search and job placement services). One San Diego veteran said,

Instead of every week asking me, “What are you doing for yourself?”—I’m looking for work, I’m looking

for jobs. But you can also help me do that, too, so that way you can ensure that you don’t have to be

paying me anymore for rental assistance.

Veterans in the Central Texas focus groups, however, identified the valuable assistance they received from

their Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives program. When speaking of the lead local veterans’

employment representative for the Central Texas VHPD program, a veteran said,

He, basically, took all these skills that I hadn’t even thought about that I had under my belt, experience, and he turned it into civilian work or résumé language, if you will, and that was excellent. I think if there were more people like [the VHPD lead local veterans’ employment representative] who had the same

qualities or training that he has that would be . . . [good]. If there were more of [him] out there . . .

These divergent perspectives on the employment services received from the program speak to the

different degrees of success the local programs had in integrating their local DOL service providers. As

documented in the interim report, Central Texas did the best job of creating and maintaining a close

collaboration with its DOL arm; the other sites were less successful. Veterans’ desire for employment

services in the other sites and the commendation those services received from Central Texas veterans

reinforce the importance of those services for helping veterans achieve long-term stability.

Prospects for the Future

Many veterans thought the program helped them avoid homelessness and get back on their feet. Veterans

agreed that the program helped them avoid an immediate housing crisis and noted the importance of the

VHPD. When asked about how VHPD would affect their housing over the long term, however, they had

concerns about their housing stability and well-being in the future.

One veteran commented about the help he received getting back on his feet: “I hope that this study is

helpful and lets Congress know that this program is needed, and it needs to be, if possible, nationwide

because it’s doing great things.”

When asked about their individual sustainability, veterans were less certain that the program had put

them on a path toward long-term self-sustainability. Some veterans thought the program had given them

the tools to be more stable and successful in the long term, but other veterans still felt unstable or unsure of their future. Some veterans noted the need for stable employment as necessary for their long-term

sustainability and housing stability.

68

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 7

Aside from employment help, when asked about services they thought they needed going forward to

further achieve or maintain sustainability, some veterans noted continued access to medical care. Other

veterans, especially women, wanted to know more about what resources and services were currently

available to them so they could access them if they needed them, and other veterans specified the need

for service providers who were more knowledgeable about resources available in the community so they

could make appropriate referrals.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

69

70

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 8

Chapter 8. Lessons Learned for Serving Veterans at Risk

of Homelessness

Existing studies of homelessness prevention programs do not provide the information policymakers

need to effectively reach and serve veterans at risk of homelessness. In addition to understanding if

homelessness prevention programs are effective, this study aimed to fill gaps in knowledge by examining

whether serving veterans and their families differs from serving nonveterans. The research team learned

from the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) evaluation that veterans need what

other people need when they are at risk of losing their housing: help getting back on their feet, short-

term financial assistance, and some mix of supportive services. Although veterans at risk of homelessness

have needs that are similar to those of other populations facing housing instability, they have other needs related to their military service, particularly support for physical and mental health issues and finding

employment. Veterans, however, also have a richer array of benefits available to them. VHPD filled a gap

in the service delivery continuum for veterans and their families. The researchers also learned through

this demonstration project that to successfully engage younger, more recent veterans, including women,

homeless service providers must use different outreach strategies to identify veterans at risk.

Identifying At-Risk Veterans

Most homeless prevention programs rely on people to access the services they need by asking for help.

Families show up at a shelter or ask for assistance through a community services agency from which they

are already receiving assistance. Some families might call the community help line (for example, 211). As

noted in the interim report (Cunningham et al., 2013), VHPD program sites used traditional strategies like

these. To help veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, the U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) supports the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans (1–877–4AIDVET). According to

the VHPD service providers, many of the veterans served through VHPD came from hotline referrals.

The VHPD experience showed, however, that to effectively target veterans, in particular younger,

recent veterans, including women, providers of homeless services need to identify at-risk veterans in

places where they are seeking services for other issues or continuing their education or during the

demobilization process after their tour of duty. If service providers are to have the greatest chance of

finding eligible veterans, they need to focus outreach efforts in places where those veterans frequent,

such as—

• VA, VA medical centers (VAMCs), and Vet Centers.

• Veteran service organizations (for example, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion).

• Veteran-specific events (for example, Yellow Ribbon, Homeless Stand Down Events).

• Community colleges and universities (GI Bill).

• Military bases and transition-assistance programs.

Although VA’s various programs and activities are obvious locations, many veterans do not contact the

VA even though they may need the types of resources VA programs offer. Therefore, an early public

information campaign is essential. Programs like VHPD should also contact places people go when they

face a housing crisis (for example, emergency shelters and other homeless assistance programs). VHPD

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

71

Chapter 8

participants, particularly those who had recently separated from the military, noted they would have

liked to have received more information about services and supports for veterans while they were still in

the military.

Serving Veterans Through Interagency Collaboration

VHPD provided short-term crisis intervention services, relying on VA and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)

partners to supply longer term services to address physical and mental health and employment issues.

Sites emphasized the importance of community involvement—a common catchphrase researchers heard

was, “It takes a community to serve a veteran.” The VHPD program design reflected this ethos. VHPD

was built on a three-legged stool—U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grantees and

subgrantees, DOL grantees, and the federal VA, which in some sites included both the local VAMC and

Vet Center—to ensure that VHPD households received a comprehensive set of services to help them

stabilize in housing, locate employment opportunities through local DOL grantees, and access benefits

and health care through the VA.

Program staff reported strong coordination with the VA on health services and case management

provided through the VA. Combining VHPD housing services with VA health services allowed veterans to

receive comprehensive supports to help them better maintain housing stability. Engaging DOL partners

proved more difficult. Only one site was able to navigate DOL partnerships effectively and collaboratively.

The remaining sites struggled to develop strong relationships with the One-Stop Career Centers and

employment centers operating in their service areas. Collaboration with Disabled Veterans’ Outreach

Programs staff and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives was uneven across sites. During key

informant interviews, program staff mentioned bureaucratic obstacles that made building relationships

with DOL difficult, and they commented that more support from DOL organizational leadership would

have improved the quality of employment services provided through VHPD.

Ensuring Veteran Cultural Competency

VHPD staff and the veterans themselves clearly stated that policymakers should be aware of the

differences between serving veteran and general populations. VHPD service providers noted that

veterans are shaped by their military service and are part of a distinct veteran culture, which makes

them more difficult to reach.

I wouldn’t say it’s necessary to completely separate from the civilian side, but if you’re going to be

serving veterans you need to know the veteran culture. People working with veterans need to go

through cultural competency training to understand what they went through and understand the

military mindset: what works for them, what communication works for them, what could have been

their military experiences. Their service has changed them, and it is part of them forever. Working

with them from a strength-based approach is key. You also need an understanding [of] what benefits

they are eligible for. There needs to be a sense of the veteran culture of community to work with them

effectively—otherwise there is a disconnect. – VHPD program staff

72

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Chapter 8

According to one VHPD service provider, veterans often pride themselves on self-sufficiency. Getting

them involved in prevention programs can be challenging, because they often will ask for outside help

and supports only as a last resort.

As noted in chapter 7, veterans report not trusting civilians and highlight that peer-to-peer support is

helpful. VHPD providers recognized this and made efforts to have veterans on staff, including female

veterans:

VA [is] starting to see more female veterans; [they are] becoming more noticeable. If there is MST

[military sexual trauma] history, [the VHPD case worker will] try to also go out with [a] female peer

support specialist or have the vet come into the office rather than doing a house visit. For other

female veterans [this is] not an issue. [It has been an] asset to have female peer support. – VHPD

program staff

Addressing Veterans’ Mental Health and Physical Health Needs

VHPD service providers describe veterans as less healthy than the general population. The demands

of their military service can lead to detrimental physical and mental health outcomes. The survey data

reveal a high prevalence of physical disabilities, including traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and also mental health disorders, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These injuries can be destabilizing to

vets and can create barriers to employment and to maintaining housing. These needs often lead to

challenges with substance use. When asked how serving veterans differed from serving nonveterans, one

VHPD staff person said:

There is a high proportion of mental health and substance abuse issues, alcohol in the military is very

big, and there are medical complications that come with being a lifetime alcoholic. The medical piece

is simply that vets are much sicker than the general [population] for their age. Vets generally have a

higher level of medical needs. – VHPD program staff

Overcoming Service-Related Employment Barriers

When they leave military service, veterans have many marketable skills. Translating those skills into

civilian employment, however, is challenging for several reasons. First, veterans often do not know how

to reframe skills learned in the military into those valued by civilian employers or how to emphasize the

soft skills (for example, leadership, management, communication) they built during their service. Second,

civilian employers may require licenses and certifications that military service does not provide, even

if veterans have the experience, and sometimes employers do not consider experience gained during

military service as work experience. Finally, veterans may also have a medical barrier (for example, PTSD,

TBI) that makes finding and maintaining employment difficult.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

73

Chapter 8

They get out wanting jobs . . . but I can’t get [them] a job because [they] don’t have the certifications civilian employers require. Now we have to tell veterans, “Okay, you were a medical tech in the

military. Let’s find the civilian requirements.” The civilian requirements are higher, and veterans can’t get those jobs. There’s a money issue and a timeline issue because the vet wants a job and isn’t willing to settle. He comes in saying, “I want $85,000 per year,” and he’s probably worth it. But on the civilian side he can’t make it. He can get $35,000 in a lesser field. Along that same line, they may have the

experience and [be] doing the job already in their active military position. A hospital corpsman is

almost like a nurse. A medic in the military gets out; they go to school for a nursing degree. They have the experience and certification, but when they are looking for work they don’t have the experience

because their military experience doesn’t count. They (employers) look for 1 or 2 years’ experience

as an RN. They have the experience in military, but it’s not recognized. That’s a big problem. – VHPD

program staff

Accessing a Greater Array of Benefits

Although veterans face unique obstacles, they also have more services available to them than the

general population. VHPD service providers note that being a member of the military makes it easier

for veterans to connect with services like income benefits, VA health care, and educational assistance

through the post-9/11 GI Bill. Despite the fact that veterans are eligible for these benefits, at the time

of VHPD implementation, access issues existed as the result of a 5- to 18-month benefits application

review backlog at the VA (Cunningham et al., 2013). Key informants, including staff at VAMCs, expressed

frustration with long wait times for services and for benefits applications, noting that these income

benefits could help veterans pay for housing and that wait periods for mental or physical health services

also prolong instability among veterans at risk.

Changing Discharge Status To Obtain Services

To qualify for VHPD, veterans needed an honorable or general discharge. Veterans discharged from

the military with a dishonorable discharge are not eligible for VA medical services and, therefore, not

eligible for VHPD. Current and former members of the National Guard or Reserve qualify for VA medical

services (and VHPD) only if they were called to active duty by a federal order and completed the full

period for which they were called or ordered to active duty. VHPD programs found that some veterans

who contacted them with clear housing crises did not qualify either because they had dishonorable

discharges or because they did not serve long enough on active duty. VHPD programs could not alter

length of service, but they sometimes tried to help veterans change their discharge status. These efforts

had to be undertaken before a veteran could be enrolled, however, so the ability of VHPD programs

to cover the time needed to assist these veterans was limited. If future program funds cannot be used

for assisting these veterans, partnerships with legal aid and other organizations that work on changing

discharge status should be encouraged. Service providers thought that allowing VHPD funding to cover

legal services would be particularly helpful, especially when a veteran wished to challenge his or her

discharge status to qualify for VHPD and other veterans’ services.

74

VETERANS

N H

S O

H M

O EL

E E

L S

E S

S N

S ES

E S

S P

S R

P EVENTION

IO D

N E

D MO

M N

O S

N T

S RATION

IO E

N VA

V LU

L ATION

IO

N FINAL REPORT

FINAL REPOR

Chapter 8

Conclusion

As of this writing, the administration has less than a year to meet its goal of ending veteran

homelessness by 2016. As policymakers increase funding or reallocate funding toward homelessness

prevention and rapid re-housing within the Continuums of Care, one assumption is that veterans

should have greater access to these crisis intervention resources and that this access will contribute to

decreasing homelessness among veterans. Policymakers, however, will need to decide if veteran-specific

programs are necessary and are worth expanding. The findings from this report reflect the significant

need for homelessness prevention programs that target veterans specifically, demonstrate that these

programs should tailor services to veterans’ specific needs, and further suggest that that these veteran-

specific adjustments contributed to the success of VHPD.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

75

76

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix A

Appendix A. Definitions of Terms

General Terms

• Annual Performance Report (APR) is a report all programs receiving funding through the

homeless assistance programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) are required to submit at the end of their grant year. It describes

households and people served, services delivered, and program funding spent during that

year. For everyone who exits the program during the reporting year, the APR also reports

changes between program entry and exit on income, benefits, and destination. For the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD), housing status (see definition of term) was

collected at program entry and exit.

• “but for” was shorthand for HUD’s suggestion that a good way to determine whether a

household meets its second eligibility criterion (see definition of imminently at risk of losing

housing) was to ask whether the household would “be homeless but for this assistance.”

• Continuums of Care (CoCs) are local planning bodies responsible for coordinating the full range

of homelessness services in a geographic area, which may cover a city, a county, a group of cities

and counties, a metropolitan area, or even an entire state.

• Eligibility criteria for VHPD services that HUD required included (1) household income at or

below 50 percent of Area Median Income, (2) veteran eligible for U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) health care, and (3) household imminently at risk of losing housing or had been

homeless for less than 90 days AND had not identified any appropriate subsequent housing

options AND lacked the financial resources and support networks needed to remain in its

existing housing or obtain immediate housing.

• Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is a data system designed to record and

store client-level information on the characteristics and service needs of homeless people. HMIS

enables unduplicated counts of people using homeless assistance services over time and was

the basis of the information on annual prevalence reported to Congress in the Annual Homeless

Assessment Report. A special HMIS module was created for VHPD.

• Housing status is a field first added to HMIS for the purpose of reporting for the Homelessness

Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP), and it was also used by VHPD. It specifically

reflects the type of housing a client had when enrolling in VHPD and the type of housing the

client had at program exit. Information on housing status for participants leaving the program

(exiters) was reported in each VHPD program’s APR and was meant to be used to indicate

whether client housing status improved from entry to exit. The following definitions used by

VHPD came from HUD’s HMIS data standards.

͹ Literally homeless—The individual or family lacked a fixed, regular, or adequate

nighttime residence, meaning one of the following:

• The individual or family lived in a place not designated for or ordinarily used as a

regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

77

Appendix A

• The individual or family lived in a publicly or privately operated shelter designed

to provide temporary living arrangements (including a hotel or motel paid for with

funds other than the person’s own funds, congregate shelters, and transitional

housing).

• The individual exited an institution (including hospitals) where he or she resided

for a period of 90 days or less if the person was sleeping in an emergency shelter or

place unfit for human habitation before the institutional stay.

͹ Fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence—The individual or family was fleeing or

attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other

dangerous or life-threatening conditions that relate to violence against the individual or

family member, including a child, which had either taken place within the individual’s

or family’s primary nighttime residence or had made the individual or family afraid to

return to their primary nighttime residence, and the individual or family had no other

residence and lacked the resources or support networks (for example, family, friends,

and faith-based or other social networks) to obtain other permanent housing.

͹ Imminently at risk of losing housing—The individual or family was currently housed

but at imminent risk of losing housing and without subsequent options or resources or

support networks needed to remain in current housing or obtain other temporary or

permanent housing.

͹ Unstably housed—The individual or family was currently housed but experiencing

housing instability, with one or more other temporary housing options but lacking the

resources or support networks to retain or obtain permanent housing.

͹ Stably housed—The individual or family was not at risk of losing housing and did not

meet the criteria for any of the previous housing status definitions.

• Rural area is a place designated by HUD as rural if it meets any of the following criteria:

͹ Any area or community that does not include any land considered to be a part of a

metropolitan statistical area as defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

͹ Any area or community that is within a metropolitan statistical area but located within

a county in which at least 75 percent of the population is considered to be living in rural

areas.

͹ Any area or community within a state where (1) the population density is less than 30

people per square mile, (2) at least 1.25 percent of the total state’s acreage is under

federal jurisdiction, and (3) no metropolitan city in that state is the sole beneficiary of

grants to be awarded (HUD, 2009).

• Sustainability is the financial ability of a household to maintain itself in housing after VHPD

assistance ended.

• Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) is a program administered by the VA that makes

grants to nonprofit organizations and consumer cooperatives to provide supportive services

and limited financial assistance to very low-income veteran families who are living in or making

the transition to permanent housing. SSVF grantees provide veteran families with the following

78

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix A

services: (1) outreach, case management, and assistance obtaining VA benefits and (2) referrals

to other benefits (for example, health care, daily living services, personal financial planning

assistance, transportation, childcare, housing counseling, legal services, and fiduciary and payee

services). In addition, grantees have the option to provide time-limited payments to third parties

(for example, landlords, utility companies, moving companies, and licensed childcare providers) if

these payments help veteran families stay in or acquire permanent housing on a sustainable basis.

• U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans’ Employment & Training Service, Jobs for Veterans State

Grants Program is a noncompetitive grants program that provides funds to state workforce

agencies. The grant amount, which is proportional to the number of veterans seeking

employment in each state, funds the following staff positions:

͹ Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program specialists provide intensive services to meet

the employment needs of disabled and other eligible veterans. Emphasis is placed

on serving veterans who are economically or educationally disadvantaged, including

homeless veterans and veterans with barriers to employment.

͹ Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives primarily focus on conducting outreach

efforts with employers to increase employment opportunities for veterans and to

encourage the hiring of disabled veterans. Representatives could also assist a veteran in

gaining and maintaining employment and conduct workshops and seminars for veterans

(DOL, n.d.).

• VA Medical Services includes all the health and behavioral health services a qualifying veteran

may receive through a VA medical center or its affiliated clinics. Eligibility for VA Medical Services

was a requirement for VHPD participation.

• VA Vet Centers are community-based agencies and are part of the Veterans Health

Administration of the VA. They offer readjustment counseling to combat veterans and their

family members and also bereavement counseling for families of deceased veterans. Given their

position as community-based agencies, Vet Centers were primarily involved in VHPD through

conducting outreach for the program.

• Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) was authorized by Congress in

March 2009 and was administered by HUD’s Special Needs Assistance Programs Office from

2011 to 2014. It was designed to prevent housing loss and subsequent homelessness among

veterans facing a housing crisis and also to restore people to housing who were experiencing

short-term (less than 90 days) homelessness.

• VHPD financial assistance refers to program spending to cover rent or utility payments, rent or

utility deposits, rent or utility arrearages, moving costs, or hotel or motel vouchers. All payments

were made directly to a landlord, utility company, or other vendor; none went directly to VHPD

households. The homeless services partner agency administered the financial assistance.

• VHPD housing relocation and stabilization services included referrals to other community

resources, outreach and engagement, housing search and placement, landlord-tenant

mediation, legal services, childcare, car repair, and credit repair, all usually performed within

the general rubric of needs assessment and case management. The homeless services partner

agency administered the housing relocation and stabilization services.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

79

Appendix A

Veteran- and Military-Specific Terms

• Service categories

͹ Active Duty: Active duty military service is similar to working at a full-time civilian job.

Active-duty service members are full-time members of the military, living on base or in

military housing. Active-duty terms of service typically last 2 to 6 years. Deployment can

last up to 1 year.

͹ National Guard: The National Guard consists of the Army National Guard and the Air

National Guard. National Guard units participate in training drills one weekend a month

and two full weeks per year. National Guard units focus on homeland security and

humanitarian relief. A National Guard member commonly holds a civilian job full time

while serving as a National Guard member.

͹ Reserve: The Reserve was created to maintain trained units at home while active-duty

service members are deployed. Each active-duty branch of the military has a Reserve

component under its command, which is available for active-duty deployment in

times of war or national emergency. Reservists are part-time service members. They

participate in training drills one weekend per month and in a 2-week program each year.

• Medical conditions of special concern

͹ Posttraumatic stress disorder (commonly known as PTSD) is a type of anxiety disorder

that can occur after a person experiences a traumatic event that involved the threat of

injury or death. Common symptoms included recurring flashback episodes, emotional

numbness, detachment, and hypervigilance.

͹ Traumatic brain injury (also called TBI) is caused by a bump, blow, or jolt to the head or

a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain.

• Military discharge definitions

͹ Honorable discharge: To receive an honorable discharge, a service member must receive

a rating from good to excellent for his or her service. Service members who meet or

exceed the required standards of duty performance and personal conduct and who

complete their tours of duty normally receive honorable discharges.

͹ General discharge: General discharges are given to service members whose

performance is satisfactory but marked by a considerable departure in duty performance

and conduct expected of military members. Reasons for such a characterization

of service vary from medical discharges to misconduct and are used by the unit

commander as a means to correct unacceptable behavior before initiating discharge

action.

͹ Other than honorable discharge: An other than honorable discharge is the most severe

form of administrative discharge. This type of discharge represents a departure from

the conduct and performance expected of all military members. Other than honorable

discharges are typically given to service members convicted by a civilian court in which a

sentence of confinement was adjudged or in which the conduct leading to the conviction

brings discredit upon the service.

80

VETERANS

N H

S O

H M

O EL

E E

L S

E S

S N

S ES

E S

S P

S R

P EVENTION

IO D

N E

D MO

M N

O S

N T

S RATION

IO E

N VA

V LU

L ATION

IO

N FINAL REPORT

FINAL REPOR

Appendix A

͹ Bad conduct discharge: A bad conduct discharge can be given only by special or general

court-martial as punishment to an enlisted service member. Bad conduct discharges are

often preceded by a period of confinement in a military prison. Veterans who receive a

bad conduct discharge forfeit almost all veterans’ benefits.

͹ Dishonorable discharge: A dishonorable discharge can be given to an enlisted member

only by a general court-martial. Dishonorable discharges are handed down for what

the military considers the most reprehensible conduct. This type of discharge could

be rendered only by conviction at a general court-martial for serious offenses such as

desertion, sexual assault, and murder. Veterans with this discharge status forfeit all

veterans’ benefits, regardless of any past honorable service.

• Military service eras (as defined by the VHPD APR)

͹ Post-September 11, 2001: September 11, 2001–present.

͹ Persian Gulf Era: August 1991–September 10, 2001.

͹ Post-Vietnam: May 1975–July 1991.

͹ Vietnam Era: August 1964–April 1975.

͹ Between Korean and Vietnam Wars: February 1955–July 1964.

͹ Korean War: June 1950–January 1955.

͹ Between World War II and Korean War: August 1947–May 1950.

͹ World War II: September 1940–July 1947.

• Recent military operations

͹ Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF): OEF began with U.S. military forces deployed to

Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks and

ended on December 28, 2014 (Torreon, 2015).

͹ Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF): OIF is the military operation in Iraq from March 2003

to August 2010. Although the combat mission in Iraq officially ended with OIF in August

2010, a transitional force remained in the country under a new designation: Operation

New Dawn (see definition of term; Torreon, 2015).

͹ Operation New Dawn (OND): As of September 1, 2010, military operations in Iraq were

designated as Operation New Dawn. Military activities in Iraq during OND included

providing assistance and support to Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. civilians. The

operation officially ended on December 15, 2011, which marked the end of the Iraq War

(Torreon, 2015).

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

81

82

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix B

Appendix B. Qualitative Data Collection Methods

The qualitative data collection for the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

included three data collection activities: (1) early program reconnaissance interviews with VHPD staff, (2) two waves of semistructured key informant interviews with program staff and community stakeholders,

and (3) focus groups with veterans who participated in VHPD. The key informant interviews were

conducted during two site visits to each VHPD program, one that occurred early in implementation

(between April and May 2012) and one that occurred at the end of implementation (between July and

November 2013). The focus groups were conducted during the second site visit. This appendix details

each data collection activity.

Early Program Reconnaissance

The research team conducted telephone interviews with key staff at each of the local VHPD programs

between November 2011 and January 2012. The people interviewed included VHPD program directors

and other staff, including those at the local U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center

(VAMC) charged with designing how the program would take shape locally, and Homeless Management

Information System (HMIS) administrators from local Continuums of Care (CoCs). This data collection was

meant to provide the research team with a baseline understanding of how the five sites were designing

their programs and issues related to the HMIS administrative data that would be available to supplement

the evaluation’s primary data collection activities. This information also informed early project design

deliverables, including the research design.

Through the program reconnaissance, the research team aimed to gather information on the following

topics:

• From VHPD grantees—

͹ How do they collect and store intake and enrollment information? Is it stored

electronically on the grantees’ own data systems before being transferred to HMIS?

͹ How much information is transferred to HMIS, and how often? What information,

exactly, do grantees collect? How often is the information updated, if at all? Does all

information get transferred to HMIS, or is there additional information in grantee files

that never gets transferred because fields for it do not exist in HMIS? If yes, what is this

additional information, and how might it be useful to the evaluation? Is the additional

information unique to each of the five grantees, or is some of it similar or identical?

͹ What system do the grantee caseworkers use while they work directly with clients? Can

they see client information that is already in the system while they work with clients?

͹ Can grantee managers access their own data after they are entered into HMIS? How are

grantee managers using client data to assess performance for the grant as a whole, for

each individual client, and for specific subsets of clients?

͹ What type of informed consent is currently requested of enrollees regarding transferring

information about them to HMIS? What fields are they asked to allow transfer for, and

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

83

Appendix B

to what uses of the data do they consent? What are they told about uses of the data in

identified versus deidentified form?

͹ What is the best or most useful approach to training and working out the necessary

arrangements for data access and informed consents?

• From VAMC units working with VHPD—

͹ How do they collect and store intake and enrollment information? How and where is

this information stored electronically in the grantees’ own data systems? Is it being

transferred to HMIS, or is transferring information solely the responsibility of the

VHPD grantees? Is it being transferred to the Homeless Operations Management and

Evaluation System (HOMES) or some other VA system?

͹ How much information is transferred to what systems, and how often? What data,

exactly, do VAMC staff collect and record for their veteran clients? How often is the

information updated, if at all? Does all the information get transferred to HMIS, HOMES,

or both, or is there additional information in VAMC files that never gets transferred

because fields for it do not exist in HMIS or HOMES? If yes, what is this additional

information, and how might it be useful to the evaluation?

͹ What happens regarding data collection and storage for veterans who are not homeless

or at risk? For veterans who are actually homeless, are data in HOMES? How do the

VAMCs determine if a veteran household is at risk of homelessness? Is the additional

information unique to each of the VAMCs in the demonstration, or is some of it similar

or identical?

͹ What system do the VAMC caseworkers involved with VHPD use while they work directly

with clients? Can they see client information that is already in the system while they

work with clients?

͹ Can grantee managers access their own data after they go to HMIS? How are VAMC

managers using client data to assess performance for the VHPD project as a whole, for

each individual client, and for specific subsets of clients?

͹ What type of informed consent is currently requested of enrollees regarding transferring

information about them to HMIS and HOMES? What fields are they asked to allow

transfer for, and to what uses of the data do they consent? What are they told about

uses of the data in identified versus deidentified form?

͹ What is the best or most useful approach to training or working out the necessary

arrangements for data access and informed consents?

• From CoCs and HMIS administrators—

͹ What are the size and geographic coverage of HMIS? What are the average point-in-time

and annual shelter use statistics, broken out by gender and family status; that is, for each

of the following groups separately: single men, single women, and families?

84

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix B

͹ What agencies report to HMIS? To be specific, how many emergency shelters are in the

CoC, what types of households do they serve, do they all report, does any other frontline

agency report to HMIS that would capture homeless people who were not using shelters

(for example, soup kitchens, health care for the homeless)?

͹ How complete are the data? How complete is the “veteran” field?

͹ On what timeline do agencies report—real time, monthly, quarterly?

͹ How easy is it for the HMIS administrator to generate reports from HMIS data other than

the standard Annual Performance Reports, and maybe quarterly performance reports,

for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP)? How long does

it take, and how many people need to be involved? If an administrator wanted to know

the utilization and length of stay of veterans compared with nonveterans, separately for

single adults and families, what would he or she have to do to get

that information?

͹ What type of informed consent does the CoC require participating agencies to use to

obtain permission to send data to HMIS? What fields are they being asked to allow

transfer for, and to what uses of the data do they consent? What are they told about

uses of the data in identified versus deidentified form?

͹ What would the research team need to do to be able to search HMIS for a veteran’s

entry into shelter following participation in VHPD for all VHPD participants and some

veterans who did not participate in VHPD?

͹ How might it be possible for the research team to use HMIS data to identify a

comparison group of households who received HPRP-prevention rental assistance and

check their subsequent shelter use? This comparison would ideally involve using HPRP

enrollment data to select nonveteran households most similar to VHPD participants,

determining what rental assistance they received from HPRP and when it ended,

whether they entered a shelter in the local CoC within 6 months of the end of that

assistance, and whether any of their entry characteristics predicted their eventual

shelter use. Could the HMIS administrator run such an analysis with the help of the

research team to make sure all the data remain secure within HMIS? Or could the

research team receive an exported dataset, with the data deidentified (that is, no names

or other identifying information for HPRP participants) but containing selected variables,

for the researchers to analyze? What would it take for one or the other of these things

to happen? (Administrators were asked to note that the timeframe for these activities

would be at least a year in the future, so they had time to work out arrangements and

permissions.)

Key Informant Interviews

The research team conducted a series of interviews with key informants, including program staff and

other key stakeholders, such as the following:

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

85

Appendix B

• VHPD grantee staff (agency director; program director; direct line workers doing intake,

assessment, housing search, placement, and stabilization and ongoing case management; data

and management information people).

• VAMC staff (VHPD director, director of all VA homeless assistance, VHPD caseworkers; clinical

staff, as appropriate).

• CoC representatives (convener; HMIS administrator; others, as appropriate).

• One-Stop Career Centers/workforce development staff (director, staff working directly with

VHPD households).

• Veterans advocacy organizations, if they were independent of the VHPD provider.

• Other stakeholders suggested or recommended by local informants.

Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour. In most cases, two researchers participated in each

interview, with one researcher leading the interview and the other serving as the dedicated notetaker.

Interviews were not audio recorded.

The research team developed a field discussion guide for use at each of the program sites that enabled

researchers to consistently assess across programs how VHPD was implemented at each of the program

partners and to determine what differences and similarities existed across sites. Interviews were

semistructured, however, meaning that, although they were guided by a predetermined list of questions,

the researchers allowed for flexibility to discuss other relevant issues that came up on site. All research staff were trained in administering the interview guides.

Although the topics covered during the first and second interview waves were similar, the first interview

wave, conducted during the earlier implementation site visit, focused more on gaining detailed

knowledge of how each site implemented the VHPD program locally, and knowledge gained from the

second wave of interviews enabled the researchers to see if and how implementation changed over time

at these program sites. Our VHPD stakeholder guides included the following topics.

• Program participants:

͹ Pathways to enrollment in VHPD—identification and outreach, recruitment.

͹ Screening and eligibility determination; how the “but for” guidance was implemented.

͹ Processes of assistance—assessment, case plan development and support for

implementation, primary and secondary goals, follow-up, reassessments.

͹ Types and levels of assistance—months of rental assistance, types and length of

supportive services.

͹ Data entry and tracking.

• Service agencies and systems:

͹ Program structure, partners, relationships with other aspects of the homeless and other

assistance systems; how this particular structure and participants were selected for each

VHPD community.

86

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix B

͹ Role of VA, workforce development, and the primary housing/service partner in

VHPD in the community, historical relationships that may have eased or complicated

implementation of VHPD, perceived value to the VA and homeless systems of new

relationships developed and/or new systems brought into interaction.

͹ Interactions and approaches to integrating housing and services receipt across VHPD

partners (and others, if relevant).

͹ System changes already accomplished, plans and implications for future joint work.

The full key informant interview instruments can be found in appendixes C (round 1) and D (round 2).

Focus Groups With Program Participants

During the second wave of site visits, the research team conducted focus groups with veterans who

had enrolled in the study and received services through VHPD. Veterans received a $50 incentive to

participate in the focus group. The focus group discussions lasted no more than 2 hours and were

moderated by a member of the research team using a semistructured guide. The moderator guide

covered the following topics.

• Reasons for housing instability and pathways to VHPD:

͹ Challenges faced by veterans when returning from their tour of duty.

͹ The nature of their housing challenges.

͹ Reasons for seeking help.

͹ How they learned about VHPD.

͹ The effectiveness of outreach in their area.

• Experiences with VHPD, services received, and effectiveness of those services:

͹ Veterans’ overall impressions of the VHPD program.

͹ What services veterans were able to access through the grantees, VA, and DOL.

͹ How veterans’ housing situations changed since entering VHPD.

͹ Aspects of VHPD veterans found to be most helpful.

͹ Veterans’ recommendations for additions or changes to VHPD.

͹ Veterans’ beliefs concerning VHPD’s impact on their long-term housing stability.

The full focus group discussion guide is in appendix E.

