One Family Inc. Blog

Welcome to the One Family Right Resources Blog!

One Family Inc. Blog - Welcome to the One Family Right Resources Blog!

Off The Charts Blog: Reality Doesn’t Match Rhetoric on Low-Income Program Spending

From Off the Charts, the Blog of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

 

Reality Doesn’t Match Rhetoric on Low-Income Program Spending Reality Doesn’t Match Rhetoric on Low-Income Program Spending

 

By Sharon Parrott
January 14, 2013

 

“Under the current administration, we have . . . seen an explosion in the spending for welfare programs,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor claimed in support of a new, House-passed rule requiring the annual budget resolution to detail past and projected growth of entitlement programs and propose reforms to them.  The rule will “allow us to begin to responsibly control the growth of these welfare programs and ensure they can help those who need them most,” he argued.

 

But, Rep. Cantor’s statement ignores two key facts:

  • First, safety net programs are not a primary cause of the nation’s long-term budget problems. Almost all of the recent growth in low-income entitlement programs is due either to the recent recession — and is therefore temporary — or to rising costs throughout the U.S. health care system, which affect costs for both private insurance and public health programs like Medicaid.
  • Second, federal spending on low-income entitlement programs other than health care will shrink significantly as a share of the economy after 2013 (see graph), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

 

 

To be sure, Medicaid is projected to continue growing as a share of the economy, as costs continue to rise across the public and private health care sectors.  But Medicaid isn’t the cause of this system-wide cost growth.  In fact, per-beneficiary costs have risen more slowly in Medicaid than in private insurance and are expected to continue doing so.

 

Ultimately, we will need to find ways to reduce health care cost growth in both the public and private sectors.  Cost growth has slowed in the past few years, though it is unclear whether the change is temporary or here to stay.  Thanks to health reform, however, we are testing new ways to deliver health care designed to lower costs while improving the quality of care that could help slow costs throughout the U.S. health care system over the long run.

 

The new House rule requires the budget resolution to track growth over the previous decade and the projected growth in the years covered by the budget resolution (often a decade) of two groups of entitlement programs:  those focused on low-income people, such as SNAP and Medicaid, and those not just focused on low-income people, such as Medicare and Social Security.

 

The rule may obscure more than it illuminates:  CBO projects that low-income entitlements including health care will grow both in inflation-adjusted dollars and as a share of the economy in coming years; but if you remove health care costs, the picture is entirely different, with low-income entitlements outside health care falling over the next decade as a share of the economy and in inflation-adjusted terms.

 

If the data that the new House rule requires obfuscate this fact, then the rule could be misused to bolster the false claim that low-income entitlement programs are out of control.


Click here to access the original blog post.

NAEH Blog: More than 1,000 Homeless Families Re-Housed with TANF Support

From the National Alliance to End Homelessness Blog

More than 1,000 Homeless Families Re-Housed with TANF Support

 

By Sharon McDonald
January 15, 2013

 
Over the course of the last several years, more than 1,000 formerly homeless families have returned to permanent housing in Salt Lake City thanks to a rapid rehousing program supported by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) resources.

 

A new profile by the Alliance examines the partnership between the homeless service provider, The Road Home, and the Utah Department of Workforce Services, the state agency that administers TANF and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs, that helped all these families escape homelessness. This partnership is a unique one. It brings together both the expertise and the resources of The Road Home and Workforce Services in order to help homeless families. More communities would benefit from adopting this approach.

 

Here’s how it works:

 

Families entering The Road Home’s emergency shelter program meet with a Workforce Services staff person who helps connect them to benefits they may be eligible for (including TANF) and conducts an employment barriers assessment. Provider staff refer most families entering the shelter to the rapid re-housing program.  While Workforce Services staff help parents find employment, The Road Home’s housing specialists help families look for housing and provide case management to families who have been re-housed.

 

The temporary rental assistance is funded with TANF and HUD resources. The TANF funds are used to cover the cost of the first four months of rental assistance for all families. The Road Home devotes HUD resources to families who require assistance for longer than four months.

 

On average, families exit the program after receiving five months of rental assistance, so TANF is absorbing 80 percent of the cost of providing families rental assistance.

 

Through their partnership with The Road Home, Workforce Services is helping ensure that TANF resources, which are funded through the federal TANF block grant program designed to promote employment and self-sufficiency among low-income families and ensure that “children can be cared for in their own homes,” are devoted to meeting these goals.

 

National Skills Coalition Webinar on the Fiscal Cliff

Join NSC for a webinar update on the fiscal cliff and the direction of the 113th Congress

 

 

 

Join National Skills Coalition for a webinar on the fiscal cliff and a preview of the agenda of the 113th Congress.

