[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44550-44631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21111]
[[Page 44549]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Policy Development and Research
_______________________________________________________________________
Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 1995 /
Notices
[[Page 44550]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of Policy Development and Research
[Docket No. FR-3917-N-18]
Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
AGENCY: Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described
below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department
is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
DATES: Comment due date: September 12, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments must be received within 14 working days from
the date of this notice. Comments should refer to the proposal by name
and should be sent to: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., OMB Desk Officer, Office
of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kay F. Weaver, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone
no. (202) 708-0050. This is not a toll free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB for
processing an information collection package related to the National
Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (hereinafter
``survey''). HUD is requesting a review of this information collection
on or before September 30, 1995.
The survey will provide estimates of the number and characteristics
of service providers and an assessment of the types of programs and
services available to people who are homeless. It will also provide
detailed characteristics of persons using services. Under the auspices
of the Interagency Council on the Homeless, the survey is being co-
sponsored by 11 Federal agencies:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Justice
Department of Transportation
Social Security Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The survey includes two phases: Phase 1 is the collection of
information on service providers and Phase 2 is the collection of
information on service users (clients). In Phase 1, the Census Bureau
will:
(1) Select a sample of geographic areas;
(2) Develop a comprehensive list of service providers in the survey
sample areas;
(3) Collect basic information from all service providers within the
sample areas on programs offered, via a computer-assisted telephone
interview; and
(4) Select a subsample of providers and collect detailed
information on programs and services by mail, with telephone followup.
Phase 1 of the national survey is planned to be conducted starting in
October 1995 and conclude by January 1996.
In Phase 2, the Census Bureau will:
(1) Select a sample of service users (clients) within the sample
areas;
(2) Select a sample of providers in designated programs; and
(3) Select clients and conduct personal visit interviews at
selected service provider facilities.
Phase 2 of the survey is planned to be conducted starting in February
1996 and conclude by March 1996.
This request is for clearance to conduct Phase 2 of the survey, the
collection of information on service users using two instruments:
NSHAPC--200 Service Users Survey; and
NSHAPC--300 Roster for Provider Facility.
The information to be requested under the Service Users Survey is
specified, but the survey form will undergo a final forms design before
it is administered.
A pre-test of the NSHAPC was conducted in April 1995 in three
areas: Atlanta, GA; Pittsburgh, PA (including Allegheny, Fayette,
Washington, and Westmoreland Counties); and the Armstrong County
Community Action Agency Catchment area (a rural Community Action Agency
service area outside Pittsburgh). The survey instruments have been
revised to reflect the experience gained in the pre-test. The Census
Bureau sought and obtained substantial expert input over a two-year
period to develop the survey instruments.
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of
information, as described below to OMB for review, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35):
(1) the title of the information collection proposal;
(2) the office of the agency to collect the information;
(3) the description of the need for the information and its
proposed use;
(4) the agency form number, if applicable;
(5) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal;
(6) how frequently information submission will be required;
(7) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the
information submission including numbers of respondents, frequency of
response, and hours of response;
(8) whether the proposal is new or an extension, reinstatement, or
revision of an information collection requirement; and
(9) the names and telephone numbers of an agency official familiar
with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3507; Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Dated: August 17, 1995.
Michael A. Stegman,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
Proposal: National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and
Clients (NSHAPC).
Office: Policy Development and Research.
Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use:
This national survey would provide up-to-date information about the
providers of homeless assistance and the characteristics of homeless
persons who use services. The survey will be conducted in 76 areas
including metropolitan and nonmetropolitan settings. The data will:
(1) be compared with the findings of a 1987 Urban Institute survey
of homeless characteristics to understand reported changes in the
nature of homelessness, especially those related to families with
children;
(2) provide a basis for assessing local efforts to construct
``continuums of care'' for homeless people;
[[Page 44551]]
(3) be used to develop measures to assess the impact and
performance of current homeless programs;
(4) will assist local governments and nonprofit organizations in
designing more effective more effective local programs; and
(5) provide a baseline for examining the effects on the homeless
population of proposed changes to the McKinney homeless assistance
programs, and America's ``safety net'' programs for the poor (e.g.,
Section 8, AFDC, JTPA, and Medicaid programs).
Form Number: None.
Respondents: Homeless service providers and homeless persons.
Frequency of Submission: One-time.
Reporting Burden: See attachment.
Total Estimated Burden Hours: Phase 2, Client Surveys 2,850.
Status: New survey.
Contact: James E. Hoben, HUD, (202) 708-0574 X132; George A.
Ferguson, HUD, (202) 708-1480; Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., OMB, (202) 395-
7316.
Dated: August 15, 1995.
Supporting Statement
A. Justification
1. Necessity of Information Collection
The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients
(NSHAPC) includes two phases: the collection of information on service
providers and the collection of information on service users (clients).
Phase 1: In Phase 1, the Census Bureau will:
(1) Select a sample of geographic areas.
(2) Develop a comprehensible list of service providers in the
survey sample areas.
(3) Collect basic information from all service providers within the
sample areas on programs offered, via a computer-assisted telephone
interview.
(4) Select a subsample of providers and collect detailed
information on programs and services by mail, with telephone follow-up.
Note: Steps 1 and 2 must be completed if Phase 2 is conducted.
Phase 2: In Phase 2, the Census Bureau will:
(1) Select a sample of service users (clients) within the sample
areas in two other stages.
(2) Select a sample of providers in designated programs.
(3) Select clients and conduct personal visit interviews at
selected service provider facilities.
This request is for clearance to conduct Phase 2 of the survey. An
earlier OMB package was submitted requesting clearance to conduct Phase
1. This request is for the following forms listed by title and code
number.
NSHAPC-200A, Service User Questionnaire.
NSHAPC-XXXX, Roster for Provider Facility.
The national survey will provide estimates of the number and
characteristics of service providers, and an assessment of the types of
programs and services available to people who are homeless. The survey
will also provide (in Phase 2) detailed characteristics of persons
using services. Phase 2 of the national survey is being sponsored by
the following Federal agencies:
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Department of Commerce (DOC).
Department of Education (ED).
Department of Energy (DOE).
Department of Justice (DOJ).
Department of Transportation (DOT).
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Data will be collected under HUD's data collections authority.
As part of the 1990 Census, the Census Bureau enumerated persons
residing in homeless shelters and pre-identified street locations.
However, this operation was not designed to provide the full range of
information needed for guiding policy decisions related to
homelessness. With this understanding, in September of 1993, the Bureau
of the Census convened a conference of researchers, representatives of
public interest groups, and government representatives to discuss ways
of improving data collection on the homeless population. The consensus
among this group was that the decennial census is not the appropriate
vehicle for gathering information on the homeless population. They
suggested that a new national survey using a updated methodologies to
obtain an accurate and useful picture of those homeless people who use
services in the United States is needed.
2. Needs and Uses
The information the new survey would provide is critical for
developing the kinds of effective public policy responses needed to
break the cycle of homelessness, both through targeted programs and the
leveraging of mainstream resources. This survey would provide up-to-
date information about the characteristics of today's homeless
population who use services and would tell us how this population has
changed since 1987 in urban areas. Included in the survey would be the
first national examination of the characteristics of homelessness in
rural America, fulfilling a Congressional mandate for a report on this
subject.
The national NSHAPC survey would:
1. Provide national information on the types of services available
to homeless persons in both urban and rural communities.
2. Provide information not addressed by the last national study in
1987 such as: What are the triggering events that precipitate
homelessness? Where were homeless people living before they became
homeless? How prevalent is AIDS among homeless persons? What impact
does rural homelessness have on urban homelessness? What differences
are there among homeless persons found in cities, suburbs, and rural
areas?
3. Tell us what characteristics of the homeless population have
changed since the 1987 study.
4. Collect additional information related to drug use, mental
illness, AIDS, tuberculosis, and previous episodes of homelessness.
5. Include smaller cities, nonmetropolitan and rural areas in order
to more accurately and fully reflect homelessness in the United States.
The survey would interview a sufficient number of people using services
in 76 geographic areas to ensure reliability of the national estimates.
Of these 76 geographic areas, 28 would be large metropolitan areas, 24
would be medium and small metropolitan areas, and 24 would be
nonmetropolitan areas (small cities and rural areas).