All the focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were used for data

analysis. The research team limited recruitment of focus group participants to the pool of VHPD

veterans who enrolled in the study because team members had their contact information and consent

to contact them about focus group participation. The researchers tried to recruit enough veterans for

the focus groups to have two groups in each site. They were able to conduct two focus groups in all but

the earliest site (Tacoma). When the number of veterans enrolled in the study and their demographic

characteristics permitted, they conducted focus groups with a certain target population (for example, a

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

87

Appendix B

group comprising Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)/ Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation New

Dawn (OND) veterans only). Table B.1 shows the number of groups conducted and whether any target-

population-specific focus groups were conducted. Overall, the researchers conducted nine focus groups

with 49 total participants and had three target- population-specific groups: two groups with OEF/OIF/

OND veterans and one group with women veterans.

Table B.1

VHPD Round 2 Site Visit Focus Group Details

Tacoma

Central Texas

San Diego

Tampa

Upstate

Northern New

York

Site visit start date

9-Jul-13

6-Aug-13

12-Aug-13

22-Aug-13

7-Nov-13

Site visit end date

12-Jul-13

8-Aug-13

14-Aug-13

23-Aug-13

8-Nov-13

Number of focus groups

1

2

2

2

2

Number of participants

6

9

14

10

10

Non-OEF/OIF/

Focus group target

OEF/OIF/OND

Not targeted

Not targeted

OND

Not targeted

population

Women

Not targeted

OEF = Operation Enduring Freedom. OIF = Operation Iraqi Freedom. OND = Operation New Dawn.

88

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix C

Appendix C. Round 1 Key Informant

Interview Instrument

Table C.1

Potential Respondents

Potential Respondents

Respondent type

Agency name

Respondent role

What they might know

General program activities Selection/

requirements for screening and

VHPD grantee

policy/community level

assessment tools/data elements

What the grantee requires Use of data

for monitoring and evaluation

Program activities

Screener and assessment tools VHPD

VHPD subgrantees

practice/direct service

data collection and entry

Use of data for monitoring and

evaluation

How VHPD fits in community response

Continuum of care

General program activities

policy/community level

(agency lead)

Use of data for monitoring and

evaluation

How VHPD fits into ten-year planning

efforts

Ten-year planning effort

policy/community level

General program activities

to end homelessness

Use of data for monitoring and

evaluation

Use of data for monitoring and

evaluation

HMIS administration

Specific data elements

policy/community level

(agency lead)

Challenges with HMIS or client database

What screener/assessment information

is entered into database

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

89

Appendix C

Table C.1

Potential Respondents (continued)

Potential Respondents

Respondent type

Agency name

Respondent role

What they might know

Referral of VHPD households

policy/community level

Local VA medical center

Systems integration with homeless

services

or health care facility

practice/direct service

Provision of other services to VHPD

households

Referral of VHPD households

Systems integration with homeless

Local DOL office or

services

practice/direct service

workforce board

Provision of other services to VHPD

households

Any activities to prevent homelessness

Interview Goals

✓ Understand how the site conducts outreach and how participants enter the program.

✓ Understand how the site is targeting VHPD and what the program eligibility requirements are

beyond HUD guidelines. Understand the screening and assessment process.

✓ Understand how the site defines “imminent risk” of homelessness (e.g., follows the “but for this

assistance the household would be homeless” criterion).

✓ Understand what types of housing subsidies and services grantees/subgrantees provide

participants.

✓ Understand what types of data the community is tracking and how they are using them.

✓ Understand how well the implementation is going in the community.

Interview Introduction

Hello, my name is _______________________, and I am part of a team of researchers from the Urban

Institute that is working on a study for HUD of the Veteran Homelessness Prevention Demonstration

(VHPD). Thank you for agreeing to meet today. I’m going to start the interview by providing an overview

of the study, then I will review our informed consent procedures:

• The study focuses on how communities across the country have implemented VHPD.

• We have questions about program design, implementation, and outcomes.

90

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix C

• The information collected during the study will be used to help inform the development of

future prevention programs.

• This is your chance to convey your experiences and opinions to HUD.

• Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any questions.

• All the information you provide will be confidential, and we will not share it with anyone except

for research staff working on the study.

• We will not quote you by name in project case studies or reports. Should HUD request to see

any of our notes from our interviews, we would remove all personally identifying information to

prevent those outside the research team from knowing who provided the information.

• We will be drafting a memo summarizing findings from our visits to all five sites, and your

answers contribute to the information that goes into the grantee memo.

• Everyone working on the research team has signed a confidentiality form agreeing to these

terms.

• Do you have any questions?

Okay, let’s get started.

Grantee/Subgrantee Module

1. AGENCY ROLE IN VHPD

• Please describe your agency’s role in VHPD.

• What type of agency are you?

• What types of services do you provide?

• What geographic area does your agency serve?

• Where does your agency fit in the community?

• Is your agency active in the local ten-year plan or CoC?

2. PATHWAYS TO ENROLLMENT IN VHPD

• How do VHPD participants enter the program?

• Do you do outreach to recruit participants into VHPD? If so, please describe. Are any specific

populations (e.g., OEF/OIF, females, families) being targeted during this outreach?

• Are there agencies in the community that refer eligible participants to the program? If so, please

describe the referral process.

3. INTAKE: SCREENING AND ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION

• What are the income eligibility requirements for VHPD?

• Are there other eligibility requirements for VHPD?

• How do you decide that the household would be homeless “but for this assistance?”

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

91

Appendix C

• Is there a formal screening process for households applying for VHPD? Please describe.

• I’ve obtained your screening form ahead of time and would like to review it with you. Can you

tell me how it works?

[Note to interviewer: Review the screening form with respondent.]

• What types of information are collected?

• Is this a common screening form used by all VHPD providers?

• Of all households screened, about what proportion are found eligible?

4. ASSESSMENT FOR PREVENTION ASSISTANCE

• Is there an assessment process that households applying for VHPD must go through?

• I’ve obtained your assessment form ahead of time and would like to review it with you. Can you

tell me how it works?

[Note to interviewer: Review the assessment form with respondent.]

• How do you use the assessment form? (e.g., to decide final eligibility, to assess needs and match

services, for ongoing case management?)

5. PREVENTION ASSISTANCE: TYPES AND LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE

• What types of financial assistance does your agency offer?

• If providing ongoing rental assistance: how is the rental assistance structured?

͹ How does your agency decide on the amount of rental assistance each household will

get, and for how long?

͹ What expectations are households given for what they may ultimately receive?

͹ Is it the same for all target populations? If not, what is different?

• What types of supportive services does your agency offer?

͹ Do you provide these services or make referrals? If referrals, please describe.

• If providing case management: how is the case management structured?

͹ How are case management visits conducted (i.e., telephone, home visits, office visits?)

͹ How long and frequent are case manager meetings with VHPD prevention clients?

͹ For how many months does your agency provide case management?

͹ Is case management offered after the housing subsidy ends?

͹ Are case management services the same for all target populations? If not, what’s

different?

͹ How do you decide which clients receive case management?

• What challenges have you experienced in serving veterans for this program?

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

92

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix C

• Engaging veterans with mental health issues (PTSD, TBI, etc.)

• Dishonorable discharge

• VA benefits backlog

6. DATA ENTRY AND TRACKING

• Is your agency entering VHPD into HMIS?

• What types of information does your agency collect about VHPD and enter into HMIS?

• HUD-required HPRP data elements?

• Other data elements?

• Information from screening?

• Information from assessment?

• Information from financial services or case management activities?

• Information on participants who apply but do not receive VHPD?

7. LOCAL PARTNERS AND SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

• Please tell me about your VHPD partners.

͹ How is the local VA involved?

• Describe your partnership with the VA. Is it new? How strong is it? Will it last?

• Has this partnership changed your approach to preventing homelessness?

• Has it changed your approach in other ways?

͹ How is the local DOL involved?

• Describe your partnership with the DOL. Is it new? How strong is it? Will it last? Has

the relationship improved since the last time we talked? How so?

• Has this partnership changed your approach to preventing homelessness?

• Has it changed your approach in other ways?

͹ Are there other community partners?

• Describe your partnership with the community partner. Is it new? How strong is it?

Will it last?

• Has this partnership changed your approach to preventing homelessness?

• Has it changed your approach in other ways?

8. IMPLEMENTATION

• When did you begin the program?

• About how many participants have enrolled so far?

• How many have you deemed ineligible so far?

• How effective do you think VHPD has been in preventing homelessness?

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

93

Appendix C

• Please describe some of the implementation challenges you encountered during early

implementation. What did you do, if anything, to overcome those challenges?

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

• Uneven case management (across subgrantees if applicable)

• Serving large service areas

• Grantee oversight of subgrantees (if applicable)

• HMIS data entry, management, and quality

• Please describe some of your early implementation successes.

• What types of technical assistance from HUD would be helpful?

VA Module

1. ABOUT THE AGENCY

• Please tell me about your agency.

• What types of services do you provide?

2. AGENCY ROLE IN VHPD

• Please describe your agency’s role in VHPD.

• What geographic area does your agency serve?

• What types of services do you provide to VHPD participants?

• What challenges have you experienced in serving veterans for this program?

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

• Engaging veterans with mental health issues (PTSD, TBI, etc.)

• Dishonorable discharge

• VA benefits backlog

• Does your agency enter VHPD data into HMIS?

3. AGENCY ROLE IN COMMUNITY

• Where does your agency fit in the community?

• Is your agency involved in the CoC?

• Is your agency involved in the local ten-year planning efforts?

4. PARTNERSHIP WITH GRANTEE/SUBGRANTEE AND HOMELESSNESS PROVIDER COMMUNITY

• Please describe your partnership with the VHPD grantee/subgrantee. Is it new? Is it strong? Will

it last?

94

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix C

• Has your involvement in VHPD changed your approach in addressing the needs of homeless

veterans?

5. IMPLEMENTATION

• How effective do you think VHPD has been in preventing homelessness?

• Please describe some of the implementation challenges you encountered during early

implementation. What did you do, if anything, to overcome those challenges?

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

• Uneven case management (across subgrantees if applicable)

• Serving large service areas

• Grantee oversight of subgrantees (if applicable)

• Please describe some of your early implementation successes.

• What types of technical assistance from HUD would be helpful?

DOL Module

1. ABOUT THE AGENCY

• Please tell me about your agency.

• What type of services do you provide?

2. AGENCY ROLE IN VHPD

• Please describe your agency’s role in VHPD.

• What geographic area does your agency serve?

• What types of services do you provide to VHPD participants?

• What challenges have you experienced in serving veterans for this program?

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

• Engaging veterans with mental health issues (PTSD, TBI, etc.)

• Dishonorable discharge

• VA benefits backlog

• Does your agency enter VHPD data into HMIS?

3. AGENCY ROLE IN COMMUNITY

• Where does your agency fit in the community?

• Is your agency involved in the CoC?

• Is your agency involved in the local ten-year planning efforts?

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

95

Appendix C

4. PARTNERSHIP WITH GRANTEE/SUBGRANTEE AND HOMELESSNESS PROVIDER COMMUNITY

• Please describe your partnership with the VHPD grantee/subgrantee. Is it new? Is it strong? Will

it last?

• Has your involvement in VHPD changed your approach in serving the homeless population?

5. IMPLEMENTATION

• How effective do you think VHPD has been in preventing homelessness?

• Please describe some of the implementation challenges you encountered during early

implementation. What did you do, if anything, to overcome those challenges?

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

• Uneven case management (across subgrantees if applicable)

• Serving large service areas

• Grantee oversight of subgrantees (if applicable)

• Please describe some of your early implementation successes.

• What types of technical assistance from HUD would be helpful?

HMIS Administrator Module

1. LOCAL HMIS SYSTEM

• Please describe the local HMIS system.

͹ Is it an “open” or “closed” system?

͹ What type of software do you use?

͹ What is the coverage rate for shelters and transitional housing?

͹ What is the bed coverage rate?

2. HMIS ENTRY FOR VHPD

• What types of information do grantees/subgrantees collect about VHPD and enter into HMIS?

• HUD-required HPRP data elements?

• Other data elements?

• Information from screening?

• Information from assessment?

• Information from financial services or case management activities?

• Information on participants who apply but do not receive VHPD?

96

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix C

3. HMIS IMPLEMENTATION

• How successful is local HMIS implementation for VHPD?

• Are all grantees and subgrantees reporting into the system?

• Is the VA reporting into the system? The DOL?

• What are some of the biggest challenges?

• What are some of the biggest successes?

• What types of technical assistance could HUD provide to help?

CoC Module

1. ABOUT THE AGENCY

• Please tell me about your CoC.

• What type of services do you provide?

• Does your CoC manage the HMIS?

2. AGENCY ROLE IN VHPD

• Please describe your CoC’s role in VHPD.

• What geographic area does your CoC serve?

• What types of services do you provide to VHPD participants?

• What challenges have you experienced in serving veterans for this program?

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

• Engaging veterans with mental health issues (PTSD, TBI, etc.)

• Dishonorable discharge

• VA benefits backlog

• Does your CoC enter VHPD data into HMIS?

3. AGENCY ROLE IN COMMUNITY

• Where does your CoC fit in the community?

• What types of programs operate within the CoC (e.g., shelter, transitional housing, etc.)?

• Is your CoC involved in the local ten-year planning efforts?

4. PARTNERSHIP WITH GRANTEE/SUBGRANTEE AND HOMELESSNESS PROVIDER COMMUNITY

• Please describe your partnership with the VHPD grantee/subgrantee. Is it new? Is it strong? Will

it last?

• Has your involvement in VHPD changed your approach to ending homelessness?

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

97

Appendix C

5. IMPLEMENTATION

• How effective do you think VHPD has been in preventing homelessness?

• Please describe some of the implementation challenges encountered during early

implementation.

͹ Probe on challenges identified in Interim Report:

• Uneven case management (across subgrantees if applicable)

• Serving large service areas

• Grantee oversight of subgrantees (if applicable)

• Please describe early implementation successes.

• What types of technical assistance from HUD would be helpful?

98

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix D

Appendix D. Round 2 Key Informant

Interview Instrument

Interview Goals

✓ Understand how the site conducts outreach and how participants enter the program.

✓ Understand how the site is targeting VHPD and what the program eligibility requirements are

beyond HUD guidelines. Understand the screening and assessment process.

✓ Understand how the site defines “imminent risk” of homelessness (e.g., follows the “but for this

assistance the household would be homeless” criterion).

✓ Understand what types of housing subsidies and services grantees/subgrantees provide

participants.

✓ Understand what types of data the community is tracking and how they are using them.

✓ Understand how well the implementation is going in the community.

Interview Introduction

Hello, my name is _______________________, and I am part of a team of researchers from the Urban

Institute that is working on a study for HUD of the Veteran Homelessness Prevention Demonstration

(VHPD). Thank you for agreeing to meet today. I’m going to start the interview by providing an overview

of the study, then I will review our informed consent procedures:

• The study focuses on how communities across the country have implemented VHPD.

• We have questions about program design, implementation, and outcomes.

• The information collected during the study will be used to help inform the development of

future prevention programs.

• This is your chance to convey your experiences and opinions to HUD.

• Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any questions.

• All the information you provide will be confidential, and we will not share it with anyone except

for research staff working on the study.

• We will not quote you by name in project case studies or reports. Should HUD request to see

any of our notes from our interviews, we would remove all personally identifying information to

prevent those outside the research team from knowing who provided the information.

• We will be drafting a memo summarizing findings from our visits to all five sites, and your

answers contribute to the information that goes into the grantee memo.

• Everyone working on the research team has signed a confidentiality form agreeing to these

terms.

• Do you have any questions?

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

99

Appendix D

Okay, let’s get started.

1. What have been some of your successes?

2. What have been some of your challenges?

3. How has collaboration changed?

4. How do veterans differ from nonveterans?

a. There are veterans quite young that are coming out as well as women veterans and

veterans with families. What are the differences in serving those groups?

5. If you could change the program, how would you change it?

6. How do you see this program linking to your community’s plan to end homelessness?

7. Is there a plan for how to fill the gap after VHPD winds down?

100

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix E

Appendix E. Focus Group Guide

VHPD Study Focus Group Protocol

Introduction

Welcome and thank you for coming.

Let me start by thanking you for your service to our country.

We asked you all here today to participate in this focus group to discuss your experiences with the

Veteran Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD). We are collecting this information as part of a

study funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The focus group will last

about an hour and a half. At the end of the session, you will receive $50 as a token of our appreciation

for your participation.