 

In early January, Congressional leaders and the Administration reached an agreement to avert the fiscal cliff. The agreement delayed the sequesters until March 1, 2013, giving Congress and the Administration additional time to consider a permanent alternative.

 

Sequestration is just one of several pressing issues facing the Administration and the new Congress. Sequestration is now set to coincide with the United States hitting the debt ceiling in late February or early March, setting up a debate on funding for discretionary programs—including federal workforce development programs—that could result in further deep cuts. Congress will also have to deal with funding for the remainder of FY 2013 as the current continuing resolution (CR) expires at the end of March, and begin the FY 2014 budget and appropriations process.

 

During the webinar, NSC’s Federal Policy Director Rachel Gragg will cover what’s at stake in the upcoming fiscal debates and the potential implications for workforce funding. We will also preview some of the other legislative items on the 113th Congress’s agenda.

 

Register today to join this important discussion!

The New York Times: Fight for the Housing Trust Fund

From the New York Times Editorial Page

 

Fight for the Housing Trust Fund

January 12, 2013

 

Despite the Obama administration’s best efforts, the lack of affordable housing remains one of America’s most vexing problems.

 

A $1.5 billion transfusion in the 2009 stimulus bill managed to hold the overall homeless population about even over the last four years, and the number of people in two especially vulnerable groups — the chronically homeless and homeless veterans — has actually dropped.

 

But with nearly 3.3 million families with children living in “worst case” situations — spending more than half their incomes on housing or living in hazardous buildings — more must be done to create affordable housing, through rehabilitation or new construction.

 

For starters, that means finally putting money into the National Housing Trust Fund, which was created by Congress in 2008 but was never financed because of the recession. This should be an early order of business for the new Congress. The fund, modeled on successful state programs, would provide subsidies and incentives to preserve, rehabilitate and build housing, primarily for extremely low-income families that earn about 30 percent of the average median incomes in their areas, typically spend more than half their incomes on rent and are disproportionately at risk of slipping into homelessness.

 

One of the problems with affordable housing projects generally is that they often segregate the poor. The trust fund would encourage healthy, mixed-income communities. For instance, a development of mainly market-rate apartments that set aside, say, 10 percent of the units for low-income families would receive a subsidy proportionate to that investment. In addition to creating housing for the poor within sound communities, the fund would stimulate construction of multifamily rental buildings at a time when they are greatly needed.

 

When Congress set up the trust fund, the initial financing was supposed to come from contributions by the federally backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That plan was suspended when the companies crashed. But with the two back on their feet, housing advocates are rightly pressing the Obama administration to reinstate that arrangement.

 

Other ideas for underwriting the fund are circulating in Washington. A bill introduced by Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, would turn the mortgage interest tax deduction into a tax credit aimed primarily at low- and middle-income homeowners. It would also lower the cap on mortgages that receive a tax break to $500,000 from $1.1 million. Some of the savings would be redirected to the trust fund.

 

The administration embraced the goal of funding the trust fund as part of its 2010 homelessness program. But it has yet to spend serious political capital extracting the money from Congress. It is should do so this time around, lest this creative idea never come to fruition.

 

 

Wicked Local: Coalition to Push for Khan’s Bill to Help Teens, Low-Income Get Careers

From Wicked Local Newton

 

Coalition to Push for Khan’s Bill to Help Teens, Low-Income Get Careers

 

By Michael P. Norton
State House News Service

January 10, 2013

 

Boston — Supporters of legislation aimed at enabling more Massachusetts families to achieve economic self-sufficiency say only six states have fewer public assistance participants enrolled in education and training programs.

 

Rep. Kay Khan (D-Newton) on Thursday indicated a coalition, including organizations falling under the umbrella Workforce Solutions Group, will push for passage this session of the “career pathways” bill.

 

Bill supporters say pilot efforts linked to the state’s network of education and vocational programs will help more low-income and teen parents to gain skills they need to obtain higher paying jobs.

 

Under the bill, pilot programs would be administered by the Commonwealth Corporation under an agreement with the Department of Transitional Assistance, and at least 40 percent of participants would be recipients of benefits under the state’s Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) program.

 

The Workforce Solutions Group, which includes the Crittenton Women’s Union, the Mass. AFL-CIO and the Mass. Business Roundtable, says Massachusetts workers with only a high school diploma earn about half as much as individuals with a college degree, or $42,863 per year versus $80,611 per year.

 

The group estimates that 85 percent of TAFDC participants have a high school diploma or less, and says state investments in education and training for TAFDC participants have declined from $36.2 million in fiscal 2002 to $7.9 million currently. According to Workforce Solutions Group, Massachusetts directs only 1 percent of its state and federal welfare funding to “work-related activities” to TAFDC recipients, ranking it in the bottom quarter of states.