Discussion of Phase 1 Activities
Phase 1 will be on-going from October 1, 1995 through January 1996.
Three steps occur in Phase 1.
Step 1: Completing the CATI Interview
1. Beginning on October 1, 1995, Census Bureau staff will use a
computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) to contact all service
providers in the 76 sample communities. Service providers interviewed
would include those with programs specifically targeted at the homeless
(e.g. homeless shelters, soup kitchens, homeless outreach programs) as
well as other community service providers with programs from which
homeless individuals are eligible. The purpose of the survey of service
providers would be to assess the types of programs and service
available to homeless persons in
[[Page 44552]]
these metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas. All service providers in
the areas will be asked about the types of programs offered and basic
information about each program offered, such as source of funding, days
of operation, and population group primarily served (e.g., veterans,
people with mental illness). Prior to the CATI calls, an advance
letter, NSHAPC--L(1)L will be mailed to each provider.
To develop the profile of programs offered nationwide, all service
providers will be asked to complete the NSHAPC Form 100A, Service
Provider Core Data Questionnaire. This questionnaire collects the
following information about the service provider and programs offered
at that address:
Name.
Contact for the facility.
Address.
Telephone Number.
Type of Facility.
Programs Provided.
The following information will be collected for each program
offered:
Average Number of Adults and Children Participating in
Programs On A Daily Basis, and Percent Homeless.
Average Number of Adults and Children the Facility Serves
On A Daily Basis.
Familial Status of Persons the Facility Serves On A Daily
Basis.
Public or private affiliation.
Source of funding.
If the program is targeted to a specific subpopulation
group.
Number of Facilities Under Contract To, or Accepting
Vouchers.
Expected Days of Operation for each program in February,
1996.
Contact person for each program.
Step 2: Reviewing the List of Service Providers
Once the CATI interview is completed, service providers will be
mailed a comprehensive list of service providers in the sample areas.
Service providers are asked to review the list for completeness and
accuracy. We are asking providers to correct any incorrect entries and
to identify service providers that are omitted from the list. The
updated lists will be mailed back to the Census Bureau for update.
After receipt of the reviewed list, Census Bureau personnel will remove
duplicate entries from the list and prepare a master list of service
providers. New service providers added to the list will then be
contacted and Census Bureau staff will administer the CATI interview.
The Census Bureau plans to generate listings of service providers
for each of the sample areas in the survey and mail, NSHAPC Form 100-M,
List of Providers Offering Homeless Programs and the NSHAPC--L(2)
letter to all service providers shown on the comprehensive list and all
knowledgeable local persons. The knowledgeable local persons and
service providers will be asked to review the listing of all service
providers in their area for completeness, and to add any missed service
providers to the list. NOTE: A sample of providers will be asked to
provide additional information about the services they offer. This is
discussed below under Phase 1, Step 3.
The Census Bureau is obtaining copies of national files of service
providers from national organizations, Federal agencies, and from
Community Action Program (CAP) coordinators. The Census Bureau has
obtained a copy of lists of service providers from the following
Federal agencies: FEMA, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development, and Labor. National organizations, such
as the National Coalition for the Homeless, National Alliance to End
Homelessness, National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, National
Network of Runaway and Youth Services, Catholic Charities, Better Homes
Foundation, and Volunteers of America, Inc. have provided lists to the
Census Bureau. The Census Bureau plans to unduplicate and merge these
files into one comprehensive listing of service providers. This
comprehensive list will be used as the initial sampling frame for
identifying and interviewing service providers in the sample areas.
The local update may also provide the Census Bureau with additional
names of service providers and local persons or organizations
knowledgeable about homeless services. (Federal, State, and Local
Agencies may not have the name of a service provider if the provider
does not receive any federal, state, or local funding.
Census Bureau personnel also will contact the state homeless
coordinator designated under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The
Census Bureau will tell them about the survey, indicate which counties
in their state are included in the survey, and provide them with a list
of service providers in each of the sample areas. The state
coordinators will be asked to review the list of service providers and
note any additions or changes.
Note: Census Bureau personnel have already completed some
initial contacts with federal and state government offices,
agencies, organizations, and knowledgeable local persons to begin
compiling a national list of service providers.
Shelters for abused women and runaway youths will not be on the
listings to be reviewed by service providers but are included in the
sampling frame. This is to preserve the confidential locations of
shelters for abused women and runaway youth.
The Census Bureau will use the master list of service providers as
the frame to select the sample of service providers who will receive
the detailed-program questionnaires and to select the sample of
provider facilities where client interviewing will be conducted.
Step 3: Completing the Detailed Information on Programs and Services
Once the CATI interviews are completed, a subsample of service
providers will be asked to provide more detailed information about the
specific programs and services offered at their facility. Separate
questionnaires for each program have been developed. Program managers
will be asked to complete a questionnaire by mail for each program they
administer. For each program offered, program managers will receive a
copy of the appropriate program questionnaire and the NSHAPC L(3)L
letter. Census Bureau staff will follow-up by telephone for all
nonresponding providers.
Discussion of Phase 2 Activities
The second phase of the survey would consist of interviewing a
sample of persons using services at homeless shelters, soup kitchens,
and other service locations where homeless people are found.
Respondents will be asked to complete NSHAPC Form 200A, Service User
Questionnaire (See Attachment A). To facilitate the sampling, we are
asking providers to complete Form NSHAPC 300, Roster for Providers (See
Attachment B). Providers will be asked to list all clients using the
housing program on the day of the interview. Interviews will take place
continuously over a four-week period in order to obtain a
representative sample. In addition to providing data on characteristics
of the portion of the homeless population who use services, this phase
of the survey would identify homeless subgroups and help determine
their use of various types of assistance programs. It would also
collect limited comparative data on housed persons with very low
incomes who also rely on soup kitchens and other emergency assistance.
The survey will estimate characteristics at the national level
only. The sample size is not large enough to produce estimates of
client characteristics at the regional or local levels.
[[Page 44553]]
In 1987, the Urban Institute completed a survey of homeless
persons. Data from the 1987 Urban Institute study represent the only
national level data specific to homeless persons. Since the 1987 study,
no significant national studies have been conducted to provide national
information about the characteristics of homeless persons using
services for homeless people.
NSHAPC data will be used to plan future programs and services
funded via the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and other homeless
programs to prevent homelessness as well as ameliorate it.
Understanding the causes of homelessness can help guide the development
of preventive strategies. Data from the NSHAPC will be used by the
participating agencies to prepare reports in accordance with the
requirements of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and other homeless
assistance programs.
The following targeted programs will benefit from the data
collected in the NSHAPC.
Emergency/Temporary Shelter Assistance
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (FEMA)--Assistance directed toward
temporary shelter
Emergency Shelter Grants Program (HUD)
Shelter for the Homeless [Department of Defense (DOD)]
Homeless Support Initiatives--Surplus Blankets (DOD)
Food and Nutrition Assistance
Commodities for Soup Kitchens (USDA)
Emergency Food and Shelter Program--Food Assistance (FEMA)
Commissary/Food Bank Initiatives (DOD) and [Department of
Transportation (DOT)]
Federal Grain Inspection Service--Donation of Surplus Samples (USDA)
General Health Assistance
Health Care for the Homeless Grant Program (HHS)
Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans Program (VA)
Assistance to Homeless Persons With Disabilities
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) (HHS)
Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports (ACCESS)
(HHS)
Community Support Program--homeless-specific portion (HHS)
National Institute of Health (NIH) Research on Homeless (HHS)
Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans Program (VA)
Safe Havens (HUD)
National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Research
Demonstration on Homelessness (HHS)
Drug Abuse Prevention for Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS)
Education, Training, and Employment Assistance
Educ. Homeless Children & Youth State Grants Prog. (ED)
Exemplary Projects Program--Homeless Children (ED)
Adult Education for the Homeless (ED)
Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Program (DOL)
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project (DOL)
Housing Assistance
Transitional Housing Demonstration Program (HHS)
Supportive Housing Demonstration (HUD)
Section 87 Assistance for SROs (HUD)
Single Family Property Disposition Initiatives (HUD)
Transitional Living Program for Homeless Youth (HHS)
Farmer's Home Administration (FMHA) Homes for the Homeless (USDA)
Shelter for Homeless Vets--Acquired Property Sales (VA)
Base Closure Properties (DOD, HUD)
Homeless Prevention
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (FEMA)--Prevention Assistance
Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program (HHS)
General/Misc. Aid to Homeless Providers
Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program (HHS)
Excess and Surplus Federal Real Property [General Services
Administration (GSA)/(HUD)/(HHS)]
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (HHS)
Programs for Homeless Children/Youth/Families
Family Support Centers (HHS)
Transitional Housing Demonstration Program (HHS)
Supportive Housing Demonstration (HUD)
Educ. for Homeless Children and Youth State Grants Program (ED)
Exemplary Projects Program--Homeless Children (ED)
Runaway and Homeless Youth Program (HHS)
Transitional Living Program for Homeless Youth (HHS)
Drug Abuse Prevention for Runaway and Homeless Youth (HHS)
Programs for Homeless Veterans
Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans Program (VA)
Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans Program (VA)
Shelter for Homeless Vets--Acquired Property Sales (VA)
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project (DOL)
Each agency was asked to identify their data needs and to rank the
importance of those data requirements. From this ranking, we developed
the Service User Questionnaire, NSHAPC--Form 200A. Listed below is a
discussion of the survey questions on the Respondent Questionnaire and
how the data will be used by HUD, HHS, VA, USDA and the other Federal
agencies. Section numbers correspond to the section numbers on the
questionnaire.
