McKINNEY ACT PROGRAMS IN NONMETRO AREAS: HOW FAR DO THEY REACH?
PART TWO: CASE STUDIES

© Housing Assistance Council, 1995

Permission is granted ONLY to nonprofit community-based organizations to reproduce and/or adapt this document, and only for their own use.  

I. INTRODUCTION

This report consists of six case studies conducted in 1992 of organizations in nonmetropolitan counties across the country that have successfully implemented local homeless assistance programs that include funding from the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act programs. A companion publication, McKinney Act Programs in Nonmetro Areas: How Far Do They Reach? Part One: Distribution of Funds 1987-1991, assesses the amounts and proportions of funds from eight of the original McKinney programs that went to organizations in nonmetro areas nationwide during fiscal years 1987-1991.

The McKinney Act

The McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, passed in 1987, created programs providing food, emergency shelter, transitional and long-term housing, health and mental health services, job training, education, and other supportive services to address the needs of homeless people. Most of the programs, which are administered by several federal agencies, have been funded since 1987. The following table from Part One illustrates the range of proportionate McKinney program funding (2 percent to 25 percent) that was received by nonmetro-based organizations for the various programs analyzed.¹

Homeless Assistance in Nonmetro Areas

The following summary of homelessness in nonmetro areas is the result of on-site visits at selected homeless programs in Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Arkansas, Tennessee, and New Mexico. The programs and areas they serve were not selected on a scientific basis and do not constitute a statistically representative sample of nonmetro homelessness or homeless assistance programs in the United States. The selected programs varied greatly in size and scope, some providing only emergency shelter and referrals, others offering a full continuum of housing and related support services. While they were all located in counties that were classified as nonmetro based on 1980 census figures, the programs' service areas also varied in geographic size, population size and rural/urban characteristics.² The appendix to this report includes a rural/urban households table and service area maps, which illustrate the variety of characteristics found in nonmetro areas, for two of the case study organizations, York County Shelters, Inc. in Maine and the Southwest Human Resource Agency in Jackson, Tennessee.

Regardless of region or program type, there were many similarities among the programs and the clients they serve. For nonmetro areas in each of the six states, causes of homelessness, characteristics of the homeless population, and concerns of providers were much the same. A discussion of the similarities follows.

Obtaining funding from the competitive McKinney programs is difficult for many homeless service providers in nonmetro areas. Because of the smaller size of their communities, the scale of their operations and program regulations, providers find themselves unable to compete with larger, more sophisticated programs in the cities. Program regulations and definitions that may be well-suited to large urban areas with the ability to operate a variety of specific programs are often less applicable in nonmetro areas where one provider with a single facility must try to meet the total needs of homeless people in the community. For example, awards for the three primary competitive McKinney programs administered by HUD are based in part on applicants' abilities to demonstrate need "based on reliable data from surveys of homeless populations."³ Would-be homeless assistance providers in nonmetro areas are much less likely to have access to such data than applicants based in urban centers where homeless assistance providers are already operating and surveying clients. Additionally, applicants are given more points in the competitive grant programs if they provide for "coordination with other programs" and "leveraging" of other resources.⁴ Nonmetro service providers are often the only assistance providers in their communities, with few options for coordination and fewer resources to leverage than their metro counterparts.

The organizations depicted in this publication are not necessarily typical of nonmetro homeless assistance providers. In fact, they are atypical because they were able to successfully compete for various McKinney program funds. The following table provides Fiscal Year 1992 funding amounts for selected McKinney programs received by the six case study organizations.

State-awarded McKinney funds most likely to reach programs in nonmetro areas are Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program (FEMA) funds and Emergency Community Services Homeless Assistance Grants (EHP). Homeless programs sponsored by Community Action or Human Resource Agencies generally receive EHP monies on a formula basis as part of their Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) allotments. Additionally, some State Homeless Coordinators have used their freedom in administering federal funds to make special allowances to advantage providers in nonmetro areas when establishing ESG distribution formulas.

Homeless programs sponsored by Community Action and Human Resource Agencies have some advantage over smaller private nonprofit providers in the funding arena in that they generally have larger staffs and prior experience in effective grantsmanship. Many other programs simply lack the trained staff, time, and experience necessary to draft grants that will be competitive on a national level. Small local providers find themselves in the "Catch 22" situation of lacking the staff and resources to obtain funding to expand their staff and services. Additionally, without financial support from the state (which in some states is non-existent), many providers are unable to raise the match required to be eligible for some federal funding programs. These providers find the federal funding process prohibitive and echo one another's sentiments that procedures and regulations must be scaled down to reflect the size and scale limitations of programs in nonmetro areas.

Response to homelessness varies widely among the states. While all states were required to appoint homeless coordinators and to produce Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plans (CHAP) under the Stewart B. McKinney Act and, later, to include plans for assistance to homeless populations in their Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategies (CHASes), the effectiveness of each state's efforts depends largely on the coordination between the state's lead agency on homelessness and other agencies within the state. Individual states, and, more specifically, agencies within the states are responsible for applying for federal funding and determining how funds are to be distributed among providers within the states. In some states, such as Maine and Illinois, providers can expect to receive homeless funds from the state through state budget allocations or income tax check-offs, while in states like Arkansas and Tennessee they must rely solely on federal funds channeled through the state.