Click here to read the full article.

 

 

State House News Service: Welfare Ranking, Funding Cuts Cited in Push for “Pathways” Bill

From the State House News Service


Welfare Ranking, Funding Cuts Cited in Push for “Pathways” Bill

 

By Michael P. Norton
January 10, 2013

 

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 10, 2013…..Supporters of legislation aimed at enabling more Massachusetts families to achieve economic self-sufficiency say only six states have fewer public assistance participants enrolled in education and training programs.

Rep. Kay Khan (D-Newton) on Thursday indicated a coalition, including organizations falling under the umbrella Workforce Solutions Group, will push for passage this session of the “career pathways” bill.

Bill supporters say pilot efforts linked to the state’s network of education and vocational programs will help more low-income and teen parents to gain skills they need to obtain higher paying jobs.

Under the bill, pilot programs would be administered by the Commonwealth Corporation under an agreement with the Department of Transitional Assistance, and at least 40 percent of participants would be recipients of benefits under the state’s Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) program.

The Workforce Solutions Group, which includes the Crittenton Women’s Union, the Mass. AFL-CIO and the Mass. Business Roundtable, says Massachusetts workers with only a high school diploma earn about half as much as individuals with a college degree, or $42,863 per year versus $80,611 per year.

The group estimates that 85 percent of TAFDC participants have a high school diploma or less, and says state investments in education and training for TAFDC participants have declined from $36.2 million in fiscal 2002 to $7.9 million currently. According to Workforce Solutions Group, Massachusetts directs only 1 percent of its state and federal welfare funding to “work-related activities” to TAFDC recipients, ranking it in the bottom quarter of states.

Khan told the News Service she hopes a $2 million investment during the upcoming budget process would get pilot programs started.

“I think there will be an interest during the budget process to try to put some of that money back,” she said, adding that she was encouraged by the turnout at a briefing on her bill Thursday.

About 122,000 adults and children received TAFDC assistance in May 2012, with benefits ranging from $300 to $500 a month for a total cost of about $325 million, according to the Workforce Solutions Group.

In addition to Khan, the bill’s supporters include Rep. Thomas Conroy of Wayland and Sens. Eileen Donoghue of Lowell and Ken Donnelly of Arlington.

Senate President Therese Murray last week identified welfare reform and closing loopholes as a priority issue in the new session. Murray said Massachusetts “became a leader in welfare reform” in 1995 by setting work or education requirements that helped cut the number of recipients in half.

 

Click here to access the full article.

The Berkshire Eagle: Fewer Massachusetts Veterans Homeless, Lt. Governor Murray Says

From the Berkshire Eagle

Fewer Massachusetts Veterans Homeless, Lt. Governor Murray Says

 

By Jenn Smith
January 10, 2013

 

PITTSFIELD

 

The images are equally disturbing — that of a soldier fighting, risking his or her life for the country, and seeing that same soldier among the living, but living on the streets.

 

On Wednesday, during the annual Veterans’ Service Officers Luncheon at the Statehouse, Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray said new federal data shows veteran homelessness has dropped 26 percent in Massachusetts between January 2010 and January 2012. That statistic exceeds the 17 percent national rate of decline over the same two-year period.

 

Local veterans services agents say the decline is also reflected in Berkshire County, but the risk of homelessness for vets persists. While programs to help veterans are working now, officials say the military’s troop drawdown could eventually overwhelm the system.

 

“The numbers the lieutenant governor is talking about are relatively true: There has been a decrease in the number of vets on the street,” said John “Jack” Downing, the president and CEO of Soldier On. The organization provides three veterans housing sites — two in Pittsfield and one at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Leeds.

 

Downing said about 90 percent of veterans in Soldier On housing are individuals versus veterans with families.

 

Click here to access the full article.

OrgCode Blog: 2013: The Year to Stop Doing Certain Things in Order to Strengthen the Resolve to Ending Homelessness

From OrgCode.com

2013: The Year to Stop Doing Certain Things in Order to Strengthen the Resolve to Ending Homelessness

By Iain De Jong

 

In 2012 I have been fortunate enough to spend time in 37 different communities that are trying to end homelessness. When you include attendees at conferences and webinars, that number expands into hundreds of communities. Then there are all of the cities that other OrgCode team members have been too that I never had the privilege to get to. I like to say we get around, but in a good way.