Service User Questionnaire Cover Page--Items N and O--on the cover
page asks the respondent's name and age. Collection of the name (along
with the other variables described in Section 4) will be used to
eliminate duplicate interviews. Because the sampling and data
collection design calls for multiple visits to each provider site, and
because one homeless person could be found in more than one sampling
frame (e.g., in both soup kitchens and shelters), unduplicating is
central to the process of estimating the size of the population.
Question 64a asks for the respondent's social security number.
Question 64b asks for the first five digits of the respondent's social
security number if the respondent refuses to give their entire social
security number. These questions, along with the name and the other
variables described above, are being collected for purposes of
unduplicating respondents.
Section 1: Current Living Condition
Questions 1a-7
These questions determine whether or not the respondent is
homeless, and are considered essential by all participating agencies.
With minor modifications, they are the same screening questions used in
Rossi's (1986) Chicago studies, in the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA, 1992) Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS),
and in the Urban Institute's national study (Burt and Cohen, 1988,
1989) which the NSHAPC methodology is designed to parallel and extend.
For purposes of continuity and comparison, it is important that they
remain essentially the same as they were in earlier studies.
[[Page 44554]]
Section 2: Without Permanent Housing
Section 3: Currently With Permanent Housing
Section 2, Questions 8a-10, 24-27
Section 3, Questions 33a-40
The answers to these questions are necessary to make estimates of
the size of the homeless population. Sampling and estimation experts
from the Urban Institute and the Census Bureau developed the questions.
Questions 8 and 9 parallel similar questions asked in the 1987 Urban
Institute study.
The Census Bureau requires Question 33B to determine if asking
respondents to report names of shelters can be used to assess the
completeness of the survey's list of shelters.
Section 2, Questions 11-23, 28-32
Section 3, Questions 41-55
These questions are needed to understand the circumstances
affecting the respondent in the period immediately before becoming
homeless. They have been compiled from similar questions asked in the
1987 Urban Institute study, the DC*MADS study, and other studies. These
previously used questions were augmented by questions or item content
which pretests revealed to be necessary to give a reasonable
understanding of the respondent's experiences. They will reveal the
proximate causes of each individual's current homeless episode (or
their last homeless episode if they are not now homeless but have been
homeless in the past).
HHS considers these questions to be essential and the VA considers
them highly desirable. Other agencies whose mission includes efforts to
prevent homelessness as well as ameliorate it may also consider them
desirable. An understanding of proximate causes can help guide the
development of preventive strategies.
Section 2, Questions 11-15
Section 3, Questions 41-44
These questions are either identical to or minor modifications of
questions asked in the 1987 Urban Institute study. We modified the
wording of some questions to make sure that the respondent and the
researcher mean the same thing by their answers (e.g., on Question 13,
some women living with their children will say they live alone, because
they do not live with a spouse or boyfriend. We want to be sure that
``alone'' means ``alone.'')
Section 2, Questions 16 a and b
Section 3, Questions 45 a and b
These questions are modified versions of a question asked in the
1987 Urban Institute study. We changed the format from obtaining only a
single response to probing for all relevant responses and then asking
the respondent to identify the primary reason. This eliminates the
difficulty in interpreting single responses such as Respondent 1 saying
``couldn't pay the rent,'' Respondent 2 saying ``lost my job,'' and
Respondent 3 saying ``Was doing drugs,'' when all three could not pay
the rent because they lost their jobs because they were doing drugs.
Section 2, Questions 17-19
Section 3, Questions 46-47c
These questions were not in the 1987 Urban Institute study.
Subsequent research by NIDA (1992) indicates that many homeless
people spend a considerable amount of time in institutions or in
temporary arrangements with friends or family between the interview
date and the time when they last had a permanent place to stay
(Question 11). In other words, they are not literally homeless during
the whole period since they last had a permanent place to stay. The
answers to these questions will let us determine how much of the time
they were literally homeless.
Section 2, Question 20
We want this question included to learn whether respondents have
any experience in the housing market on their own. Never having been a
primary tenant has been shown (Weitzman, 1989) to differentiate
homeless from never-homeless families.
Section 2, Questions 21-23
Section 3, Questions 48-50
HHS requested these questions. Local studies (Piliavin, Sosin, and
Westerfelt, 1986; Sosin, Colson and Grossman, 1988) have shown
seriously elevated rates of childhood experiences in foster care among
the adult homeless. The answers to these questions will help identify
the prevalence of childhood out-of-home placement and runaway behavior
among the adult homeless population for the first time on a national
sample. High prevalence could indicate a preventive role in programs
within HHS responsibility.
Section 2, Questions 28-32
Section 3, Questions 51-55
These questions are of interest to Department of Agriculture--
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), FEMA, and HHS' Health Care for the
Homeless program--the federal agencies supporting emergency services.
Answers to these questions will provide some explanation of the
movement of homeless people from one type of community to another, such
as the push of no services or no jobs in the community left behind and
the pull of expected services and economic opportunities in the
community where respondents are interviewed. They will also help
identify the conditions that generate homelessness, which may not be
the same conditions as those in the community where homeless people are
interviewed.
Section 4: Demographics
Questions 56-64a
All the sponsoring agencies consider basic demographic questions
which describe the population to be essential. In addition, Question 60
may help explain a lack of participation in the labor force at the time
of the interview, and Questions 61a, 61b, 62a and 62b provide data
about possible educational difficulties and deficits in addition to the
simple fact of ``last grade completed.'' They may help define possible
prevention strategies.
Questions 58, 64, and 64a
Questions 58 asks for the respondent's date of birth. The date of
birth serves a very important purpose of eliminating duplicate
interviews. A unique identifier is created using the respondent's date
of birth, gender, and one or two other variables. The data set is then
searched for duplicates. Because the sampling and data collection
design calls for multiple visits to each provider site, and because one
homeless person could be found in more than one sample frame (e.g., in
both soup kitchens and shelters), unduplicating is central to the
process of estimating the size of the population.
Question 64a asks for the respondent's social security number.
Question 64b asks for the first five digits of the respondent's social
security number if they refuse to give their entire Social Security
Number in response to question 64a. These are being collected as one of
the other unduplicating variables. The Bureau of the Census, HHS, and
the other sponsoring agencies will hold this information in the
strictest of confidence and will ensure it is available only to
researchers at HHS, the other sponsoring agencies and Bureau of the
Census staff.
[[Page 44555]]
Section 5: Children and Education
Questions 65-71h
ED and HHS consider these questions to be essential. Answers to
this set of questions will show the degree to which homelessness has
split families, and which children have been separated from their
parent(s). This information is important for planning reunification,
housing, and other needs of homeless families.
The information is of primary interest to ED, and the questions
about school attendance and barriers are directly relevant to ED's
agency mission under the McKinney Act and Congressional directives to
gather this information and report it to Congress.
Questions 71b and 71d
We added the pre-school content of these questions for children
ages 3-5 at the specific request of HHS. ED requested the other content
of these questions.
Questions 71g, 71h
We added the questions about day care at the specific request of
HHS.