During the session, I will be asking questions about your military experience, your thoughts on VHPD,

and services that might be helpful to you in the future. This is a discussion, not a survey, so you can feel free to talk amongst yourselves and respond to what others are saying. Please make sure to be respectful

of other people’s opinions. Occasionally I will jump in to moderate the conversation. Please note that

you do not have to answer all of the questions. Importantly, we ask everyone here today to respect

people’s privacy. Although we cannot control what people say after they leave, what is said in the room

should stay in the room. We will only use first names for today’s discussion, and you do not have to use

your real name if you prefer. At the end of the session, we will type up the notes and make transcripts of

the discussion. Should HUD request to see any of our notes or transcripts, we will remove all personally

identifying information to prevent those outside the research team from knowing who provided the

information. The information will also be included in a report to HUD. The information you provide will

be kept confidential and only used for this study to the extent allowed by the Privacy Act of 1974. This

is a chance, however, to get your voice heard, since HUD will use this information to help improve the

VHPD program and other homeless prevention programs like it.

Any questions about the study, or why we are here for this focus group?

Before we go on, I need everyone to read the consent form in front of you and, if you agree with the

terms, go ahead and sign it. Let me review the terms.

[Moderator should read consent form.]

Does anyone have questions?

Opening

• First, I’d like to start with some introductions. Please tell us your first name or another name

you’d prefer to use for this discussion, where you served, and how long you’ve been home since

your last tour of duty.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

101

Appendix E

Reasons for Housing Instability and Pathways to VHPD

• Please describe some of the big challenges you faced when returning from serving your tour

of duty. [Probe for adjusting to family life, financial trouble, finding employment, finding or

maintaining housing.]

[The following are probes that will be used for focus groups with particular subgroups, if it is possible

to construct such groups:]

͹ Specific probe for veterans with families only: Were there challenges that were related

to you specifically because you have children to take care of?

͹ Specific probe for women: Were there challenges that were related to you specifically

because you are women?

͹ Specific probe for veterans of OEF/OIF/OND: How do you think your experiences as an

OEF/OIF veteran differed from those who served before you in the Vietnam War?

• When did your housing struggles start?

͹ [Probe for immediately on return or sometime after.]

• What led you to seek help? [Probe for loss of a job or housing, etc.]

• How did you hear about VHPD?

• When programs are trying to inform veterans about services like VHPD, what are good ways for

them to reach out to veterans?

Experiences with VHPD, Services Received, and Effectiveness of Those Services

• What are some of your overall impressions of the VHPD program?

• Has VHPD helped you access additional services through the VA and the Department of Labor/

Workforce Center? If so, how and what types of services?

• What services did you get from the [name of VHPD grantee organization]? How helpful were

they?

• How has your situation changed since starting the VHPD program?

͹ Probe for housing security, job skills/employment, mental and physical health, benefit

receipt, financial situation, education.

• Looking back, which aspects of VHPD do you think have been most helpful in getting you to this

point?

͹ Probe: financial assistance, case management, referrals

͹ For OEF/OIF/OND only: How do you think the needs of OIF/OEF/OND veterans differ

from veterans from previous wars?

• Did you experience any challenges working with the program? If so could you describe them?

Prospects for the Future

• What types of services would be helpful to you in the future?

• How do you think the VHPD program will affect your housing stability long-term?

102

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix F

Appendix F. Baseline Survey Methods

Enrollment for the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) evaluation began on

September 11, 2012, and ended October 7, 2013. Veterans were recruited for the study by local VHPD

case managers at the time of intake. The research team created training and outreach materials to help

case managers explain the study and administer the informed consent form. Conference calls were also

held with local program staff to train them on recruitment procedures. VHPD program staff submitted

consent forms with veterans’ contact information to the survey firm, Silber & Associates, on a weekly

basis via 2-day tracked Federal Express packages. The survey interviewing staff began to contact veterans

for the study as soon as their consent form was received by Silber & Associates. The baseline survey

was conducted with veterans over the telephone by using computer-assisted telephone interviewing

technology.

The baseline survey took about 30 minutes to complete and was designed to measure various baseline

characteristics to provide insight into veterans’ current status across various demographic and housing

status measures at intake. The research team also looked at various VHPD outcome measures on which

researchers anticipated VHPD services would have an effect. The topics covered in the baseline survey

included the following:

• Military history—date of discharge, discharge status, exposure to combat, number of

deployments, challenges reintegrating into civilian life, respondent’s perception of impact of

military experiences on housing situation.

• Housing status—nature of current housing, housing stability, housing costs, brief homeless

history.

• Household composition.

• Education and training—highest level of education or training completed, current involvement in

educational programming.

• Income level, sources, and noncash benefits for head of household and all other adults in the

household.

• Employment, current and brief history; history and reasons for any unemployment, disabilities

that prevented veterans from working.

• Housing costs—rent and mortgage payment amounts, utilities, government housing assistance.

• Family health and well-being, including disabilities, mental, emotional, and/or substance use

problems.

• Client demographics—race, age, marital status.

The full baseline survey instrument is in appendix G.

Please note that appendix G (baseline survey instrument) and appendix I (follow-up survey instrument)

reproduce screen shots of the survey as it appeared to interviewers as they administered the survey.

Most of the survey items are blank, but some of the survey items show test responses that were entered

for training purposes. These responses were not entered by study respondents.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

103

104

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

Appendix G. Baseline Survey Instrument

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

These questions are about your situation now that you have begun to participate in the Veterans Homeless Prevention Demonstration Project. Most of my questions are yes/no-type questions.

1.

I’m going to be asking you questions that refer to your local VHPD program. These questions will work best if I can use the names that you cal the agencies that are part of the program.

Could you please tel me what you cal :

a.

The VA medical center where you may get health care

b.

The program that provides rent assistance and other help with housing and benefits

c.

The Worksource Center that you may use for help finding work or improving your job situation

2.

What is the address where you are currently living?

Street

City

State

Zip code

3.

Is that the address we should use to send you the $30 we will pay you for your participation in this interview?

Yes

No

3a. If no, to what address should we send payment

Street

City

State

Zip code

4

When were you discharged from the military, Reserves, or National Guard?

Specify --> Month: --

Year:

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 9:07:25 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

105

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION A: Housing at VHPD Program

Homelessness Prevention

Entry and Housing History

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

I'd like to ask you a few questions first about your living situation.

A1

Are you currently living in your own place? I mean a house or apartment that's in your name or your partner's.

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

A1a Do you own that place, or do you rent it?

Own it

Rent it

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 9:15:27 AM]

106

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION A: Housing at VHPD Program

Homelessness Prevention

Entry and Housing History

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

I'd like to ask you a few questions first about your living situation.

A1

Are you currently living in your own place? I mean a house or apartment that's in your name or your partner's.

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

A2

Is it someone else’s place, for instance, the place of your parents, other relatives, or friends?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 9:16:07 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

107

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION A: Housing at VHPD Program

Homelessness Prevention

Entry and Housing History

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

A3

Could you tell me, then, which one of the following best describes your living situation now? I’ll start reading some possibilities—stop me when I read the one that best describes your currently living situtation.

[INTERVIEWER: READ OPTIONS UNTIL RESPONDENT INDICATES THE RIGHT ONE, AND MARK THAT ANSWER]

An emergency shelter or domestic violence shelter

A voucher hotel or motel (paid for by a homeless or government program)

Housing paid for by the VA’s Grant & Per Diem program

A transitional housing program

Anywhere not meant for habitation—e.g., a car, truck, RV, or trailer; an abandoned building, in parks, on the streets, in camping grounds, anywhere outside

A hotel or motel you paid for yourself

A VA residential drug or alcohol treatment program—only for vets

A residential drug or alcohol treatment program for anyone—not just for vets

A VA hospital

Any other hospital—i.e., not a hospital run by the VA

Jail or prison

A permanent housing program for people with disabilities who have been homeless, with services and caseworkers to help you keep your housing

OTHER --> SPECIFY:

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 9:17:30 AM]

108

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION A: Housing at VHPD Program

Homelessness Prevention

Entry and Housing History

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

A4

How long have you been living there?

Less than 1 month

1 to 3 months

4 to 6 months

7 to 12 months

1 year or more

Don't Know

Refused

A9

How would you describe the condition of your current house, apartment, or living space? Would you say it was in excellent, good, fair, or poor condition?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't Know

Refused

A18 Including the place you are living now, how many different places have you lived after you left the military?

1 place-just the place I am living now

2 places

3 places

4 places

5 or more places

Don't Know

Refused

A18a Besides the place you are living now, since you left the military did you live or stay...

[READ RESPONSES AND MARK “YES” OR “NO” FOR ALL THAT APPLY.]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

A18a1

In my own place (lease was in your name or you owned it)

A18a2

In someone else’s place (relative, partner, or friend)

A18a3

In a shelter for homeless people/victims of domestic violence

A18a4

In my car/truck, abandoned building, somewhere outside, or a

place not meant for habitation

A18a5

In a hospital treatment program, jail, prison, other institution

A18a6

Some other type of place

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 9:26:28 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

109

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION A: Housing at VHPD Program

Homelessness Prevention

Entry and Housing History

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

A19 Have you ever been homeless—that is, living or sleeping in an emergency shelter, transitional housing program, your car or truck, anywhere outside, or in another place not meant for human habitation.

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

A20 How often have you been homeless in your lifetime—that is, living or sleeping in an emergency shelter, transitional housing program, your car or truck, anywhere outside, or in another place not meant for human habitation?

Once

Twice

Three times

Four or more times

Don't Know

Refused

A21 How old were you the first time you were homeless? [INTERVIEWER if R uncertain, read “by homeless, I mean living or sleeping in an emergency shelter, transitional housing program, your car or truck, anywhere outside, or in another place not meant for human habitation]

Eleven or younger

12-15

16-17

18-19

20-24

25-34

35 or older

Don't Know

Refused

A22 Adding up all the times you've been homeless, would you say you have been homeless for at least 12 months in your lifetime?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 9:39:16 AM]

110

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION B: Household Composition

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the people you have lived or stayed with after you left the military.

B4

Please tel me al the people you live with now. [Mark al that apply]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

B4a

You live by yourself, no one else lives with you

Your children (if asked, “including someone else’s children you were

responsible for”)

B4b

How Many?

2

Someone else’s children (not your responsibility)

B4c

How Many?

2

B4d

Your spouse

B4e

Your boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner

B4f

Your parent(s) or your spouse/partner/boy/girlfriend’s parent(s)

B4g

Other relatives of yours or your spouse/partner/boy/girlfriend’s

B4h

Friends

B4i

Roommates

B4j

Lodger(s), Boarder(s), anyone else

B4k How many adults and how many children would that be, in total, counting yourself?

Number of adults (18 and older):

1

Number of children (17 or younger):

1

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:00:44 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

111

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION B: Household Composition

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

B6

Thinking about the children who live with you now and for whom you have responsibility, how many of them are ...

B6a Aged 0 (newborn) through 5?

Number of children?

Don't know

Refused

B6b Aged 6 through 17?

Number of children?

Don't know

Refused

B6c Adults—that is, aged 18 or older?

Number of children?

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:03:06 AM]

112

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

Section D: Education and Training

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

D1

At the time you began to fill out your application for , what was the highest level of education you had completed?

8th grade or lesser

9th, 10th, or 11th grade, did not complete GED or get high school diploma

Completed GED

High School Diploma

Some college or a 2-year degree

Finished 4-year degree

Master's degree or equivalent

Other

Don't Know

Refused

D3

At the time you began to fil out your application for , did you have any type of vocational license or certification from a training or educational program?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

D4

Are you now participating in any additional schooling or training program that (has) lasted at least two weeks that was designed to help you find a job, improve your job skills, or learn a new job?

[INTERVIEWER: If R is usual y in school or training but at the time of the interview is not-e.g. because no summer school is offered-record answer as yes]

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:12:28 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

113

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

Section D: Education and Training

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

D5

What kind of schooling or training is that? [MARK ALL THAT APPLY]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

D5a

Regular schooling leading to a degree (AA, BA, etc.)

D5b

Regular schooling leading to a vocational or professional license or

certification

D5c

General equivalency diploma (GED)

D5d

English as a second language (ESL)

D5e

Computer training

D5f

Apprenticeship / on-the-job training

D5g

Vocational rehabilitation

D5h

Other

D6

Did _________________ help you get that schooling / training? [Insert each program name in turn]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

D6a

D6b

D6c

D6d

Other agency

D7

Is the Post 9/11 GI Bill helping to pay your tuition and/or other school costs?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:18:59 AM]

114

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

E1

Have you or anyone in your household received any income from any source in past 30 days?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

E2

In the past 30 days, have you or anyone in your household received any income from ...?

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refuse

Know

E2a

Income from a job

E2b

Unemployment Insurance

E2c

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

E2d

Social Security Disability Income (SSDI)

E2e

Veterans pension/payment from the VA

E2f

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (or CalWorks in

California)

E2h

Money from family or friends

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:23:36 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

115

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

E3

In the past 30 days, did the Post 9/11 GI Bil , an education or training al owance from the VA, or a scholarship or grant provide you with income or tuition that you could use to cover expenses?

Yes

Usually yes, but no classes right now

No

Don't know

Refused

E4b What was your household's total income in the past 30 days?

Amount Per Month --> 500

.00

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:27:51 AM]

116

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

E3

In the past 30 days, did the Post 9/11 GI Bil , an education or training al owance from the VA, or a scholarship or grant provide you with income or tuition that you could use to cover expenses?

Yes

Usually yes, but no classes right now

No

Don't know

Refused

E4b What was your household's total income in the past 30 days?

Amount Per Month --> 500

.00

Don't know

Refused

E4b1 Can you give me range? Was your total household income last month:

Under $500 per month

$500 to < $750

$750 to < $1000

$1000 to < $1500

$1500 to < $2000

More than $2000 per month

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:43:21 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

117

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

E5

In the past 30 days, did you or anyone in your household receive (or are you on) any of the fol owing benefits: Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E5a

Food Stamps (officially called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP))

E5b

Medicaid health insurance program (Medi-Cal for San Diego)

E5c

Medicare health insurance program

E5d

Children’s Health Insurance Program (in Washington and Texas);

KidCare (in Florida); Child Health Plus (in New York); Healthy

Families Program (in California)

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:49:48 AM]

118

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

E6

Did _________________ help you access those benefits? [Insert each program name in turn]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E6a

E6b

E6c

E6d

Another agency

Now I’d like to ask a few questions about any jobs you may have.

E7

Last week, did you do any work for pay?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:50:23 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

119

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:1,5:4

E6

Did _________________ help you access those benefits? [Insert each program name in turn]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E6a

E6b

E6c

E6d

Another agency

Now I’d like to ask a few questions about any jobs you may have.

E7

Last week, did you do any work for pay?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

E8

Have you been doing anything to find work during the past four weeks?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

E9

What is the main reason that you did not work for pay or look for work last week?

[INTERVIEWER: Allow R to respond spontaneously and Mark ONLY ONE response. If R mentions multiple response options, INTERVIEWER repeat response options that the R indicated “Would that be… (response A, response B, response C)? And ask them to choose the main reason]

Unable to work because of housing problems

Unable to work for health reasons related to military service

Unable to work for health reasons unrelated to military service

Has job but temporarily absent/seasonal work

Couldn’t find any work

Couldn’t find a job that pays enough

Child care problems

Family responsibilities

In school or other training

Waiting for a new job to begin

Had enough money from other sources

Retired

Disabled

Other (specify):

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 10:52:16 AM]

120

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:1,5:4

E12b After you left the military, how much of the time have you had a job or done some work for pay?

Al or almost al of the time

Most of the time

About half of the time

Some of the time

Almost none or none of the time

Don't know

Refused

E14 Were you working for pay at the time you began filling out your application for ?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 11:11:48 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

121

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION E: Income and Employment

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:4

E15a About how long have you been working at that job?

Specify --> Number of months:

Number of years:

Don't know

Refused

E15b Did _________________ help you get that job? [Insert each program name in turn, record answer]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E15b1

E15b2

E15b3

E15b4

Another agency

E17 How many hours per week do you usually work at your main job? By main job, I mean the one at which you usually work the most hours.

Specify --> Number of hours: -

Don't know

Refused

E20 after you left the military, how much of the time have you had a job or done some work for pay?

Al or almost al of the time

Most of the time

About half of the time

Some of the time

Almost none or none of the time

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 11:18:05 AM]

122

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION F: Housing Costs

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

F2

What is the total rent or mortgage on the place you are staying—the rent on the lease or the monthly mortgage payment, not just what you and your household pay?

Per Month: $

.00 (Four digits rounded to dollar; Expected range $1 - 3000)

Don't know

Refused

F2a Can you give me a range? Is the ful monthly rent or mortgage payment:

Under $500 per month

$500 to < $750

$750 to < $1000

$1000 to < $1500

$1500 to < $2000

More than $2000 per month

Don't know

Refused

F3

In the month just past, what did you and your family pay in rent or for your mortgage. Tel me just the amount you and your family paid without including any outside help you got from a government agency or someone helping you.