Lessons from the Case Studies

The six case studies in this publication provide lessons regarding what makes homeless assistance programs in nonmetro areas successful. Of course, the individual characteristics of each community's homeless population and dynamics related to the community's ability to provide specific resources vary: what works for one nonmetro community may not work for the next. There are, however, some general commonalities among successful homeless assistance providers. The commonalities illustrated in the case studies include cooperation with government agencies, support from community leaders, creative financing and resource identification, a client-centered approach to assistance that provides for a continuum of shelter and service needs, and cooperation among service providers.

Effective networking and cooperation both between providers and municipal or county governments, and between local providers and state officials, are crucial to the success of homeless programs in nonmetro areas. Working with limited financial resources, nonmetro homeless service providers must rely on generous community-based support as well as resource and information sharing among local social service providers and city and county governments. On the other hand, the smallness and rural character of nonmetro communities facilitate the mobilization of local support and cooperation at all levels. Minimal bureaucracy, easy access to local media, overlapping business and personal relationships, and willingness of individuals to become involved are the chief advantages enjoyed by nonmetro service providers. Churches, businesses, organizations, and individuals feel a sense of responsibility toward needy people in their communities, and donations of materials and volunteer hours are fundamental to the success of nonmetro homeless programs.

The support of a strong board of directors made up of bankers, realtors, clergy, local government officials, and other community leaders has been instrumental in the development and expansion of homeless assistance programs. The backing of an influential board lends credibility to young programs and encourages broad-based community support from businesses, organizations, and individuals. Successful providers also forge mutually beneficial relationships with city and county governments in their service areas by exchanging service to the community for government cooperation and/or financial support. In Washington, Iowa, for example, the County Board of Supervisors worked with the Hawkeye Area Community Action Agency (HACAP) to create a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) proposal that funded both a HACAP homeless facility and a related water project, essential to HACAP but beneficial to the entire community.

In developing homeless shelters and transitional housing projects in nonmetro areas, providers must find innovative low-cost ways to acquire and rehabilitate or construct facilities. Providers look to banks, local government, and individuals to donate usable buildings or to lease them at nominal rates. Although nonmetro areas often have few philanthropic organizations from which to request funding, local businesses and community groups are often willing to provide donations, in-kind services and/or employee volunteers. Well-connected board members are often helpful in identifying properties and facilitating their acquisition. Banks, in order to fulfill their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act, are increasingly likely to assist providers by either offering low-interest loans or donating properties. In Maine, York County Shelters has entered into a cooperative venture with the local housing authority to provide supported housing to formerly homeless and low-income people in York County. Other homeless programs, such as the one at Tennessee's Southwest Human Resource Agency (SWHRA), are utilizing HUD inventory properties leased at one dollar per year to provide scattered-site transitional housing units.

The case studies illustrate successful programs that follow a client-centered approach to care and recovery, in which the client (with the help of a case manager) identifies his or her problems and goals and the necessary actions the client must take and assistance he or she must receive in order to reach self-sufficiency. For example, the residents of York County Shelters' transitional Smith Apartments develop independent living plans tailored to individual needs. Residents of the Old Main Transitional Housing Project in Washington, Iowa develop family case plans for reaching self-sufficiency. Each of the case study programs provided some linkage to permanent housing options, or a continuum of care, for its clients. Once clients are placed in permanent, often assisted housing, most programs continue to offer supportive services and case management aimed at keeping the family or individual as self-sufficient as possible.

Perhaps the most crucial factor in attempting to meet the total needs of homeless people in nonmetro areas is cooperation among local providers. In small communities social service agencies generally share an overlapping client base, as no single provider has the resources to fully address clients' wide-ranging needs. Across the nation, shelters and other service providers in nonmetro areas recognize the need to coordinate their limited resources to insure non- duplication of services and to maximize the use of available resources in their communities. They network formally as members of councils or coalitions and informally through daily phone conversations in which they exchange favors, attempting to patch together needed services and/or financial resources. In the best instances, networking providers, like those in Farmington, New Mexico, acknowledge each participating agency's area of expertise and agree not to compete for limited funds that would be best utilized by a particular agency or provider. In situations where homeless programs are able to provide little more than basic shelter, this type of cooperation becomes essential. Such is the case in Jackson, Tennessee where SWHRA's shelter coordinator and only full-time employee has organized a strong network of local providers which insures that the best possible services are easily accessed by shelter residents.

Real solutions to the ever-growing problem of homelessness in nonmetro America lie in addressing not only the immediate lack of shelter, but also, and perhaps most importantly, the underlying social issues that are both causes and effects of poverty and homelessness. Comprehensive services will, for many homeless people, mean the difference between self- sufficiency and life as a welfare statistic. State and federal homeless programs must be willing to invest in prevention and long-term solutions that account for the unique problems of scale and diversity of need present in nonmetro communities.

On to next section

Back to table of contents