Question 72
All participating agencies consider this question, on the
composition of homeless households to be essential.
Question 73
HHS specifically requested that this question be included on the
questionnaire. A pregnancy experienced by a precariously housed woman
has been shown to make her more vulnerable to literal homelessness
(Weitzman, 1989).
Section 6: Employment
Questions 74-79
HHS considers these questions to be essential, and the VA considers
them desirable. Where the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) routinely
asks questions with appropriate content in its national surveys, we
adopted the BLS working for this survey so answers for the homeless can
be compared with nationally representative data.
Section 7: Sources of Income and Service Use
Questions 80-84
HHS considers all questions in this section to be essential. VA
also considers Question 80 essential. These questions describe receipt
of benefits, other income sources, and total income for the month
before the interview. They also describe respondent experiences with a
variety of HHS, USDA, and local government benefits, including any
change of benefits that might have played a role in the respondent
becoming homeless.
Section 8: Veteran Status
Questions 85-89
The VA submitted these questions and considers them essential. In
particular, they have no other national source of data in war zone or
combat exposure (Questions 87 and 88), which may play a critical role
in the need for services as an antecedent of homelessness.
Section 9: Food Intake
Questions 90-93
These questions are considered essential by HHS and USDA.
Questions 94a-95b
The Census Bureau needs these questions to estimate the proportion
of persons receiving food that are poor but housed and those who are
homeless.
The Census Bureau requires Question 95b to determine if asking
respondents to report names of soup kitchens can be used to assess the
completeness of the survey's list of soup kitchens.
Section 10: Current Physical Health
Question 96
HHS and VA consider this item essential.
Questions 97-117
HHS considers questions 97-107 to be essential. For many questions,
the set of items to be asked about were specified by agency personnel
(e.g., specific health conditions for Question 96, specific service
sites for Question 99; all of Questions 101 and 103).
The VA needs information about the use of VA facilities. The VA
considers the VA-relevant information in Question 99 essential, as it
will assist them in determining whether veterans are using other
medical facilities to the exclusion of, or in addition to, VA
facilities.
Section 11: Victimization and Imprisonment
Questions 118a-120c
HHS, ED and VA requested that these questions be included on the
questionnaire. Several divisions of HHS specifically requested all of
the components of Question 120, and question 118c (juvenile detention).
A great deal of evidence suggests that parental neglect and abuse
(asked about in Questions 120a-c) is implicated in runaway behavior and
youth homelessness (Robertson, 1991). It is also obviously a precursor
of childhood out-of-home placement, which in turn is associated with
both youth and adult homelessness. (Piliavin, Sosin and Westerfelt,
1986; Sosin, Colson and Grossman, 1988). The answers to these questions
will reveal the degree to which the present homeless population has
these experiences in their background as potential contributing factors
to their homelessness.
Section 12: Mental Health
Questions 121a-126c
HHS considers these questions essential. The remaining agencies
completing the ratings considered them highly desirable. Given the
evidence for serious mental illness among sizable proportions of the
homeless population, these questions will provide data to understand
how mental illness relates to the many other factors included in the
interview protocol, including use of services and benefit receipt.
Questions 121a-124
Questions 121a-124 are taken directly from the Psychiatric section
of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), an instrument developed by NIAAA
to assess addictions and related conditions. These questions form a
scale; answers are summed to form a score, which can be compared to
national norms for this segment of the ASI. The ability to compare
homeless people's responses to a national norm will let us determine
where homeless people fit on the continuum of mental health problems.
All items in Questions 121a-124 must be present to construct the scale
score.
Questions 125-126c
Questions 125-126c are also taken from the ASI, with minor
modifications as accepted by NIMH's Program for the Homeless Mentally
Ill. They give evidence of treatment patterns (or lack thereof), and
will supply NIMH with an estimate of unmet service need, as well as the
usual sources of care sought by the homeless mentally ill.
Section 13: Chemical Dependency
Questions 127a-150
HHS considers these questions essential. The remaining agencies
completing the ratings consider them highly desirable. Given the
evidence for substance abuse among sizable proportions of the homeless
population, these questions will provide data to understand how
alcoholism and drug abuse relate to the many other factors included in
the interview protocol--especially antecedents of homelessness.
[[Page 44556]]
Questions 127a-132, 142-144
Questions 127a-132 and 142-144 are taken directly from the
Addiction Severity Index (ASI, McLellan et al., 1991, see above). These
questions form several scales; answers are summed to form scores, which
can be compared to national norms and norms for treatment populations
for this segment of the ASI. The ability to compare homeless people's
responses to national norms and norms for treatment populations will
let us determine where homeless people fit on the continuum of chemical
dependency problems. All items in Questions 127a-132 and 142-144 must
be present to construct the scale score, and NIAAA has strongly
expressed an interest in seeing the scales included in their entirety
on this interview protocol.
Questions 135-139, 147-150
Questions 135-139 (for alcohol treatment) and 147-150 (for drug
treatment) are also taken from the ASI, with minor modifications as
accepted by NIAAA/NIDA. They give evidence of treatment patterns (or
lack thereof), and will supply NIMH with an estimate of unmet service
need, as well as the usual sources of care sought by homeless substance
abusers.
Questions 133, 144
The items in these questions are taken from the Short Michigan
Alcoholism Screening Test (Question 122--Selzer, Vinokur, and van
Rooijen, 1975) and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (Question 132--
Skinner, 1982). Both of the original instruments are too long to
include in this study in their entirety (24 and 28 items,
respectively). However, the inclusion of some measure of symptomatology
related to substance abuse was felt to be important, to detect the
level of functional impairment related to substance abuse among those
who never sought treatment as well as among those who have. In each
case the eight items selected are those with the highest correlations
with the total scale score for the original scale (r=.7 or higher).
Scores based on these selected items should function in virtually the
same way as scores we would obtain if we used all of each instrument.
Questions 134, 145
These questions assess the respondent's age when heavy alcohol or
drug use began. We are including these questions to assure that we will
know the duration of the respondents' substance abuse problems. Answers
to these questions augment the information on the earliest and most
recent treatment, and will provide a more complete picture of the
respondents' involvement with alcohol and drugs.
Question 151
This question is asked so that respondents can provide their
general impressions on the availability and quality of services in
their community.
3. Efforts to Minimize Burden
Not applicable. Respondents are individuals at service sites who
cannot respond with computer tapes or disks. We are also minimizing the
burden of the FEMA Local Board Contact Persons, government contacts,
service providers and knowledgeable local persons by giving them the
combined listing of service providers to review as opposed to asking
them to list all service providers in their area.
4. Efforts to Identify Duplication, and Use of Available Information
HUD consulted with other government agencies and outside experts
and determined that the proposed national NSHAPC will be the only
current, national data source with detailed information on the types
and availability of programs and services offered and on the
characteristics of literally homeless persons who use services. The
most recent national data is the 1987 Urban Institute Study.
In March 1987, the Urban Institute conducted a survey of homeless
persons who used services in cities of 100,000 or more. The NSHAPC is
intended to parallel and extend the methodology used by the Urban
Institute in the 1987 survey to capture a higher proportion of the
literally homeless population who use services.
a. The NSHAPC will include additional geographical coverage. Cities
with populations of 100,000 or less and areas outside of cities will be
included in the survey sample. (The 1987 Urban Institute survey only
included cities with populations over 100,000.)
b. The NSHAPC will include additional topic coverage. The client
questionnaire covers more topics and in greater depth than was covered
in the 1987 Urban Institute Survey. There are also some questions
similar to those in the 1987 survey so that a comparison may be made
between the results of the two surveys. (The 1987 Urban Institute
survey only asked about drug treatment. The NSHAPC asks about drug
treatment, as well as, types and frequencies of drugs used, and
information about mental health.)
c. The interview period for client interviews for the national
survey will be one month. The interview period for the Urban
Institute's 1987 survey was one week.
While the results from the Urban Institute's 1987 survey provide
characteristics of homeless persons who used services, it does not
include the NSHAPC's additional emphasis on geographical and topic
coverage as described in A.4. The 1987 study did not provide any
information on the types of programs and services offered. The Urban
Institute survey is also almost 10 years old. More recent information
is needed. Thus, there is no similar information available that could
be used or modified for use for the purposes described.