Per Month: $

.00 (Four digits rounded to dollar; Expected range $1 - 3000)

Don't know

Refused

F3a Can you give me a range? Is your own family’s monthly rent or mortgage payment:

Under $500 per month

$500 to < $750

$750 to < $1000

$1000 to < $1500

$1500 to < $2000

More than $2000 per month

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[3/5/2013 3:25:39 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

123

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION F: Housing Costs

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

F4

Do you receive any assistance to pay rent from the government or from some other program?

[INTERVIEWER— this refers to any government program that might provide rental assistance, not just the VHPD provider]

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F8

In the last 12 months, has there been a time when you were unable to pay rent or mortgage? [INTERVIEWER—if asked, clarify—“by two weeks after it was due ”]

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F8a How often did this happen?

Once

Twice

Three or more times

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 11:45:36 AM]

124

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION F: Housing Costs

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

F10 Do you pay for any utilities that are not included as part of the rent or mortgage that you pay? By utilities, I mean electricity, heating oil, gas or propane, and water, but NOT telephone and cable services.

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F12 In the last 12 months, has there been a time when you were unable to pay utility bills—that is, electricity, heating oil, gas or propane, and water, but NOT telephone and cable services.

[INTERVIEWER—if asked, clarify—“by two weeks after it was due”]

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F12a How often did this happen?

Once

Twice

Three or more times

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 11:48:37 AM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

125

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION H: Family Health and Well-Being

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

H1

Overall, how would you rate your health during the past month (that is the past 30 days)?

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't Know

Refused

H2

Please tel me about any health problems you may be experiencing at this time.

[INTERVIEWER: Record an answer for each health subquestion, even if it is Don't Know or Refused]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

H2a

Serious depression, anxiety, and/or tension

H2b

Being easily startled, not being able to relax your guard

H2c

Trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering

H2d

Trouble controlling anger or violent behavoir

H2e

Symptons of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

H2f

Trouble with use of alchohol or drugs

H2g

Problems dealing with the results of head injury/traumatic brain

injury (TBI)

H2h

Experiencing serious thoughts of suicide

H2i

Other

H3

Has _________________ been helping you with any of these health problems? [Insert each program name]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

H3a

H3b

H3c

H3d

Another agency

H4

Do you get health care from the VA or another source that serves veterans or active military personnel?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

H4a Do you have any non-military health insurance that pays for health care when you need it?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 11:49:48 AM]

126

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION I: Veteran Status/Military

Homelessness Prevention

Experience

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

I1

Have you ever been on active-duty military services in the Armed Forces of the United States or ever been in the United States military Reserves or the National Guard? Active duty does not include training in the reserves or National Guard.

Yes, on active duty in the Armed Forces of the US in the past, but not now

Yes, active duty, in the Reserves or National Guard only

No

Don't Know

Refused

I3

Did you serve in the theatre of operations for any of the following military conflicts? That is, did you serve within the geographic proximity of the military conflict. We’ll ask next if you were exposed to conflict itself.

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

I3a

World War II

I3b

Korean War

I3c

Vietnam War

I3d

Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm)

I3e

Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)

I3f

Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)

I3g

Iraq (Operation New Dawn)

I3h

Other peace-keeping operations or military interventions (such as

Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo)

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:35:00 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

127

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION I: Veteran Status/Military

Homelessness Prevention

Experience

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

I4

During your military service, were you ever in or exposed to combat?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

I4a

Were you ever exposed to unfriendly or friendly fire?

Yes, a lot

Yes, a little

No

Don't Know

Refused

I4b

During your military service, how many times were you deployed to serve in combat?

0-1 deployments

2-3 deployments

More than 3 deployments

Don't Know

Refused

I5

In total, how many years of active duty military service did you serve?

Specify --> Number of years:

Don't know

Refused

I6

When you were discharged from military service, did you receive:

An honorable discharge

A general discharge, under honorable conditions

A general discharge, under other than honorable conditions

A bad conduct discharge

A dishonorable discharge

An uncharacterized or other discharge

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:38:07 PM]

128

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION I: Veteran Status/Military

Homelessness Prevention

Experience

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

I7

I'm going to read a list of possible challenges you faced when re-entering civilian life after you left the military. For each one, tell me yes or no.

[INSERT EACH OPTION BELOW IN TURN]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

I7a

Finding a job, or getting your old job back

I7b

Not being able to adjust to working in civilian jobs

I7c

Finding an affordable place to live

I7d

Dealing with physical illnesses and conditions

I7e

Getting through physical therapy/rehabilitation

I7f

Getting used to my new physical limitations

I7g

Letting down my guard, learning to relate to the world without

constant vigilance / expectation of danger

I7h

Dealing with emotional problems

I7i

Getting used to living with my family again

I7j

Finding my place—seemed like there was no place for me any more, I

couldn’t reconnect

I7k

Lack of social support

Something else SPECIFY -->

I7l

I7m

No challenges, haven’t had any problems

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:43:33 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

129

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

SECTION I: Veteran Status/Military

Homelessness Prevention

Experience

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

I8

After leaving the military, what period of time did you find the hardest to get through?

Right after being discharged

About six months to a year after being discharged

More than a year after being discharged

No time was hard, haven’t had any problems

Don't Know

Refused

I9

Has your military service had any impact on your ability to keep housing? In other words, has it increased your housing troubles, decreased your housing troubles, or had no effect?

Increased my chances of losing my housing

Had no effect

Decreased my chances of losing my housing

Don't Know

Refused

I9a

In what ways do you think your military experience might have decreased your chances of losing your

housing?

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:45:08 PM]

130

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION J: Demographics

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

J1

Is your ethnic background Hispanic or Latino?

Hispanic or Latino, or

Not Hispanic or Latino?

Don't Know

Refused

J2

What is your race? Do you think of yourself as: [INTERVIEWER: Mark all that apply]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

List Below

J2a

If volunteered: Multiracial

J2b

Alaska Native or American Indian

J2c

Asian

J2d

Black or African American

J2e

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or

J2f

White

J2g

Other:

Don't Know

Refused

J3

INTERVIEWER: Record Respondent's Gender:

Male

Female

Don't Know

Refused

J4

What is your Date of Birth / Age?

Date of Birth Month: --

Day:

Year:

Age -->

Don't Know

Refused

J5

What is your marital status?

Now Married

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Never Married

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:50:50 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

131

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:50:50 PM]

132

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION K: Contact Information

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

Thank you very much for your time today. To help us be able to get back in touch with you in the future, we would like to collect the names, telephone numbers and addresses of three people who will always know how to reach you. Please tell me about people who live at different addresses. This information wil be kept strictly confidential and wil only be used if we are unable to contact you.

K1

Could you tell us the name of someone who does not live with you and will always know how to contact you?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:56:23 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

133

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION K: Contact Information

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

CONTACT #1:

K2

What is his/her first name?

K2a What is his/her middle name?

K2b What is his/her last name?

K2c

Does his/her name have a suffix?

K3

What is (his/her) street address?

K3a Is there a complex/building name?

K3b Is there an apartment number?

K3c

In what city?

K3d In what state?

K3e What is the zip code?

K4

What is (his/her) home phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code:

K5

What is (his/her) cel phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code:

K6

What is (his/her) email address?

K7

What is (his/her) relationship to you?

Friend

Relative

Other -->

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:56:42 PM]

134

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION K: Contact Information

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

CONTACT #2:

K8

Could you tel us the name of a second person who does not live with you and wil always know how to contact you?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:57:03 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

135

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION K: Contact Information

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

CONTACT #2:

K8

Could you tel us the name of a second person who does not live with you and wil always know how to contact you?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

K9

What is his/her first name?

K9a What is his/her middle name?

K9b What is his/her last name?

K9c

Does his/her name have a suffix?

K10 What is (his/her) street address?

K10a Is there a complex/building name?

K10b Is there an apartment number?

K10c In what city?

K10d In what state?

K10e What is the zip code?

K11 What is (his/her) home phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code:

K12 What is (his/her) cel phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code:

K13 What is (his/her) email address?

K14 What is (his/her) relationship to you?

Friend

Relative

Other -->

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:57:26 PM]

136

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans

RID012/bohne

Homelessness Prevention

SECTION K: Contact Information

Demonstration (VHPD)

1:-1,2:2,3:1,4:2,5:1

CONTACT #3:

K15 Could you tell us the name of a third person who does not live with you and will always know how to contact you?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

K16 What is his/her first name?

K16a What is his/her middle name?

K16b What is his/her last name?

K16c Does his/her name have a suffix?

K17 What is (his/her) street address?

K17a Is there a complex/building name?

K17b Is there an apartment number?

K17c In what city?

K17d In what state?

K17e What is the zip code?

K18 What is (his/her) home phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code:

K19 What is (his/her) cel phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code:

K20 What is (his/her) email address?

K21 What is (his/her) relationship to you?

Friend

Relative

Other -->

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[2/27/2013 12:57:50 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

137

Appendix G

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

2012 Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

Thank you very much for your time today and for helping us with this study. Your answers

and those of people like you will help shape programs to continue the types of help you have

received from your VHPD program.

Submit Survey

http://fwsun.com:9474/survey.aspx[3/5/2013 3:38:40 PM]

138

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix H

Appendix H. Follow-Up Survey Methods

Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) study participants who completed the

baseline survey were contacted after program exit to participate in an outcomes survey. Silber &

Associates began fielding the outcomes survey 6 months after the first study participant exited the VHPD

program. The follow-up survey was in the field from mid-July 2013 to early October 2014.

For the survey firm to track study participants’ program exit dates in close to real time, the research

team asked the local program case management staff to submit forms for veterans who exited the

program containing the program entry and exit date information on a weekly basis to Silber & Associates for study participants exiting VHPD. These data were tracked so that outreach for each follow-up survey

began 6 months after the exit date reported by the program staff.

The follow-up survey included questions on topics similar to the baseline survey to allow for comparisons

between the two waves. The follow-up survey specifically addressed the following topics:

• Housing status at follow-up and experiences since baseline—nature of current housing, number

and type of places where the respondent had lived since baseline, homelessness incidence since

leaving VHPD.

• Household composition at follow-up.

• Education and training after program exit and since baseline, including any vocational training,

and whether that education or training led to employment opportunities.

• Income level at program exit, sources, and receipt of noncash benefits for anyone in the

respondent’s household.

• Employment after program exit and since baseline, current and brief history.

• Housing costs—rent and mortgage payment amounts, government housing assistance, and

whether the respondent ever struggled to pay rent or utilities between baseline and follow-up.

• Respondent mental health issues.

The full follow-up survey instrument is in appendix I.

Please note that appendix G (baseline survey instrument) and appendix I (follow-up survey instrument)

reproduce screen shots of the survey as it appeared to interviewers as they administered the survey.

Most of the survey items are blank, but some of the survey items show test responses that were entered

for training purposes. These responses were not entered by study respondents.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

139

140

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Appendix I. Follow-Up Survey Instrument

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

Hi, my name is susan. I’m cal ing from Silber & Associates, a research firm based in Baltimore. As you’l recal , we talked on 05/22/2013, just as you were enrolling in the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD), about your situation and your housing needs. I’m talking to people such as yourself who have participated in a program to help veterans keep their housing, or get back into housing if they have lost it. We are interested in learning about how things are for you now, and how VHPD may have helped, or may still be helping, you and your family.

As before, I’ll be asking you a series of questions about your living situation (housing, who lives with you), income and employment, housing cost, health and well-being, and anything that may be making it hard at present for you to stay stably housed. I’ll also be asking you about the VHPD program you participated in, and the ways you think the program has affected your current situation.

HUD, the VA, and the Department of Labor, the federal partners sponsoring VHPD, are very interested in helping veterans avoid homelessness. They hope to learn from your experiences with the VHPD program about the ways they might be able to help veterans who find themselves in need of help keep their housing. Your participation in this study wil help the VA and HUD to improve programs for veterans like you across the country. Your participation is voluntary; you may stop the interview at any time. If any question makes you feel uncomfortable, you can refuse to answer that question. The information you provide wil be kept confidential and only used for this study to the extent allowed by the Privacy Act of 1974.. The collection of this information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:46:27 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

141

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

SECTION A: Housing Now and Since

Demonstration (VHPD)

Baseline

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

A1

Are you living in the same place you were when we last talked, which was in 05/22/2013

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

A2

Have you and your family been living here the whole time since we last talked, which was in 05/22/2013

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:47:35 PM]

142

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

SECTION A: Housing Now and Since

Demonstration (VHPD)

Baseline

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

A3

How long have you lived or stayed in the place you are living now?

Less than 1 month

1 to 3 months

4 to 6 months

7 to 12 months

More than 12 months

Don't Know

Refused

A4

Are you currently living in your own place? I mean a house or apartment that's in your name or your partner's.

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

A5

Is it someone else’s place, for instance, the place of your parents, other relatives, or friends?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:48:00 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

143

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

SECTION A: Housing Now and Since

Demonstration (VHPD)

Baseline

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

A4A6 note

A6

Could you tell me, then, which one of the following best describes your living situation now? I’ll start reading some possibilities—stop me when I read the one where you are living now.

[INTERVIEWER: Start reading options, stop when respondent indicates the right one, and mark that answer]

An emergency shelter or domestic violence shelter

A voucher hotel or motel (paid for by a homeless or government program)

Housing paid for by the VA’s Grant & Per Diem program

A transitional housing program

Anywhere not meant for habitation—e.g., a car, truck, RV, or trailer; an abandoned building, in parks, on the streets, in camping grounds, anywhere outside

A hotel or motel you paid for yourself

A VA residential drug or alcohol treatment program—only for vets

A residential drug or alcohol treatment program for anyone—not just for vets

A VA hospital

Any other hospital—i.e., not a hospital run by the VA

Jail or prison

A permanent housing program for people with disabilities who have been homeless, with services and caseworkers to help you keep your housing

OTHER --> SPECIFY:

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:48:26 PM]

144

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

SECTION A: Housing Now and Since

Demonstration (VHPD)

Baseline

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

A7A7 note

A7

Can you tell me about the house, apartment, or living space you live in now. Overall, how would you describe the condition of your current house, apartment, or living space? Would you say it was in excellent, good, fair, or poor condition?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't Know

Refused

A8

Including the place you lived when we last talked that is, since 05/22/2013 and the place you are living now, how many different places have you lived?

2 places

3 places

4 places

5 or more places

Don't Know

Refused

A8a Besides the place you are living now, since we last talked, that is since 05/22/2013 did you live or stay ...

[READ RESPONSES AND MARK “YES” OR “NO” FOR ALL THAT APPLY.]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

A8a1

In my own place (lease was in your name or you owned it)

A8a2

In someone else’s place (relative, partner, or friend)

A8a3

In a shelter for homeless people/victims of domestic violence

A8a4

In my car/truck, abandoned building, somewhere outside, or a place

not meant for habitation

A8a5

In a hospital treatment program, jail, prison, other institution

A8a6

Some other type of place

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:49:41 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

145

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

SECTION A: Housing Now and Since

Demonstration (VHPD)

Baseline

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

A9

Since you began participating in VHPD, have you received any of the following types of assistance from that program…?

[INTERVIEWER: read each option, record answer]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

A9a

Paying off rent arrears—back rent you owed

A9b

Paying deposit on different apartment

A9c

Paying one or more month’s rent going forward

A9d

Helping negotiate with current or new landlord

A9e

Paying utility bill arrears—what you owed for old utility bills

A9f

Negotiating with utility companies to set up a repayment schedule I

could handle , and/or lower my rate for the future

A9g

Paying some or all of the costs of moving into a new place

A9h

Helping get furniture and furnishings

A10 Did you get what you needed from the services you’ve just mentioned?

Yes, helped very much

Yes, helped somewhat

No, did not help

Don't Know

Refused

A11 Some people are able to get help during a housing crisis from family, friends, or other people they know in the community.

Did you get any help with rent, utilities, moving costs, or finding a new place from any of these types of people?

[INTERVIEWER: IF NECESSARY, CLARIFY THAT YOU MEAN PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE VHPD PROGRAMS]

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

A11a Would you say that the help you received from VA Housing1,VA Medical1 or Va Job1 for your housing needs was more useful than the help you got from your family and friends, less useful, or about equal y useful?

More Useful

About Equally Useful

Less Useful

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:50:01 PM]

146

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION B: Household Composition

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

B1

Please tel me al the people you live with now. [Mark al that apply]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

B1a

You live by yourself, no one else lives with you

Your children (if asked, “including someone else’s children you are

responsible for”)

B1b

How Many?

