jkaufmanhorner

I deeply respect the work NAEH has done over the years and the efforts to end shelter entry by focusing on those earning under 15% of Area Median Income (AMI). A great example was your comment at the Kansas Statewide Homeless Coalition Conference that some communities did not do Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) well because they “made income eligibility levels too high (50%, not 30%, or even 15%, of AMI) and did too much prevention.”* If a state or region remains focused on using a lot of resources for prevention, or at 50% AMI, how is NAEH working to correct this? What would you recommend a local service provider do to encourage a refocusing on households that might actually enter shelter? (*http://kshomeless.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Summit-remarks-by-Nan-Roman-04-12-11l.pdf)

Great response! And NAEH research shows that it is those close to or below 15% AMI that come into shelters. And yet some regions use a 50% AMI guideline contrary to NAEH's recommendation. How is NAEH encouraging regions to narrow their focus to those below 30% or 15% AMI?

Thank you! When you say "this approach" do you mean a target below 30% AMI or 15% AMI?

Does NAEH have a statement about this AMI targeting that can be sent to policy makers? And how did NAEH lose the HPRP debate so that it was set at 50% instead of closer to 15%?

Actually you can ignore the HPRP question. In Kansas you already said, "So they helped needy people, but probably did not prevent any homelessness." So whose lobbyists caused HPRP to be 50% instead of 15%?