5. Minimizing Burden on Small Businesses
The Census Bureau plans on using the combined files from Federal
agencies and national organizations and advocacy groups to generate
listings of service providers for each sample area in the survey and
mail the listings to all service providers contacted by telephone and
all knowledgeable local persons. The knowledgeable local persons and
service providers will be asked to review the listing for completeness
of all service providers in their area and to add any missed service
providers to the list. The state homeless coordinator will only be
asked to review the listing of service provider (Form NSHAPC 100M). The
Census Bureau believes the file will provide an initial comprehensive
listing of service providers currently offering services to the
homeless thus reducing the burden of the service providers, government
contacts, and knowledgeable local persons. No small businesses will be
contacted.
6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection
Not applicable. This is a one-time survey. Phase 1 will be
conducted from October 2, 1995 to January 15, 1996, and Phase 2 from
January 21 to March 30, 1996.
7. Consistency With 5 CFR 1320.6
The Census Bureau will collect these data in a manner consistent
with the guideline in 5 CFR 1320.6.
8. Consultations Outside the Agency
Consultations have been made with the following people:
Dr. Martha, Burt, The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20037, Tel: (202) 857-8551
Ms. Lorraine Reilly (formerly of), The Urban Institute, 2100 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, Tel: (202) 857-8551
Dr. Michael Dennis, Research Triangle Institute, Center for Social
Research and
[[Page 44557]]
Policy Analysis, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194,
Tel: (919) 541-6429
Dr. Greg Owen, Wilder Foundation, Wilder Research Center, 1295
Bandana Blvd., North--Suite 210, St. Paul, MN 55108-5197, Tel: (612)
647-4612
Ms. Joanne Wiggens, U.S. Dept. of Education, 600 Independence
Avenue, SW--Room 4143, Washington, DC 20202, Tel: (202) 401-1958
Mr. Tom Fagen, U.S. Dept. of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW--
Room 2043, Washington, DC 20202, Tel: (202) 401-1682
Mr. John Pentecost, USDA--FmHA, Room 5345--South, MFHD--PD,
Washington, DC 20250, Tel: (202) 720-8983
Mr. Tom Sanders, USDA--FmHA, Room 5343--South, MFHD--PD, Washington,
DC 20250, Tel: (202) 720-1626
Ms. Amy Donoghue, USDA--FmHA--PAS, 3101 Park Center Drive--Room
1130, Alexandria, VA 22302, Tel: (703) 305-2920
Ms. Jean Whaley, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street, SW--Room 7267, Washington, DC 20410, Tel: (202) 708-1234
Ms. Jane Karadbil, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Avenue, SW--Room 8112, Washington, DC 20410, Tel: (202) 708-
1537
Mr. Lafayette Grisby (formerly of), Dept. of Labor, Room N-5637, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Tel: (202) 535-0677
Mr. John Heinberg, Dept. of Labor, Room N-5637, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Tel: (202) 535-0682
Mr. David Lah, Dept. of Labor, Room N-5637, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210, Tel: (202) 535-0682
Mr. Pete Dougherty, Homeless Programs Specialist, Dept. of Veterans
Affairs, 801 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, Tel: (202)
273-5716
Mr. Eric Lindblom (IIIC) (formerly of), Office of Mental Health,
Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 801 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20420, Tel: (202) 535-7311
Dr. Robert Rosenheck, MD, VA Medical Center, NEPEC--182, 950
Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516, Tel: (203) 937-3850
Ms. Cynthia Taeuber, Office of the Deputy Director, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-4358
Ms. Annetta Clark, Special Places/Group Quarters Team, Office of the
Assistant Division Chief, Population Division, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-2378
Ms. Denise Smith, Special Places/Group Quarters Team, Office of the
Assistant Division Chief, Population Division, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-2378
Dr. Charles H. Alexander, Demographic Statistical Methods Division,
Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-4290
Mr. David Hubble, Victimization and Expenditure Branch, Demographic
Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC
20233, Tel: (301) 457-4239
Ms. Marjorie Dauphin, Victimization and Expenditure Branch,
Demographic Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-4190
Ms. Miriam Rosenthal (formerly of), Victimization and Expenditure
Branch, Demographic Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-4270
Mr. David Hornick, Victimization and Expenditure Branch, Demographic
Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC
20233, Tel: (301) 457-4190
Mr. John Bushery, Quality Assurance and Evaluation Branch,
Demographic Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-1915
Ms. Andrea Meier, Quality Assurance and Evaluation Branch,
Demographic Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-1983
Mr. Michael McMahon, Field Division, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-4901
Mr. Chester Bowie, Demographic Surveys Division, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, DC 20233, Tel: (301) 457-3773
Mr. Steven Tourkin, Methods, Procedures and Quality Control Branch,
Demographic Surveys Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC
20233, Tel: (301) 457-3791
Ms. Jacquie Lawing, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW, Suite 7204, Washington, DC 20410, Tel: (202)
708-2070
Mr. Mark Johnston, Senior Advisor on Homelessness, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Suite 7274,
Washington, DC 20410, Tel: (202) 708-5528
Mr. Mike Roanhouse, Office of Special Needs Assistance, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Suite
7258, Washington, DC 20410, Tel: (202) 708-1234
Mr. James Hoben, Office of Policy Development and Research,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20410, Tel: (202) 708-0574
Mr. Keith Lively, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program
Systems, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence
Avenue, SW., Room 447D, Washington, DC 20201, Tel: (202) 690-8774
Mr. Gerald Britten (formerly of), Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Program Systems, Department of Health and Human Services, 200
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 447D, Washington, DC 20201, Tel:
(202) 690-8774
Ms. Mary Ellen O'Connell, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 447D,
Washington, DC 20201, Tel: (202) 260-0391
Mr. Fred Osher (formerly of), Office of Programs for the Homeless
Mentally Ill, National Institute of Mental Health, Dept. of Health
and Human Services, Parklawn Bldg., Room 3C06, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, Tel: (301) 443-3706
Mr. Walter Leginski, Homeless Programs Branch, Center for Mental
Health Services, Parklawn Building, room 11c-05, Rockville, MD 20857
Dr. Robert Huebner, Ph.D., Health Services Research Branch, National
Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Dept. of Health and Human
Services, Willow Building, Suite 505, 600 Executive Boulevard,
Rockville, MD. 20892-7003, Tel: (301) 443-0786
Mr. Steve Bartolomei-Hill, Human Service Policy, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Bldg., Room 410E, 200
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, Tel: (202) 690-7148
Ms. Rhoda Davis, Office of Supplemental Security Income, Dept. of
Health and Human Services, Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Blvd.,
Baltimore, MD 21235, Tel: (410) 965-6210
Ms. Terry Lewis, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families,
Administration for Children and Families, Dept. of Health and Human
Services, Mary E. Switzer Bldg., Room 2426, 330 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, Tel: (202) 205-8051
Dr. Joan Turek Brezina, Ph.D., Program Systems, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Bldg., Room 444F, 200
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, Tel: (202) 690-6141
Mr. Mike Jewell (formerly of), Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Hubert
H. Humphrey Bldg--Room 447D, 200 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, Tel: (202) 690-7316
Ms. Peg Washnitzer, Office of Community Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Aerospace
Bldg., 7th Floor, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
Tel: (202) 401-2333
Mr. Richard Chambers, Division of Intergovernmental Affairs, Health
Care Financing Administration, Dept. of Health and Human Services,
Hubert H. Humphrey Bldg., Room 410B, 200 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, Tel: (202) 690-6257
Ms. Joan Holloway, Health Resources and Services Administration,
Public Health Services, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Parklawn
Bldg., Room 9-12, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Tel: (301)
443-8134
Ms. Marsha A. Martin (formerly of), Executive Director, Interagency
Council on the Homeless, 457 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC,
Tel: (202) 708-1480
[[Page 44558]]
Mr. George Ferguson, Interagency Council on the Homeless, 457
Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 708-1480
Ms. Della Hughes, National Network of Runaway and Youth Services,
1319 F Street, N.W., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20004, Tel: (202)
783-7949
Ms. Vera Johnson, SASHA Bruce Center Runaway Shelter, 1022 Maryland
Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20002, Tel: (202) 675-9340
As a result of these consultations, all issues were resolved.
9. Assurance of Confidentiality
The provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a) assure the
confidentiality of the data from this survey.