1

Someone else’s children (not your responsibility)

B1c

How Many?

B1d

Your spouse

B1e

Your boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner

B1f

Your parent(s) or your spouse/partner/boy/girlfriend’s parent(s)

B1g

Other relatives of yours or your spouse/partner/boy/girlfriend’s

B1h

Friends

B1i

Roommates

B1j

Lodger(s), Boarder(s), anyone else

B1k How many adults and how many children would that be, in total, counting yourself?

Number of adults (18 and older):

1

Number of children (17 or younger):

1

B2

Are these the same people as you were living with since we last talked, that is, since 05/22/2013?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:50:39 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

147

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION B: Household Composition

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

B3

Thinking about the children who live with you now and for whom you have responsibility, how many of them are ...

B3a Aged 0 (newborn) through 5?

Number of children?

Don't know

Refused

B3b Aged 6 through 17?

Number of children?

Don't know

Refused

B3c Adults—that is, aged 18 or older?

Number of children?

Don't know

Refused

148

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION D: Education and Training

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

D1

Have you completed any school since we last talked---that would be in 05/22/2013. If yes, what grade or school did you complete and get credit for?

[MARK ONLY NEW COMPLETIONS. IF NONE, MARK “DID NOT COMPLETE ANY MORE EDUCATION]

Did not complete any more education

GED

High school diploma

Some college or 2-year degree

Finished 4-year degree

Master’s degree or equivalent

Other

Don't Know

Refused

D2

Since we last talked, have you completed a vocational, trade, or business program?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

D3

What kind of schooling or training is that? [MARK ALL THAT APPLY]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

D3a

Regular schooling leading to a degree (AA, BA, etc.)

D3b

Regular schooling leading to a vocational or professional license or

certification

D3c

General equivalency diploma (GED)

D3d

English as a second language (ESL)

D3e

Computer training

D3f

Apprenticeship / on-the-job training

D3g

Vocational rehabilitation

D3h

Other

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:52:03 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

149

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION D: Education and Training

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

D4

Did _________________ help you get that schooling / training?

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

D4a

VA Housing1

D4b

VA Medical1

D4c

Va Job1

D4d

Other agency

D4e Some people are able to get help with education and training from family, friends, or other people they know in the community. Did you get any help with school or training from these types of people?

[INTERVIEWER: IF NECESSARY, CLARIFY THAT YOU MEAN PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE VHPD PROGRAMS]

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

D4f

Would you say that the help you received from VA Housing1, VA Medical1 and Va Job1 for school or training was more useful than the help you got from your family and friends, less useful, or about equally useful?

More Useful

About equally useful

About equally useful

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:52:22 PM]

150

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION D: Education and Training

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

D5

Are you now participating in any additional schooling or training program that (has) lasted at least two weeks that was designed to help you find a job, improve your job skills, or learn a new job.

[INTERVIEWER: if R is usual y in school or training but at time of interview is not – e.g. because no summer school is offered – record answer as “Yes”]?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

D6

What kind of schooling or training is that? [MARK ALL THAT APPLY]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

D6a

Regular schooling leading to a degree (AA, BA, etc.)

D6b

Regular schooling leading to a vocational or professional license or

certification

D6c

General equivalency diploma (GED)

D6d

English as a second language (ESL)

D6e

Computer training

D6f

Apprenticeship / on-the-job training

D6g

Vocational rehabilitation

D6h

Other

D7

Did _________________ help you get that schooling / training? [Insert each program name in turn]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

D7a

VA Housing1

D7b

VA Medical1

D7c

Va Job1

D7d

Other agency

D8

Is the Post 9/11 GI Bill helping to pay your tuition and/or other school costs?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:52:41 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

151

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

E1

Have you or anyone in your household received any income from any source in past 30 days?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

E2

In the past 30 days, have you or anyone in your household received any income from ...?

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refuse

Know

E2a

Income from a job

E2b

Unemployment Insurance

E2c

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

E2d

Social Security Disability Income (SSDI)

E2e

Veterans pension/payment from the VA

E2f

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

E2g

Money from family or friends

E2h

Other source

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:54:01 PM]

152

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

E3

In the past 30 days, did the Post 9/11 GI Bil , an education or training al owance from the VA, or a scholarship or grant provide you with income or tuition that you could use to cover expenses?

Yes

Usually yes, but no classes right now

No

Don't know

Refused

E4

Since you began participating in VHPD have you received any of the following types of assistance from that program…?

[INTERVIEWER: read each option, record answer]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refuse

Know

E4a

Helping to get food stamps, child care, TANF, other public benefits

E4b

Connecting to Va Job1 to help with employment

E4c

Help from VA Medical1 to get any allowances, grants, or other

support that the VA has for veterans

E4d

Any other help to increase your income or resources

E5

Did you get what you needed from the services you’ve just mentioned?

Yes, helped very much

Yes, helped somewhat

No, did not help

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:54:17 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

153

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

E6

What was your household's total income in the past 30 days?

Amount Per Month -->

.00

Don't know

Refused

E6a Can you give me range? Was your total household income last month:

Under $500 per month

$500 to < $750

$750 to < $1000

$1000 to < $1500

$1500 to < $2000

More than $2000 per month

Don't Know

Refused

E7

In the past 30 days, did you or anyone in your household receive (or are you on) any of the fol owing benefits: Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E7a

Food Stamps (officially called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP))

E7b

Medicaid health insurance program (Medi-Cal for San Diego)

E7c

Medicare health insurance program

E7d

Children’s Health Insurance Program (in Washington and Texas);

KidCare (in Florida); Child Health Plus (in New York); Healthy

Families Program (in California)

E7e Did _________________ help you access those benefits? [Insert each program name in turn]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E7e1

VA Housing1

E7e2

VA Medical1

E7e3

Va Job1

E7e4

Another agency

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:54:35 PM]

154

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

E8

Last week, did you do any work for pay?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

E9

Have you been doing anything to find work during the past four weeks?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:55:03 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

155

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

E10 What is the main reason that you did not work for pay or look for work in the past four weeks?

[INTERVIEWER: Allow R to respond spontaneously and Mark ONLY ONE response. If R mentions multiple response options, INTERVIEWER repeat response options that the R indicated “Would that be… (response A, response B, response C)? And ask them to choose the main reason]

Unable to work because of housing problems

Unable to work for health reasons related to military service

Unable to work for health reasons unrelated to military service

Has job but temporarily absent/seasonal work

Couldn’t find any work

Couldn’t find a job that pays enough

Child care problems

Family responsibilities

In school or other training

Waiting for a new job to begin

Had enough money from other sources

Retired

Disabled

Other (specify):

Don't know

Refused

E10a Did any VHPD staff-for example, your case worker(s)-refer you to Va Job1 to help you find work?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:55:17 PM]

156

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

E11 Do you have a disability that limits or prevents you from working?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

E11a Is this disability related to your military service?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

When we last talked, you were working. Since that tiime,

E12b How long has it been since you last worked for pay?

Specify --> Number of months:

Don't know

Refused

E13 Since we last talked, how much of the time have you had a job or done some work for pay?

Al or almost al of the time

Most of the time

About half of the time

Some of the time

Almost none or none of the time

Don't know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:55:40 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

157

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

E14 Since you began participating in VHPD, have you received any of the following types of assistance from any of the agencies that participate in the program…?

[INTERVIEWER: read each option, record answer]

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refuse

Know

E14a

Helping with resume writing, presenting self to potential employers

E14b

Job counseling—what would be good jobs for me, what skills I need

to develop, etc.

E14c

Helping with specific skills or training needed for jobs (e.g.,

computers, job training)

E14d

Making job lists available to me, referring me to specific jobs

E14e

Clothing, uniforms, equipment needed for specific jobs

E14f

Referrals to specific jobs

E14g

Anything else job-related

E14h Did _________________ provided that assistance?

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E14h1

VA Housing1

E14h2

VA Medical1

E14h3

Va Job1

E14h4

Other agency

E15 Did you get what you needed from the services you’ve just mentioned?

Yes, helped very much

Yes, helped somewhat

No, did not help

Don't Know

Refused

E15a Some people are able to get help with education and training from family, friends, or other people they know in the community. Did you get any help with school or training from these types of people?

[INTERVIEWER: IF NECESSARY, CLARIFY THAT YOU MEAN PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE VHPD PROGRAMS]

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

E15b Would you say that the help you received from VA Housing1, VA Medical1 and Va Job1 for school or training was more useful than the help you got from your family and friends, less useful, or about equally useful?

More Useful

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:55:56 PM]

158

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

About equally useful

Less useful

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:55:56 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

159

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

E16 About how long have you been working at that job?

Specify --> Number of months:

Number of years:

Don't know

Refused

E17 How many hours per week do you usual y work at your main job? By main job, I mean the one at which you usual y work the most hours.

Specify --> Number of hours: -

Don't know

Refused

E17a Do you usually work 35 hours or more per week at your main job?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

160

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION E: Income and Employment

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:1,3:1,4:3,

E18 Did _________________ help you get your current job or any job you have had since we last talked ?

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

E18a

VA Housing1

E18b

VA Medical1

E18c

Va Job1

E18d

Another agency

E19 Some people are able to get help to find work from family, friends, or other people they know in the community. Did you get any help to find work from these types of people?

[INTERVIEWER: IF NECESSARY, CLARIFY THAT YOU MEAN PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE VHPD PROGRAMS]

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

E19a Would you say that the help you received from VA Housing1, VA Medical1 and Va Job1 to help you find work was more useful than the help you got from your family and friends, less useful, or about equally useful?

More Useful

About equally useful

Less useful

Don't Know

Refused

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

161

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION F: Housing Costs

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:1,

F2

What is the total rent or mortgage on the place you are staying—the rent on the lease or the monthly mortgage payment, not just what you and your household pay?

Per Month: $

.00 (Four digits rounded to dollar; Expected range $1 - 3000)

Don't know

Refused

F2a Can you give me a range? Is the ful monthly rent or mortgage payment:

Under $500 per month

$500 to < $750

$750 to < $1000

$1000 to < $1500

$1500 to < $2000

More than $2000 per month

Don't know

Refused

F3

In the month just past, what did you and your family pay in rent or for your mortgage. Tel me just the amount you and your family paid without including any outside help you got from a government agency or someone helping you.

Per Month: $

.00 (Four digits rounded to dollar; Expected range $1 - 3000)

Don't know

Refused

F3a Can you give me a range? Is your own family’s monthly rent or mortgage payment:

Under $500 per month

$500 to < $750

$750 to < $1000

$1000 to < $1500

$1500 to < $2000

More than $2000 per month

Don't know

Refused

162

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION F: Housing Costs

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:1,

F4

Do you receive any assistance to pay rent from the government or from some other program?

[INTERVIEWER— this refers to any government program that might provide rental assistance, not just the VHPD provider]

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F5

Since we last talked, has there been a time when you were unable to pay rent or mortgage?

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F5a How often did this happen?

Once

Twice

Three or more times

Don't know

Refused

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

163

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION F: Housing Costs

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:1,

F6

Do you pay for any utilities that are not included as part of the rent or mortgage payment? By utilities, I mean electricity, heating oil, gas or propane, and water, but NOT telephone and cable services.

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F7

Since we last talked, has there been a time when you were unable to pay utility bills—that is, electricity, heating oil, gas or propane, and water, but NOT telephone and cable services.

[INTERVIEWER—if asked, clarify—“by two weeks after it was due”]

Yes

No

Don't know

Refused

F7a How often did this happen?

Once

Twice

Three or more times

Don't know

Refused

164

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION G: Family Health and Well-Being

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

G1

Overall, how would you rate your health during the past month (that is the past 30 days)?

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't Know

Refused

G2

Please tel me about any health problems you may be experiencing at this time.

(read and check all that apply)

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

G2a

Serious depression, anxiety, and/or tension

G2b

Being easily startled, not being able to relax your guard

G2c

Trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering

G2d

Trouble controlling anger or violent behavoir

G2e

Symptons of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

G2f

Trouble with use of alchohol or drugs

G2g

Problems dealing with the results of head injury/traumatic brain

injury (TBI)

G2h

Experiencing serious thoughts of suicide

G2i

Other

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:56:14 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

165

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION G: Family Health and Well-Being

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

G3

Since you began participating in VHPD, have you received any of the following types of help for these health problems from any of the agencies that participate in the program…?

Set to 'No'

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

G3a

Treatment for specific physical health conditions

G3b

Counseling for emotional issues

G3c

Counseling, treatment, group supports for substance abuse problems

G3d

Help with family relationships

G3e

Help with adjustments to civilian life

G3f

Help or counseling for/with children, about family relationships,

school, other issues related to your children

G3g

Other

G4

Has _________________ been helping you with any of these health problems? [Insert each program name]

Yes

No

Don't

Refused

Know

G4a

VA Housing1

G4b

VA Medical1

G4c

Va Job1

G4d

Another agency

G5

Are you getting or did you get what you needed from the service?

Yes, very much

Yes, somewhat

No

Don't Know

Refused

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:56:28 PM]

166

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION G: Family Health and Well-Being

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:1,

G6

Some people are able to get help with health problems from family, friends, or other people they know in the community.

Did you get any help with your health problems from these types of people?

[INTERVIEWER: IF NECESSARY, CLARIFY THAT YOU MEAN PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE VHPD PROGRAMS]

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

G6a Would you say that the help you received from VA Housing1 , VA Medical1 and Va Job1 for your health problems was more useful than the help you got from your family and friends, less useful, or about equally useful?

More Useful

About Equally Useful

Less Useful

Don't Know

Refused

G7

Do you get health care from the VA or another source that serves veterans or active duty military personnel?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

G7a Do you have any non-military type of health insurance that helps pay for health care when you need it?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

167

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans

Homelessness Prevention

SUE001/susan

Demonstration (VHPD)

SECTION H: Demographics and Closing

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

1:2,2:2,3:1,4:3,

H1

Has your marital status changed since we last talked?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

H1a What is your marital status now?

Now Married

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Never Married

Don't Know

Refused

H2

Before we end, let me make sure I know the address where you are currently living…

Street 111 Main Street

City

Metropolis

State

Zip code 11111

H3

Is that the address we should use to send you the $30 we will pay you for your participation in this interview?

Yes

No

H3a To what address should we send payment?

Street 111 F

City

Peachville

State Georgia

Georgia

Zip code 67211

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:57:16 PM]

168

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix I

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)<br />VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Evaluation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

VHPD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW

Thank you very much for your time today and for helping us with this study. Your answers

and those of people like you will help shape programs to continue the types of help you have

received from your VHPD program.

Submit Survey

http://fwsun.com:9477/survey.aspx[4/1/2014 7:57:35 PM]

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

169

170

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix J

Appendix J. Survey Data Cleaning and Survey Timing

This appendix describes the process of cleaning the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration

(VHPD) survey data and the period during which the surveys were conducted in relation to the veterans’

program entry and exit dates reported in the administrative data.

Baseline Survey Data Cleaning

Upon reviewing the baseline survey data, the research team observed several issues that affected the

usability of the data. Team members were able to correct some of these issues with missing value

imputation, but not others. This section summarizes those issues and describes whether researchers

were able to remedy the issue and, if so, what remedy they used.

Missing Data Imputation

This section describes the methods by which the research team imputed values for missing data points

and the questions that were affected by that imputation.

Monthly Income Amount

The survey first asked the respondents whether their household had received any income in the past

30 days. The survey later asked how much income the household had in the past 30 days. Those who

said “No” to the first question should not have been asked the second question; however, this skip

pattern was not applied uniformly, resulting in missing values on the amount question. To correct for

this inconsistency, the research team used the following decision rules to determine the respondent’s

household income at baseline:

1. If the respondent reported on E1 that his or her household did not receive any income and the

respondent had a legitimate skip, missing data point, or answered 0 for the amount on E7_amt,

then the researchers imputed his or her baseline income to zero.

2. If the respondent reported on E1 that his or her household did not receive any income and had

a value greater than zero for the amount of income the respondent’s household received in the

past 30 days on E7_amt, then the researchers used that nonzero amount as his or her baseline

income.

3. If the respondent reported on E1 that his or her household received income and reported an

amount greater than or equal to zero on E7_amt, then the researchers used that amount (in-

cluding zeros) for his or her baseline income.