During Phase 2 of the national survey, the field representatives
will inform all service providers and respondents verbally of the
confidentiality of their responses and the voluntary nature of the
NSHAPC along with other information required by the Privacy Act of 1974
at the time of initial contact. As can be seen on the NSHAPC
questionnaire cover sheets (Attachment A), a statement of
confidentiality assurance is printed at the top of the form. Careful
procedures are followed by the Bureau of the Census to assure privacy
during the interview, and to protect the confidentiality of materials
generated during the course of the interview. Every Bureau of the
Census employee takes an oath and is subject to a jail sentence and a
fine for improperly disclosing any information that would identify an
individual or household. All field representatives are trained to
interview respondents in private. All questionnaires associated with
the NSHAPC national survey will be kept under secured conditions by the
Bureau of the Census.
10. Justification for Sensitive Questions
The NSHAPC 200(A) questionnaire has the following sensitive
questions:
Section 9--Question 94
Question 94 asks respondents how they get their food and where they
eat. The field representatives will read the response categories to the
respondent. One of the possible answers is ``trash cans''. When
planning services to feed the homeless population, it is critical to
understand where they get their food. We need to know the number of
persons who eat from trash cans.
Section 10--Question 96
Question 96 asks respondents about their medical condition. The
field representatives will read the response categories to the
respondent. Possible responses include ``test positive for ``HIV'',
``have AIDS'', and ``use drugs intravenously''. There is increasing
concern about the number of homeless persons with these conditions.
Information about these, and other conditions, is essential when
planning health care services for the homeless.
Section 11--Questions 119 c and d and 120 a-c
These questions ask about parental neglect and abuse. A great deal
of evidence suggest that parental neglect and abuse asked about in
questions 120a-c is implicated in runaway behavior and youth
homelessness. The answers to these questions will reveal the degree to
which the present homeless population has these experiences in their
background as potential contributing factors to their homelessness.
11. Cost
The total estimated cost for Phase 1 of the national survey is
$1,950,000. Cost for Phase 1, Steps 1 and 2 is $1,500,000. Cost to
collect detailed program and service level data (Step 3) is $450,000.
We compiled this estimate using individual estimates developed within
each Census Bureau division involved in this survey. Estimates are
based on the size of the sample and the length of the questionnaires.
Administrative overheads, design, printing, and mailing costs are
included.
The total estimated cost for Phase 2 is $2,200,000. The only cost
to the service providers and the service users (clients) is the time it
takes to complete the questionnaire.
12. Estimate of Respondent Burden
We estimate the average time to complete the NSHAPC-200A, Service
User Questionnaire to be 45 minutes. These estimates are based on in-
house testing and out-house testing of the questionnaire by the Census
Bureau. This is a total of 2,850 hours.
13. Reason for Change in Burden
Not Applicable. This is a new survey. There are, therefore, 0 hours
in the current OMB inventory.
14. Project Schedule
Beginning on October 1, 1995, the Census Bureau plans on
telephoning all service providers within sample areas to collect basic
information about programs offered. After the phone calls are
completed, the Census Bureau will mail the listings of service
providers by sample area and the NSHAPC--L(2)L letter to providers
contacted by telephone. A subsample of providers will also be asked to
provide more detailed information about the services they offer. After
conducting the CATI interviews, the Census Bureau will mail the
appropriate questionnaires, NSHAPC Form 100B to 100L, to the providers
in sample.
Census Bureau personnel also will contact individuals from federal
and state governments, agencies, organizations and knowledgeable local
persons and ask them to review the lists of service providers. The
Census Bureau will conduct these operations during October 1995 to
January 1996.
B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods
1. Universe and Respondent Selection
The Census Bureau will conduct the national survey in 76 primary
sampling areas. The Census Bureau will interview all service providers
in the sample areas to collect basic information about the programs
offered. This is a total of 25,000 interviews. The Census Bureau will
select a subsample of providers within those areas and conduct detailed
mail interviews for the programs and services offered by the provider.
This is a total of 5,000 providers.
Phase 1 of the survey will provide information on the types of
programs and services available to homeless people. Phase 2 of the
survey will provide estimates and detailed characteristics about
homeless service users, including the literally homeless. Most research
to date has been conducted in urban and suburban areas. For such areas,
there is a growing consensus among researchers that a service-based
survey design with sampling over time (vs one-time sampling) will give
a good representation of the homeless population. For nonmetropolitan
areas, the consensus is that an expansion of the types of service
providers is needed to cover the homeless adequately. The Department of
Agriculture asked us to increase the number of sample areas and the
Census Bureau identified ways to design the survey to produce
reasonably precise estimates of rural homelessness. However, it should
be noted that the procedures for measuring rural homelessness will be
less sophisticated than our procedures in urban areas. There is much to
learn about rural areas and the NSHAPC is an excellent opportunity to
collect information about rural homelessness. In the nonmetropolitan
areas the sampling frame is the set of Community Assistance Program
(CAP) ``Catchment Areas'', wherever they exist. CAP catchment areas are
counties or local areas grouped together to receive
[[Page 44559]]
funding and provide services to the needy and are served by a CAP
agency. Our preliminary research indicates that CAP agencies are a good
source for lists of services in the nonmetropolitan areas they cover.
In a few nonmetropolitan areas where CAPs do not exist, the sampling
frame is the set of counties or groups of counties.
2. Procedures for Collecting Information
Sampled Service Providers
The Census Bureau will conduct the survey in 76 sample areas; this
is the first stage of sampling. Within each sample area, a
comprehensive list of service providers will be developed. All
providers will furnish basic, core information on programs offered.
Phase 1 also includes a second stage of sampling where a subset of
service providers will be selected within each sample area to be asked
more detailed information about their programs and services.
Sample of Clients (Service Users)
In Phase 2, a sample of clients will be selected for interviewing.
To facilitate the sampling, we are asking providers to complete Form
NSHAPC **, Roster for Provider Facility. This form will help ensure all
clients at the housing programs are listed. This is a three-stage
sample, where the first-stage sample corresponds to the same 76
geographic areas discussed above for the provider-interview sample. In
the second stage, a sample of providers will be selected in each sample
area but only in designated programs. In the third stage, a sample of
the clients at each of the sample provider facilities will be selected.
Estimation
In Phase 1, the estimates needed for proportions of providers
falling in different categories.
The estimates needed from Phase 2 consist of proportions of clients
falling in different categories. The base for these proportions can be
derived in two ways:
a. Weighted estimates of the average number of persons using
services on any given day in February;
b. Weighted estimates of the total number of persons using services
at any time during February.
Other estimates can be derived from these. For example, the weights
applied to obtain estimates (a) or (b) could be used for estimates only
of those service-using persons who are homeless according to different
definitions of homelessness. For the national survey, it is likely that
we will give a range of estimates, corresponding to different
assumptions about coverage and multiplicity biases.
The weights for (a) will be standard survey weights based on the
selection probability, with adjustments for nonresponse. There will be
a ``multiplicity'' adjustment to reduce the relative weight of people
who have more than one chance of selection because they use more than
one type of program, for example, both shelters and soup kitchens, as
determined from the questionnaire.
For (b) we are considering three estimation methods. One purpose of
the pretest was to get information to evaluate these methods.
Method 1: The weight will be proportional to the number of
consecutive days prior to the interview (up to 28 days) that the person
did not use a shelter (for the shelter sample) or soup kitchen (for the
soup kitchen sample), and likewise for other types of programs. For
example, a person who says this is their first night in any shelter in
the last 28 days will be given a weight 28 times the typical weight of
a person who was in a shelter the night before. (Intuitively, the
method assumes that for every person we find who is just entering
homelessness, there are 27 others whom we miss because we did not
happen to interview them on their first day.) There is a precise
mathematical justification for the method as giving an unbiased
estimate of the total number of service users during 28-day periods
centered around February, making some assumptions that overall patterns
of service use are fairly constant throughout the month.
This is intended to be our primary method. The potential drawback
of this method would be if the pretest finds too many people who are
just starting to use services after a long absence, resulting in too
many large weights. Limited research from 1990 census evaluation
projects suggests that this should not be a problem. However, if this
turns out to be a problem we would either use the Method 2 or use
Method 1 with a 7-day ``window'' instead of a 28-day ``window''.
Method 2: The weight will be inversely proportional to the number
of days in the last week the client used a shelter (for the shelter
sample) or soup kitchen (for the soup kitchen sample), and likewise for
other types of programs. This is the procedure used in the 1987 Urban
Institute study. We will ask this question for comparability with that
survey. This approach has two disadvantages. First, even if the
questions are answered accurately, the method has a mathematical bias
unless each person has the same pattern of service use each week.
Second, it is not reasonable to ask a person for his/her average
shelter use for an entire month, so the method cannot give direct
estimates for the total number using services during a period longer
than a week.
Method 3: Capture-recapture. We are not using capture-recapture
estimation. It would require selecting the sample independently each
day, so that there would be a chance that a person or small shelter
might come into sample numerous times.
The Urban Institute and the Census Bureau developed the survey
design. As part of Joint Statistical Agreements between the Urban
Institute and the Census Bureau, the following operational papers were
developed. Each are available from the Census Bureau of request.
Joint Statistical Agreement 91-30
--Developing a Provider List--November 27, 1991
--Methodological Issues and Options--November 27, 1991
--Options for Evaluating Coverage in Urban Areas--December 10, 1991
--Ranking of Data Items by Federal Agencies--December 10, 1991
Joint Statistical Agreement 92-01
--Draft Questionnaire and Agency Data Needs--March 26, 1992
--Developing Provider Lists for a National Homeless Survey--March 26,
1992
--Proposed Methodology for a National Homeless Survey--March 26, 1992
--Questions for Unduplicating and for Estimating a Month-Long Point
Prevalence and Annual Prevalence--March 26, 1992
--Developing Estimates of the Number of Service Providers in Different
Strata--April 10, 1992
--Options for Evaluating Survey Coverage in Urban Areas, and
Preliminary
--Information on Rural Areas--April 10, 1992
Joint Statistical Agreement 92-04
--Mechanics of List Development and Additional Field and Survey
Procedures--August 14, 1992
--Estimates of Service Providers and Users in Non-MSA Areas, and
Options for
--Evaluating Survey Coverage in These Areas--August 4, 1992
3. Method to Maximize Response
a. Survey Frame for Client Interviews
New research indicates the greatest improvement in coverage of the
homeless population is through
[[Page 44560]]
sampling this population over time. (e.q., soup kitchens and shelters)
and outreach programs during a four-week period. The NSHAPC survey
design uses a service-based methodology. A ``service user'' is anyone
who uses generic services or shelters, soup kitchens, or other services
for the homelsss. The survey frame will include shelters, soup
kitchens, outreach programs, and possibly other programs. A ``non-
service user'' is anyone who does not use any of these services.
According to the 1987 Urban Institute study, the shelter frame
covers homeless people who use shelters, which may be 35 to 40 percent
of the homeless on any given night, and about 50 percent over the
course of a week. If conducted on a one-night basis, the shelters'
sampling frame taken by itself will miss many homeless who use shelters
infrequently, homeless service users who do not use shelters but do use
soup kitchens and other services, and homeless people who do not use
any services. If data collection involves repeated samples from the
same shelters over the course of a week or a month, a considerably
higher proportion of the homeless (perhaps as high as 70 percent) is
likely to be captured through a methodology based on shelters.
The soup kitchen sampling frame, taken by itself over the course of
a week, will capture a proportion of very poor people residing in
conventional dwellings who may turn out to be at imminent risk of
homelessness. According to the 1987 Urban Institute study, 43 percent
of soup kitchen users are not literally homeless. When shelter and soup
kitchen frames are combined during the course of a week, the shelter
and soup kitchen frames will probably cover about 70 percent of the
literally homeless and a small but unknown proportion of the service-
using at-risk population. When data collection covers a month (as
planned for the national survey), the coverage will be even greater--
perhaps as high as 85-90 percent of the literally homeless.
In many cities, the array of services for the homeless include one
or more outreach programs. These programs may be operated by a shelter,
soup kitchen, drop-in center, health care center, neighborhood center,
or other service facility. Their target population is homeless people
who do not routinely use shelters or soup kitchens. The outreach
programs typically distribute food, and sometimes blankets or warm
clothing. Outreach teams typically follow a route that covers the known
locations frequented by homeless street people, or where homeless
street people assemble at the time they know the ``food wagon'' will
come by. Including outreach programs in a design as a sampling frame
allows one to maintain the control and efficiency associated with
sampling service programs and their users, while still reaching the
``reachable'' proportion of the street homeless population. Outreach
programs are probably the best single source of information about the
hidden street population and the most cost effective opportunity to
make contact with the street population. Additional enumeration of
street locations and encampments yields little overall coverage
improvement when shelters, soup kitchens, and outreach programs are
interviewed over time.
The NSHAPC is designed to cover as much of the literally homeless
population as possible and still meet the cost considerations of the
sponsors. From previous research, it appears that up to 90 percent
coverage of the literally homeless population is achievable with the
shelter/soup kitchen/outreach programs methodology conducted during a
winter month. This service-based methodology will be considerably
cheaper and easier than implementing a street enumeration to attempt to
get the last 10 percent. In addition, even if the resources were
committed to achieve full coverage, there is no guarantee we would get
the last 10 percent.
b. Incentives to Participate in the Survey
Private university researchers, usually with funding from federal
grants, have conducted past homeless surveys. In the past, researchers
have paid respondents to participate in a survey, usually about $20.
The NSHAPC survey will impose an extra burden on the service providers
who are asked to participate in the survey since they will: participate
in pre-contact meeting(s) with Census Bureau regional office staff;
provide space at their facility for the Census Bureau's field
representatives to interview sample persons on scheduled days and at
scheduled times; and administer cash payments to the survey
respondents. The NSHAPC survey also will impose an extra burden on the
selected sample of homeless persons because they will be asked to
remain at the service provider's facility for an interview that may
take 45 minutes and respond to personal questions. Given these
circumstances, we feel it is appropriate to offer a monetary incentive
of $200 to each service provider and $10 to each respondent to
guarantee their cooperation in the survey.
While there is no research specifically on the effects of paying
the homeless, there is a strong research basis for the use of monetary
incentives to increase the cooperation of economically disadvantaged
populations. Two studies using random assignment have carefully
examined the impact of incentives on survey cooperation.
The first study, by Stuart H. Kerachsky and Charles D. Mallor
(1981), examined the use of incentives in surveys of Job Corps
participants and a comparison group. Five thousand eight hundred people
participated in the study. The survey population consisted of
economically disadvantaged youths aged 16-21 at the beginning of the
study. (The survey respondents were interviewed 3 times over 18
months). Survey respondents were offered either no incentive or a $5
payment for their participation in the 30 minute survey. (The 1991
equivalent value of the incentive payment is approximately $15.)
The impact of the monetary incentives was determined by comparing
the survey response rates and other outcomes for the experimental group
(the $5 incentive group) to those for the control group (the $0
incentive group). The most notable findings from this survey on the
effect of respondent payments are:
Response rates increased by offering a monetary incentive.
[More people were located (10 percent) and completed the survey (5
percent) when an incentive was offered.]
Item nonresponse rates decreased. (Fewer ``Don't Know''
responses.)
The cost per completed interview was smaller for the group
that was offered an inventive.
The second study, by the Educational testing Service (1991),
examined the use of monetary incentives in the pilot test of the
National Adult Literacy Survey. The sample population of 2,000 included
a nationally representative sample of adults aged 16 and older living
in households. The sample persons completed a 15 minute background
questionnaire and a timed 45 minute test of literacy skills. The
respondents received a monetary incentive of $0, $20, or $35 for
participating in the survey. The impact was of the monetary incentives
was determined by comparing the survey response rates and other
outcomes for the experimental groups (the $20 and $35 incentive groups)
to those for the control group (the $0) incentive group). The most
notable findings from this survey on the effect of respondent payments
are:
Response rates for economically disadvantaged, minority,
and high school dropout populations are
[[Page 44561]]
significantly improved by offering monetary incentives.
The use of monetary incentives reduced item nonresponse
and data collection costs.
Many other studies have been done and articles written
documenting the effect of monetary incentives on response rates.
A study by Miller, Kennedy, and Bryant (1972) of the 1971
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that offering a monetary
incentive increased the response rate from 70 percent to 82 percent.