4. If the respondent reported on E1 that his or her household received income and then either

skipped or had a missing data point for the amount on E7_amt, the researchers considered his or

her baseline income to be missing.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

171

Appendix J

Incomplete Data Entry On Series Questions

Many questions in the baseline survey were parts of a related series of questions. For example, the

researchers asked whether the respondent received income from any of the following sources: (1)

a job, (2) unemployment insurance, (3) Social Security Income, (4) Social Security Disability Income,

(5) veteran’s pension/payment, (6) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or (7) friends or family

members. The survey was coded such that the interviewer should have entered a distinct yes/no/don’t

know/refused response for each subquestion. The interviewers, however, did not enter a response for

each question, which resulted in extensive missingness on the series questions. When asked about these

missing responses, the interviewers answered that to save time they entered only the yes responses.

To remedy the missingness on questions that formed part of a series, the researchers first determined

if they could get this information more reliably from the Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS) administrative data. This was the case for the race question series; so, for analytic purposes, the

study used the race data only from the HMIS data and not from the survey. If the information could not

be gathered from HMIS, the researchers then determined if there was at least one yes response for one

of the questions in the series. If there was, they imputed no for the rest of the questions in the series.

If there was not at least one yes, they left all the responses as missing. Table J.1 lists the questions that were affected by this imputation.

Table J.1

Series Questions Affected by Missing Data Imputation

Question

Question

Number

A18a2

A18a2. Besides current place, have you lived: In someone else’s place?

A18a3. Besides current place, have you lived: In a shelter for homeless, victims of

A18a3

domestic violence?

A18a4. Besides current place, have you lived: In car, truck, abandoned building,

A18a4

somewhere outside?

A18a5. Besides current place, have you lived: In a hospital treatment program, jail,

A18a5

prison?

A18a6

A18a6. Besides current place, have you lived: Other type of place?

B4b

B4b. Do you live with your children?

B4c

B4c. Do you live with someone else’s children?

B4d

B4d. Do you live with your spouse?

B4e

B4e. Do you live with your boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner?

(continued)

172

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix J

Table J.1

Series Questions Affected by Missing Data Imputation (continued)

Question

Question

Number

B4f

B4f. Do you live with your parent(s) or your spouse/partner/boy/girlfriend’s parent(s)?

B4g. Do you live with other relatives of yours or your spouse/partner/boy/girlfriend’s

B4g

relatives?

B4h

B4h. Do you live with friends?

B4i

B4i. Do you live with roommates?

B4j

B4j. Do you live with lodger(s), boarder(s), anyone else?

D5a

D5. Type of school or training: Regular schooling leading to a degree

D5. Type of school or training: Regular schooling leading to a voc., prof license, or

D5b

certification

D5c

D5. Type of school or training: GED®

D5d

D5. Type of school or training: ESL

D5e

D5. Type of school or training: Computer training

D5f

D5. Type of school or training: Apprenticeship/OJT

D5g

D5. Type of school or training: Vocational rehab

D5h

D5. Type of school or training: Other

E2a

E2. Has your household received income from a job?

E2b

E2. Has your household received income from unemployment insurance?

E2c

E2. Has your household received income from SSI?

E2d

E2. Has your household received income from SSDI?

E2e

E2. Has your household received income from veterans pension/payment?

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

173

Appendix J

Table J.1

Series Questions Affected by Missing Data Imputation (continued)

Question

Question

Number

E2f

E2. Has your household received income from TANF?

E2h

E2. Has your household received income from money from family or friends?

H2a

H2. Health problems: serious depression, anxiety, tension

H2b

H2. Health problems: easily startled, not able to relax guard

H2c

H2. Health problems: trouble understanding, concentrating, remembering

H2d

H2. Health problems: trouble controlling anger, violent behavior

H2e

H2. Health problems: PTSD

H2f

H2. Health problems: trouble with alcohol, drugs

H2g

H2. Health problems: TBI

H2h

H2. Health problems: thoughts of suicide

H2i

H2. Health problems: other

I3a

I3. Theatre of operations: WWII

I3b

I3. Theatre of operations: Korean War

I3c

I3. Theatre of operations: Vietnam War

I3d

I3. Theatre of operations: Desert Storm

I3e

I3. Theatre of operations: Enduring Freedom

I3f

I3. Theatre of operations: Iraqi Freedom

I3g

I3. Theatre of operations: New Dawn

I3h

I3. Theatre of operations: other peacekeeping interventions

(continued)

174

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix J

Table J.1

Series Questions Affected by Missing Data Imputation (continued)

Question

Question

Number

I7a

I7. Challenges: finding a job, getting old job back

I7b

I7. Challenges: not being able to adjust to working in civilian job

I7c

I7. Challenges: finding affordable place to live

I7d

I7. Challenges: physical illnesses and conditions

I7e

I7. Challenges: getting through physical therapy/rehab

I7f

I7. Challenges: getting used to new physical limitations

I7g

I7. Challenges: letting down guard

I7h

I7. Challenges: dealing with emotional problems

I7i

I7. Challenges: getting used to family life again

I7j

I7. Challenges: finding my “place”

I7k

I7. Challenges: lack of social support

I7l

I7. Challenges: something else

I7l_

I7. Challenges: something else specified

specify

I7m

I7. Challenges: no challenges

J2a

J2. Race: Multiracial

J2b

J2. Race: Alaska Native, American Indian

J2c

J2. Race: Asian

J2d

J2. Race: Black, African-American

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

175

Appendix J

Table J.1

Series Questions Affected by Missing Data Imputation (continued)

Question

Question

Number

J2e

J2. Race: Hawaiian, Pacific Islander

J2f

J2. Race: White

J2g

J2. Race: Other

J2g_

J2. Race: Other specified

specify

ESL = English as a second language. GED® = General Educational Development credential. OJT = on-the-job training. PTSD =

posttraumatic stress disorder. SSDI = Social Security Disability Income. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. TBI = traumatic brain injury. WWII = World War II.

Baseline Survey Timing

Although the research team attempted to survey veterans as quickly as possible after they entered the

VHPD program, researchers were limited in their capacity to do this by the time required for the local

program staff to mail in the consent forms and then by difficulties reaching veterans. Unstably housed

or homeless individuals can be hard to reach by phone because of the lack of stability in their situation.

Further, team members learned from local program staff that many veterans use “pay as you go” cell

phones and run out of minutes before the end of the month. Because of these issues, it sometimes took

interviewers several weeks or longer to get in touch with the veteran to conduct the baseline survey. To

determine when the baseline survey occurred relative to veterans’ VHPD participation, the researchers

compared the dates that the baseline survey was conducted with the program entry and exit dates

provided in the HMIS data (table J.2).

Table J.2

Timing of VHPD Baseline Survey Relative to Program Entry and Exit

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern New

York

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Baseline occurred

312

73.6

96

85.0

48

48.0

53

75.7

84

94.4

31

59.6

between program entry

and program exit

Within 14 days of entry

49

11.6

3

2.7

8

8.0

12

17.1

21

23.6

5

9.6

Between 15 and 30

115

27.1

24

21.2

23

23.0

25

35.7

29

32.6

14

26.9

days of entry

Between 31 and 60

111

26.2

56

49.6

8

8.0

12

17.1

26

29.2

9

17.3

days of entry

(continued)

176

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix J

Table J.2

Timing of VHPD Baseline Survey Relative to Program Entry and Exit (continued)

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Upstate

Total

Northern New

York

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Between 61 and 180

37

8.7

13

11.5

9

9.0

4

5.7

8

9.0

3

5.8

days of entry

Baseline occurred after

98

23.1

17

15.0

43

43.0

16

22.9

3

3.4

19

36.5

exit

Baseline occurred

14

3.3

0

0.0

9

9.0

1

1.4

2

2.3

2

3.9

before program entry

according to given

HMIS entry dates

HMIS = Homeless Management Information System.

Sources: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration baseline survey (unweighted); HMIS administrative data (unweighted)

As shown in table J.2, only 74 percent of surveys were conducted between program entry and program

exit, and only 12 percent were conducted within 2 weeks of entry. Of veterans in the program, 35

percent were surveyed before they exited the program but more than a month after entry, but a

sizable minority (23 percent) were surveyed after program exit. As a consequence, the baseline survey

data likely do not reflect the circumstances that a sizable portion of the veterans in the study were

experiencing at the time they enrolled in VHPD. As a result, data analysis comparing baseline to follow-

up data may not accurately reflect the effects of VHPD. A small percentage (3 percent) of surveys seem

to have been conducted before program entry. The researchers posit that this occurred when veterans

reentered VHPD and their original service dates were overwritten or otherwise not included in the HMIS

data pull.

To understand the effects of the delayed baseline survey and determine the extent to which baseline

circumstances differed from those at program entry, the research team compared the housing status at

program entry reported in HMIS with the veterans’ housing situations reported at baseline for the 23

percent of veterans who completed their baseline interviews after exiting VHPD (table J.3). This analysis

showed that, of the 20 veterans in this group who were literally homeless when they entered the

program, only 3 were still homeless when the baseline interview was conducted. This finding provides

support for the team’s belief that the veterans’ circumstances at the time they completed the baseline

interview differed from their circumstances when they entered. This report does not present data on

housing situation at baseline, and data from the baseline survey should be interpreted with this issue in

mind.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

177

Appendix J

Table J.3

Housing Situations at Program Entry and Baseline for Those Respondents Whose Baseline

Interview Was Conducted After Program Exit

Housing Situation at Program Entry

Literally

At Imminent Risk

Missing

Unstably Housed

Stably Housed

Homeless

of Losing Housing

Housing Situation at

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Baseline

In own place

1

100.0

15

75.0

43

87.8

18

78.3

5

100.0

Staying with someone

0

0.0

2

10.0

3

6.1

2

8.7

0

0.0

else

Homeless

0

0.0

3

15.0

3

6.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

Other

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

13.0

0

0.0

Sources: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration baseline survey (unweighted); Homeless Management Information System administrative data (unweighted)

Follow-Up Survey Timing

The research team started contacting veterans in the study for the follow-up interview 6 months

after they exited the VHPD program. As with the baseline survey, however, getting in contact with the

veterans sometimes took several weeks. Because some veterans were more difficult to reach for the

interview than others, the time at which the follow-up interview was conducted relative to their VHPD

program exit ranged substantially (table J.4). More than one-half the interviews occurred between 6

and 8 months after program exit; however, about 41 percent occurred even later. Those veterans with

later follow-up interviews had longer periods during which to report changes in their housing situation

and more opportunity for their housing stability to erode. Findings from the follow-up survey should be

interpreted with this in mind.

Table J.4

Timing of Follow-Up Survey Data in Relation to Program Exit

Upstate

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Northern

Total

New York

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Follow-up occurred before

8

2.5

1

1.2

2

2.7

2

4.1

1

1.6

2

4.7

180 days after program exit

Follow-up occurred between

179

56.8

51

60.0

28

37.3

34

69.4

47

74.6

19

44.2

180 and 239 days after

program exit

Follow-up occurred between

70

22.2

18

21.2

20

26.7

9

18.4

11

17.5

12

27.9

240 and 299 days after

program exit

(continued)

178

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix J

Table J.4

Timing of Follow-Up Survey Data in Relation to Program Exit (continued)

Upstate

Cross-Site

Central Texas

San Diego

Tacoma

Tampa

Northern

Total

New York

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Follow-up occurred between

37

11.8

9

10.6

18

24.0

3

6.1

1

1.6

6

14.0

300 and 364 days after

program exit

Follow-up occurred 365 or

21

6.7

6

7.1

7

9.3

1

2.0

3

4.8

4

9.3

more days after program exit

Sources: Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration follow-up survey (unweighted); Homeless Management Information System administrative data (unweighted)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

179

180

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix K

Appendix K. Administrative Data Elements

Table K.1 shows the administrative data elements from local Homeless Management Information

Systems (HMISs) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Homeless Registry that the research

team collected to inform this study of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD)

program.

Table K.1

Administrative Data Sources

Data Source

Indicator

HMIS

Age

Race

Ethnicity

Gender

Veteran status

Whether children were present in the household

VHPD program entry date

VHPD program exit date

Housing status at program entry

Housing status at program exit

Monthly household income at program entry

Monthly household income at program exit

Presence of substance abuse issues

Presence of mental health issues

Presence of physical health issues

Presence of a chronic health condition

Presence of a developmental disability

Whether the client has HIV/AIDS

Entry and exit dates for any emergency shelter or transitional housing service use

VA

Age

Race

Ethnicity

Gender

Marital status

Longest period of military service

Receipt of hostile or friendly fire in a combat zone

Where the veteran slept the previous night

Length of current homeless episode

(continued)

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

181

Appendix K

Table K.1

Administrative Data Sources (continued)

Data Source

Indicator

Number of separate homeless episodes in the past 3 years

Veteran self-report of serious medical problems

Veteran self-report of traumatic brain injury

Veteran self-report of alcohol dependency—current

Veteran self-report of alcohol dependency—past

Veteran self-report of drug dependency—current

Veteran self-report of drug dependency—past

Veteran self-report of current psychiatric or emotional problems

Employment history

Number of days worked in past 30 days

Income in the past 30 days

Number of nights spent in DCHV within 24 months of intake

Number of nights spent in GPD within 24 months of intake

Whether the veteran entered HUD-VASH within 24 months of intake

Whether the veteran entered SSVF within 24 months of intake

Number of nights spent in HUD-VASH within 24 months of intake

Number of nights spent in SSVF within 24 months of intake

DCHV = Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans. GPD = Grant and Per Diem. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. HUD-VASH = HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing. SSVF = Supportive Services for Veteran Families. VA = U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs. VHPD = Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration.

Sources: Homeless Management Information System universal data elements; VA HOMES assessment form

182

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix L

Appendix L. Survey Weighting

This appendix describes the three survey weight variables that were created for the analysis of survey

data collected for the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD) evaluation. In addition,

this appendix describes the propensity score matching weight that was created to allow for comparisons

between the survey respondents and a comparison group of veterans for whom administrative record

information was obtained.

Weighting

Survey weights affect variance estimates and, as a result, tests of significance and confidence intervals.

Variance estimates derived from standard statistical software packages that assume simple random

sampling, in general, are too low, which can lead to overstated significance levels and overly narrow

confidence intervals. The impact of the survey design on variance estimates is measured by the design

effect and is explained in more detail at the end of this appendix.

For measures that are based on all veterans who signed the consent form agreeing to be study

participants, the analysis used the weight variable “BASEWEIGHT.” This weight includes—

• An adjustment for the lower consent rate among veterans who were homeless at program entry.

• An adjustment for the lower consent rate among veterans who had children in their household.

• An adjustment for the lower consent rate among veterans who reported having a chronic health

condition.

• An adjustment for the lower consent rate among veterans who reported having a mental health

issue.

• An adjustment for the lower consent rate among veterans who reported having a physical health

issue.

The final BASEWEIGHT was then normalized so the sum of the weights equaled the sample size of

veterans who consented to participate in the study (n = 509).

For measures that are based on all veterans who completed the baseline survey, the analysis used

the weight variable “WAVE1WEIGHT.” This weight includes all the adjustments used to create the

BASEWEIGHT variable and also the following additional adjustments:

• An adjustment for the lower baseline survey response rate among veterans who were White

non-Hispanic respondents.

• An adjustment for the lower baseline survey response rate among veterans who had a lower

income at program exit.

• A further adjustment for the lower baseline survey response rate among veterans who reported

having a chronic health condition.

• An adjustment for the lower baseline survey response rate among veterans who were younger

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

183

Appendix L

• An adjustment for the lower baseline survey response rate among veterans who reported having

a substance abuse issue.

The final WAVE1WEIGHT was then normalized so the sum of the weights equaled the sample size of

veterans who completed the baseline survey (n = 424).

For measures that are based on all veterans who completed the follow-up survey, the analysis used

the weight variable “ATTRITIONWEIGHT.” This weight includes all the adjustments used to create the

WAVE1WEIGHT variable and also the following additional adjustments:

• A further adjustment for the lower baseline survey response rate among veterans who had a

lower income at program exit.

• A further adjustment for the lower baseline survey response rate among veterans who reported

having a mental health condition.

The final ATTRITIONWEIGHT was then normalized so the sum of the weights equaled the sample size of

veterans who completed the follow-up survey (n = 315).

Design Effects

Post-data collection statistical adjustments were required due to combining multiple waves of the

sample in which there were disproportionate attrition rates of veterans participating in each stage of

the study. The post-data collection adjustments required analysis procedures that adjusted the standard

errors that would have been obtained if a simple random sample had been used that involved no

adjustments. Therefore, when using survey weights, variance estimation required estimating the survey

design effect associated with the weighted estimate. The term “design effect” is used to describe the

variance of the weighted sample estimate relative to the variance of an estimate that assumes a simple

random sample.

In a wide range of situations, the adjusted standard error of a statistic should be calculated by

multiplying the usual formula by the design effect (deft). The formula for computing the 95 percent

confidence interval around a percentage is shown by the following equation:

where p̂ is the sample estimate and n is the unweighted number of sample cases in the group being

considered.