A study by Chromy and Horvitz (1978) suggests that
response rates were found to be unacceptably low when no monetary
incentive was used. However, the participation rate increased from 70
to 85 percent with the use of monetary incentives.
A study by Berk, Mathiowetz, Ward, and White (1988)
discusses how monetary incentives improved the response rates of
adults.
During 1991 and 1992, the University of Michigan Survey Research
Center, examined the effects of monetary incentives on the willingness
of youth to participate in the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System
(YRBS) interview and on their motivation to answer YRBS questions as
accurately and truthfully as possible. The study involved focus groups
with about 6 to 8 teenagers (ages 12-19) in each group. The focus
groups included teenagers from a range of ages, racial, and ethnic
backgrounds and both sexes. In order to assess the impact of monetary
incentives on respondent participation and the motivation group,
interviews with both the youth and their parents occurred. A split
sample experiment was conducted during the pretest interviews in order
to more formally assess the effect of monetary incentives on respondent
participation. The most notable findings from the YRBS on the effect of
respondent payments are:
Youth who are aware that they will be paid for completing
an interview are more likely to agree to participate (the cooperation
rate increased from 79 percent to 90 percent because of the respondent
being paid for participating in the survey).
Note: The youth group participants stated that monetary
compensation (the youth received $20 for participating in the study)
was important to their keeping their appointments to participate in
the study.
Youth feel that monetary compensation increases the
seriousness with which they approach the task of answering questions
and increases the accuracy and truthfulness of their responses. This
point is particularly relevant, given the personal nature of the NSHAPC
questionnaire (i.e., drug and alcohol use and mental health status) and
the fact that the NSHAPC questionnaire will be administered at the
service provider facilities.
The first two studies show that the response rates for economically
disadvantaged populations, which include homeless persons who use
services, are significantly improved by offering monetary incentives.
While the University of Michigan survey only dealt with the effects of
monetary incentives on youth, the results not only show that youth
respondents are more willing to cooperate when they receive payment but
that the parents of the youth also feel that payment is beneficial in
obtaining the respondents' participation. The results from this survey
are noteworthy since the respondents for the NSHAPC will include both
youth and adults.
No surveys have been conducted with homeless persons to actually
compare the response rates of homeless persons who receive a monetary
incentive for participation to those homeless persons who do not
receive a monetary incentive for participation. However, there have
been numerous studies conducted dealing with the homeless population,
in which respondents were paid.
In a paper presented at the Fannie Mae Annual Housing conference in
Washington, DC on May 14, 1991, Dr. Michael Dennis of the Research
Triangle Institute presented a chronological summary of ten relevant
studies on homelessness completed since 1983. (See Attachment D for a
list of these studies.) In all ten studies, the respondents received
payment for participating in the study. In February 1991, the Research
Triangle Institute conducted the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Drug
Study (DC*MADS) and paid participants $10 along with offering them
coffee, juices, Pop Tarts, and/or toothbrushes for taking the time to
participate in the survey. The Research Triangle Institute also gave a
$35 food donation to the service providers each morning they sampled at
the provider's facility. In October 1991, the Wilder Foundation
completed a statewide enumeration of homeless persons in Minnesota.
Respondents received a $5 cash payment for the half-hour interview.
These past practices of paying respondents has direct implications
on the NSHAPC survey design and on response rates of the NSHAPC. The
success of the survey is dependent upon the cooperation of the service
providers and respondents.
(1) Cooperation of Service Providers
Most service providers require (or prefer) respondents to be
compensated for their participation in the survey. Paying the service
providers is also critical to guarantee their cooperation. The
cooperation of the service providers is essential for the following
reasons:
(a) Providers determine if the voluntary survey will be conducted
at the facility. They also determine logistical arrangements for
conducting the interview.
(b) Providers must agree to allow respondents to remain at the
facility (e.g., after eating) to be interviewed. Normally, persons are
required to immediately leave the site once services are provided.
(c) Providers often have significant influence with homeless
persons seeking their services.
(2) Respondent Cooperation
The survey design of the NSHAPC requires sampling persons at the
facility. Paying respondents is critical to ensure that designated
sample persons remain at the facility to be interviewed once they have
used the services offered. Without payment, there is little incentive
for respondents to remain on site for an interview that may take 45
minutes and asks personal questions, such as drug and alcohol use,
mental health status, living conditions, victimizations, and
imprisonment.
In our consultations with outside experts in this field, all
persons indicated that paying respondents to participate in the survey
was critical to achieving acceptable response rates. All experts agree
that we should expect high nonresponse rates if respondents are not
compensated for their participation.
To ensure the cooperation of the service providers and the
respondents, we recommend that a Memorandum of Understanding (see
Attachment E) be entered into by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
service facility. Under this agreement, the Census Bureau will
compensate the service providers for their help. For example, the
Census Bureau will ask the service provider to:
Participate in pre-contact meeting(s) with Census Bureau
regional office staff to make logistical arrangements to conduct the
survey.
Make space available at the facility to interview sample
persons.
Agree to allow the field representatives to conduct
interviews on scheduled days and at scheduled times
[[Page 44562]]
according to the statistical sampling schemes designed for the NSHAPC.
Administer cash payments of $10 to survey respondents.
Administering cash payments this way alleviates safety concerns about
placing the field representatives and survey respondents at risk of
crime.
We believe that the studies summarized here make a strong case for
the use of monetary incentives to guarantee the cooperation of the
service providers and the respondents.
4. Contacts for Statistical Aspects and Data Collection
The following individuals are being consulted on statistical
aspects of the survey design:
Dr. Martha Burt, The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20037, Tel: (202) 857-8551
Dr. Michael Dennnis, Research Triangle Institute, Center for Social
Research and Policy Analysis, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709-2194, Tel: (919) 541-6429
Dr. Charles H. Alexander, Demographic Statistical Methods Division,
Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233, (301) 457-4290
The Census Bureau will collect the data for this survey. Mr. Steven
Tourkin is responsible for the collection of all data and is the Census
Bureau contact person for the survey.
Mr. Steven C. Tourkin, Demographic Surveys Division, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, DC 20233, (301) 457-3791
BILLING CODE 4210-62-M
[[Page 44563]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.000
[[Page 44564]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.001
[[Page 44565]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.002
[[Page 44566]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.003
[[Page 44567]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.004
[[Page 44568]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.005
[[Page 44569]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.006
[[Page 44570]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.007
[[Page 44571]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.008
[[Page 44572]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.009
[[Page 44573]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.010
[[Page 44574]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.011
[[Page 44575]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.012
[[Page 44576]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.013
[[Page 44577]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.014
[[Page 44578]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.015
[[Page 44579]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.016
[[Page 44580]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.017
[[Page 44581]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.018
[[Page 44582]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.019
[[Page 44583]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.020
[[Page 44584]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.021
[[Page 44585]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.022
[[Page 44586]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.023
[[Page 44587]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.024
[[Page 44588]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.025
[[Page 44589]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.026
[[Page 44590]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.027
[[Page 44591]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.028
[[Page 44592]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.029
[[Page 44593]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.030
[[Page 44594]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.031
[[Page 44595]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.032
[[Page 44596]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.033
[[Page 44597]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.034
[[Page 44598]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.035
[[Page 44599]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.036
[[Page 44600]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.037
[[Page 44601]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.038
[[Page 44602]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.039
[[Page 44603]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.040
[[Page 44604]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.041
[[Page 44605]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.042
[[Page 44606]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.043
[[Page 44607]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.044
[[Page 44608]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.045
[[Page 44609]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.046
[[Page 44610]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.047
[[Page 44611]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.048
[[Page 44612]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.049
[[Page 44613]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.050
[[Page 44614]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.051
[[Page 44615]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.052
[[Page 44616]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.053
[[Page 44617]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.054
[[Page 44618]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.055
[[Page 44619]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.056
[[Page 44620]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.057
[[Page 44621]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.058
[[Page 44622]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.059
[[Page 44623]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.060
[[Page 44624]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.061
[[Page 44625]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.062
[[Page 44626]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.063
[[Page 44627]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.064
[[Page 44628]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.065
[[Page 44629]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.066
[[Page 44630]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.067
[[Page 44631]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN28AU95.068
[FR Doc. 95-21111 Filed 8-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-62-C