The average design effects for the survey weights and the propensity score matching weight are shown

in table L.1.

184

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix L

Table L.1

Design Effects

Type of Analysis

deft

For measures based on all veterans who signed the consent form agreeing to be study

1.026

participants using the BASEWEIGHT weight variable

For measures based on all veterans who completed the baseline survey using the

1.024

WAVE1WEIGHT weight variable

For measures based on all veterans who completed the follow-up survey using the

1.064

ATTRITIONWEIGHT weight variable

Thus, to get a more accurate estimate of the standard errors associated with the weighted estimate,

one would multiply the unweighted standard error by the appropriate deft value shown in table L.1. For

example, suppose one was using the WAVE1WEIGHT weight on a measure from the baseline survey and

the estimate had an unweighted standard error of .0213. The weighted estimate would not change, but

the standard error of the estimate would be .0218 (.0213 × 1.024).

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

185

186

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix M

Appendix M. Annual Performance Report Data

Imputation Approach

Grantees submitted performance reports to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) on a quarterly and annual basis that provided data on the number of people, veterans, and

households served by the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration (VHPD). VHPD households

were counted toward each report as long as their case was still open during the reporting period.

Because VHPD households could have been served for up to 18 months, households could have had

their case open across multiple reporting quarters and multiple reporting years, resulting in duplication.

Because the Annual Performance Reports (APRs) cover a longer period than the quarterly reports,

duplication was less common in the annual report data than in the quarterly data, making it the more

accurate source of information on the number of people, veterans, and households served. Two APRs

were not submitted by grantees (Tampa Year 2 and Utica Year 3), however, and one submitted APR

contained data that HUD determined to be unreliable and unusable (Tacoma Year 3).

Because quarterly data were complete for all 12 quarters of VHPD in Tacoma and Tampa, the research

team approximated the missing annual report data (Tampa Year 2 and Tacoma Year 3) by taking the

following steps:

1. The researchers summed the number of people served reported in each quarter for each year in

each site.

2. For the years in which they had both complete quarterly and annual data, they divided the num-

ber of people served from the APR by the sum of the number of people served from the quar-

terly reports for that year. This computation provided a number by which the quarterly report

sums could be multiplied to get the annual figures. These multipliers were always less than zero

because they were deduplicating the sums of the quarterly reports.

3. The researchers then took the average of the multiplier for the 2 years in which data were

complete and multiplied the quarterly sum by that number to estimate the annual data for the

missing year.

In addition to missing its annual report for Year 3, Utica was missing four quarters of data: one in

Year 2 (Quarter 8) and three in Year 3 (Quarters 10, 11, and 12). Because Utica did not have complete

quarterly data, the researchers were unable to use the three-step process to develop estimates for its

Year 3 report and did not impute any data. Therefore, Utica Year 3 was excluded from the researchers’

calculations of total numbers served, and Utica was excluded from average cost calculations, which were

based on data for the entire grant period.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

187

188

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix N

Appendix N. References

100,000 Homes. 2011. “Data Report: National Survey of Homeless Veterans in 100,000 Homes Campaign

Communities.” http://100khomes.org/sites/default/files/NationalSurveyofHomelessVeterans.pdf

(accessed June 11, 2015).

Adams, Patricia F., Whitney K. Kirzinger, and Michael E. Martinez. 2013. Summary Health Statistics for the U.S. Population: National Health Interview Survey, 2012. Vital Health Stat 10 (259). Hyattsville,

MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Advisory Board Company. 2015. “Where the States Stand on Medicaid Expansion: 28 States, D.C.

Expanding Medicaid. ” http://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/resources/primers/medicaidmap

(accessed June 11, 2015).

Burt, Martha. 2001. What Will It Take To End Homelessness? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Burt, Martha R., Laudan Y. Aron, Toby Douglas, Jesse Valente, Edgar Lee, and Britta Iwen. 1999.

Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. Washington, DC: Interagency Council on

Homelessness.

Byrne, Thomas. 2014. Housing Outcomes for Veterans Following Exit from the Supportive Services for

Veterans Families (SSVF) Program. Philadelphia, PA: VA National Center on Homelessness Among

Veterans.

Byrne, Thomas, John Kuhn, Dennis P. Culhane, Susan Kane, and Vincent Kane. 2014. Impact and

Performance of the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program: Results from the FY

2013 Program Year. Philadelphia, PA: VA National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans.

Cunningham, Mary, Martha R. Burt, Jennifer Biess, and Dina Emam. 2013. Veterans Homelessness

Prevention Demonstration Evaluation: Interim Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development.

Cunningham, Mary, Meghan Henry, and Webb Lyons. 2007. Vital Mission: Ending Homelessness among

Veterans. Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness and the Homeless Research

Institute.

Elbogen, Eric B., Connor P. Sullivan, James Wolfe, Henry Ryan Wagner, and Jean C. Beckham. 2013.

“Homelessness and Money Mismanagement in Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans,” American Journal

of Public Health 103 (S2): S248–S254.

Fargo, Jamison, Thomas Byrne, Ann Elizabeth Montgomery, and Christopher Roberts. 2014. Universal

Screening for Homelessness and Risk among Veterans: Monitoring Housing Stability and

Exploring Profiles of Risk through Repeated Screening. Philadelphia, PA: VA National Center on

Homelessness Among Veterans.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

189

Appendix N

Institute of Medicine. 2010. Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Preliminary Assessment of

Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members, and Their Families. Washington, DC: The

National Academies Press.

Kimerling, Rachel, Kristian Gima, Mark W. Smith, Amy Street, and Susan Frayne. 2007. “The Veterans

Health Administration and Military Sexual Trauma,” American Journal of Public Health 97 (12):

2160–2166.

Mares, Alvin, and Robert Rosenheck. 2004. “Perceived Relationship between Military Service and

Homelessness among Homeless Veterans with Mental Illness,” Journal of Nervous and Mental

Disease 192: 715–719.

Metraux, Stephen, Limin X. Clegg, John D. Daigh, Dennis P. Culhane, and Vincent Kane. 2013. “Risk

Factors for Becoming Homeless among a Cohort of Veterans Who Served in the Era of the Iraq

and Afghanistan Conflicts,” American Journal of Public Health 103 (S2): S255–S261.

Montgomery, Ann Elizabeth. 2014. Using a Universal Screener to Identify Veterans Experiencing Housing

Instability. Philadelphia, PA: VA National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans.

Morin, Rich. 2011. The Difficult Transition from Military to Civilian Life. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. 2011. The Veteran Population Model 2011

(VetPop2011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for Veterans

Analysis and Statistics. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/veteran_population.asp (accessed June 11, 2015).

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. n.d. “FAQ about Homeless Veterans.” http://nchv.org/index.

php/news/media/background_and_statistics/ (accessed June 11, 2015).

Noonan, Margaret E., and Christopher J. Mumola. 2007. Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Patten, Eileen, and Kim Parker. 2011. Women in the U.S. Military: Growing Share, Distinctive Profile.

Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Rosenheck, Robert, Wesley Kasprow, Linda Frisman, and Wen Liu-Mares. 2003. “Cost-Effectiveness of

Supported Housing for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 60

(9): 940–951.

Shaheen, Gary, Nicole Lacourte-Klein, and John Rio. 2013. Collaborations to Prevent and End

Homelessness: Preliminary Report on Connecting HVRP-SSVF Programs. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse

University Institute for Veterans and Military Families.

190

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

Appendix N

Shinn, Marybeth, and Jim Baumohl. 1999. “Rethinking the Prevention of Homelessness.” In Practical

Lessons: The 1998 Symposium on Homelessness Research, edited by Linda. B. Fosburg and

Deborah. L. Dennis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Shinn, Marybeth, Jim Baumohl, and Kim Hopper. 2001. “The Prevention of Homelessness Revisited,”

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 1 (1): 95–127.

Shinn, Marybeth, Andrew L. Greer, Jay Bainbridge, Jonathan Kwon, and Sara Zuiderveen. 2013. “Efficient

Targeting of Homelessness Prevention Services for Families,” American Journal of Public Health

103: S2, S324–S330.

Torreon, Barbara Salazar. 2015. U.S. Periods of War and Dates of Recent Conflicts. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS21405.pdf (accessed June 11, 2015).

U.S. Army. n.d. “About the Army. ” http://www.goarmy.com/about/service-options/active-duty.html

(accessed June 11, 2015).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009. “Notice of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009

Implementation of the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration Program.” http://

www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf09/vethomelesspreventdemo.pdf (accessed March 4, 2013).

. 2013. The 2012 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Volume II Estimates

of Homelessness in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

. 2014a. The 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

. 2014b. The 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 2. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

. n.d. “HUD-VASH Vouchers.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_

indian_housing/programs/hcv/vash (accessed June 11, 2015).

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 2013. “Economic News Release: Table A-5. Employment Status of

the Civilian Population 18 Years and Over by Veteran Status, Period of Service, and Sex, Not

Seasonally Adjusted.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t05.htm (accessed March 5, 2013).

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007. Rental Housing: Information on Low-Income

Veterans’ Housing Conditions and Participation in HUD’s Programs. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Accountability Office.

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

191

Appendix N

. 2011. Homeless Women Veterans: Actions Needed to Ensure Safe and Appropriate Housing.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). 2010. “Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to

Prevent and End Homelessness.” Washington, DC: U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.

http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Opening%20Doors%202010%20FINAL%20

FSP%20Prevent%20End%20Homeless.pdf (accessed June 11, 2015).

. 2013a. “Opening Doors.” Washington, DC: U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. http://

usich.gov/opening_doors/ (accessed June 11, 2015).

. 2013b. Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness Update 2013.

Washington, DC: U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/

asset_library/USICH_Annual_Update_2013.pdf (accessed June 11, 2015).

. 2015. Proposed Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Fact Sheet: Homelessness Assistance. Washington, DC:

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/

FY2015_Budget_Fact_Sheet_-_Homelessness_Programs.pdf (accessed June 11, 2015).

. n.d. “Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program (HVRP).” Washington, DC: U.S. Interagency

Council on Homelessness. http://usich.gov/about_us/funding_programs/programs/homeless_

veterans_reintegration_program_hvrp/ (accessed June 11, 2015).

192

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

VETERANS HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION EVALUATION FINAL REPORT

193

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

November 2015

Document Outline

Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Ending Homelessness Among Veterans

Efforts To End Veteran Homelessness

Progress in the Plan To End Homelessness

Homeless Veterans’ Characteristics

Reasons for Homelessness

Conclusion

Chapter 2. Study Overview

Study Research Questions

Research Design

Data Collection

Chapter 3. Program Description and Implementation Challenges

VHPD Program

Program Costs

Implementation Challenges

Chapter 4. VHPD Households

Reaching Veteran Target Populations

Profile of Veterans Served

How VHPD Veterans Compared With Those Served Through HPRP

Chapter 5. Housing Stability

Housing Status at Program Entry

History of Homelessness

Housing Status at Program Exit

Housing Situation at Follow-Up

Use of Homeless Services After VHPD

Conclusions

Chapter 6. Income and Employment

Variations in Cost of Living by Site

Income Levels and Sources at Program Entry and Survey Baseline

Employment Rates at Survey Baseline

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Survey Baseline

Change in Income and Sources of Income at Program Exit and Follow-Up Survey

Change in Employment at Follow-Up Survey

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Follow-Up Survey

Conclusions

Chapter 7. Veteran Perspectives

Reasons for Housing Instability and Homelessness

Finding VHPD

Experiences With VHPD Services, Effectiveness of Those Services, and Unaddressed Challenges

Prospects for the Future

Chapter 8. Lessons Learned for Serving Veterans at Risk of Homelessness

Identifying At-Risk Veterans

Serving Veterans Through Interagency Collaboration

Ensuring Veteran Cultural Competency

Addressing Veterans’ Mental Health and Physical Health Needs

Overcoming Service-Related Employment Barriers

Accessing a Greater Array of Benefits

Changing Discharge Status To Obtain Services

Conclusion

Appendix A. Definitions of Terms

Appendix B. Qualitative Data Collection Methods

Early Program Reconnaissance

Key Informant Interviews

Focus Groups With Program Participants

Appendix C. Round 1 Key Informant Interview Instrument

Appendix D. Round 2 Key Informant Interview Instrument

Appendix E. Focus Group Guide

Appendix F. Baseline Survey Methods

Appendix G. Baseline Survey Instrument

Appendix H. Follow-Up Survey Methods

Appendix I. Follow-Up Survey Instrument

Appendix J. Survey Data Cleaning and Survey Timing

Appendix K. Administrative Data Elements

Appendix L. Survey Weighting

Appendix M. Annual Performance Report Data Imputation Approach

Appendix N. References

Table of Contents

Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Ending Homelessness Among Veterans

Efforts To End Veteran Homelessness

Progress in the Plan To End Homelessness

Homeless Veterans’ Characteristics

Reasons for Homelessness

Conclusion

Efforts To End Veteran Homelessness

Progress in the Plan To End Homelessness

Homeless Veterans’ Characteristics

Reasons for Homelessness

Conclusion

Chapter 2. Study Overview

Study Research Questions

Research Design

Data Collection

Study Research Questions

Research Design

Data Collection

Chapter 3. Program Description and Implementation Challenges

VHPD Program

Program Costs

Implementation Challenges

VHPD Program

Program Costs

Implementation Challenges

Chapter 4. VHPD Households

Reaching Veteran Target Populations

Profile of Veterans Served

How VHPD Veterans Compared With Those Served Through HPRP

Reaching Veteran Target Populations

Profile of Veterans Served

How VHPD Veterans Compared With Those Served Through HPRP

Chapter 5. Housing Stability

Housing Status at Program Entry

History of Homelessness

Housing Status at Program Exit

Housing Situation at Follow-Up

Use of Homeless Services After VHPD

Conclusions

Housing Status at Program Entry

History of Homelessness

Housing Status at Program Exit

Housing Situation at Follow-Up

Use of Homeless Services After VHPD

Conclusions

Chapter 6. Income and Employment

Variations in Cost of Living by Site

Income Levels and Sources at Program Entry and Survey Baseline

Employment Rates at Survey Baseline

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Survey Baseline

Change in Income and Sources of Income at Program Exit and Follow-Up Survey

Change in Employment at Follow-Up Survey

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Follow-Up Survey

Conclusions

Variations in Cost of Living by Site

Income Levels and Sources at Program Entry and Survey Baseline

Employment Rates at Survey Baseline

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Survey Baseline

Change in Income and Sources of Income at Program Exit and Follow-Up Survey

Change in Employment at Follow-Up Survey

Engagement in Education and Training Opportunities at Follow-Up Survey

Conclusions

Chapter 7. Veteran Perspectives

Reasons for Housing Instability and Homelessness

Finding VHPD

Experiences With VHPD Services, Effectiveness of Those Services, and Unaddressed Challenges

Prospects for the Future

Reasons for Housing Instability and Homelessness

Finding VHPD

Experiences With VHPD Services, Effectiveness of Those Services, and Unaddressed Challenges

Prospects for the Future

Chapter 8. Lessons Learned for Serving Veterans at Risk of Homelessness

Identifying At-Risk Veterans

Serving Veterans Through Interagency Collaboration

Ensuring Veteran Cultural Competency

Addressing Veterans’ Mental Health and Physical Health Needs

Overcoming Service-Related Employment Barriers

Accessing a Greater Array of Benefits

Changing Discharge Status To Obtain Services

Conclusion

Identifying At-Risk Veterans

Serving Veterans Through Interagency Collaboration

Ensuring Veteran Cultural Competency

Addressing Veterans’ Mental Health and Physical Health Needs

Overcoming Service-Related Employment Barriers

Accessing a Greater Array of Benefits

Changing Discharge Status To Obtain Services

Conclusion

Appendix A. Definitions of Terms

Appendix B. Qualitative Data Collection Methods

Early Program Reconnaissance

Key Informant Interviews

Focus Groups With Program Participants

Early Program Reconnaissance

Key Informant Interviews

Focus Groups With Program Participants

Appendix C. Round 1 Key Informant Interview Instrument

Appendix D. Round 2 Key Informant Interview Instrument

Appendix E. Focus Group Guide

Appendix F. Baseline Survey Methods

Appendix G. Baseline Survey Instrument

Appendix H. Follow-Up Survey Methods

Appendix I. Follow-Up Survey Instrument

Appendix J. Survey Data Cleaning and Survey Timing

Appendix K. Administrative Data Elements

Appendix L. Survey Weighting

Appendix M. Annual Performance Report Data Imputation Approach

Appendix N. References