 

More than other years, I am struck by certain things I wish many communities would STOP doing come 2013 and wanted to take this opportunity to share some of these with you. There is loads of potential for positives here. Here is the list to reflect upon:

 

  1. Stop resisting change. Trust the long-term potential of great ideas. Change, itself, is inevitable. That doesn’t mean it isn’t hard. Sure we like to romanticize caterpillars becoming butterflies, but the whole process sucks for the caterpillar…it goes blind, the legs fall off, and the back rips open for the beautiful wings to emerge. Our “openness to experience” makes the process of change more invigorating, educational, inspiring, beautiful, etc. Imagine a world where all caterpillars just want to remain caterpillars. We’d never have beautiful butterflies. I at least want the pain of change to be worthwhile. And change does not come from passivity.
  1. Stop being afraid to commit to ending homelessness. The difference between wanting to end homelessness and being committed to ending homelessness is the difference between bacon and eggs…a days work for the chicken; a lifetime commitment for the pig. If we share a steadfast fixity of purpose…if every decision we make in the present is about supporting where we want to be in 5 or 10 years, we will be further ahead than hoping, guessing, praying that maybe, just maybe, somebody else will do something at some time in the future.
  1. Stop settling for business as usual. If what you were doing in your community worked, homelessness would not have increased or continued and this blog would be moot. Or if you are complacent and don’t take the next step to improve service delivery even if you have turned the corner in your practice you will struggle to complete the job.
  1. Stop thinking your community is so unique that the practices used elsewhere will be useless where you live. You are unique just like everyone else. Let’s transfer the knowledge of what works based upon PROOF and replicate it, rather than starting from scratch over and over again. And yes, there are some ways of delivering housing assistance to homeless people that are PROVEN to get better results than other approaches.
  1. Stop thinking that more money is the answer to everything. Money doesn’t have a brain. You do. The design of homeless and housing service systems in an intelligent manner, where there are investments only in practices proven to work and removal of unnecessary duplication, is the way to go. Continuing to invest in programs that don’t work is a travesty. Funding different entities to do the same thing without a rationale as to why is puzzling. Oh, and any community that doesn’t know the total volume of investment towards housing and homelessness programs in their community – from all orders of government and government departments as well as philanthropic groups and the like – should have to PROVE that all of the money is well spent before even thinking of asking for another dime.
  1. Stop refusing to take informed risks. It has been said that eagles may soar but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines. I’d still rather be an eagle and soar knowing there is only a slight risk of catastrophe. Think it would be risky to transform your traditional transitional housing into permanent housing with supports? Yup – but worth it. Think it would be risky to transform your street outreach programs to focus on housing solutions rather than short-term needs? Yup – but worth it. And I could go on.
  1. Stop thinking that a big heart is equivalent to a big brain. People wait in emergency rooms in hospitals every day, but we wouldn’t in a million years think that well-intentioned people without any medical training should head down and start practicing medicine. Yet in homeless programs and services – where arguably there are a number of people with more profound and complex needs than what is found in some emergency rooms – we allow people with no or very little training to try ending homelessness. I’m not suggesting a medical model as the answer to ending homelessness. But we need to invest in training and professionalizing services. And if programs are going to use peers/people with lived experience that too needs to happen appropriately. Someone having once been homeless doesn’t make them an expert on homelessness…I once had my appendix out, but that doesn’t make me qualified to conduct an appendectomy.
  1. Stop waiting for everyone else in your community to get on board. Hate to break it to you…they won’t. One or more organization will have a terrific reason to avoid buying in…threat of funding loss; feeling that the population they serve is different; don’t believe in evidence; etc. Get going with those ready to keep on (or at least start) truckin’. You can change the way services are delivered to people without needing “permission” from those organizations that will never get on board.
  1. Stop using luck as a substitute for informed, calculated, planned service delivery. The story of success in our work should not be based upon who walks through our doors next and we happen to have what they are looking for. Nay, our work should have a strong sense of who it aims to serve, why and how best to do it. High-performing organizations do not try to be all things for all people.
  1. Stop ignoring data when it tells you what you didn’t want to know. More often than not in communities, I encounter people that love their local data when it tells them everything they wanted to hear. Others ignore the data, suggest it is corrupt or incomplete when the truth in the numbers does not jive with their world view.
  1. Stop wasting time.  Some people may think that the people you serve are wasting time. The truth is, time is wasting them. Every day you get 86,400 seconds invested into your Bank of Life. Spend it wisely and you can greatly impact the life of the people you aim to serve. Waste any of it and the loss is yours and felt profoundly by them. There is no going back. There is no holding onto the time not used in the right way. Invest in today and make a difference.
  1. Stop with the drama. Bickering between organizations does not end homelessness. Cranking up the hysteria of how your organization is the only one that serves people with complex needs, as somehow a badge of courage, is pointless in the bigger picture (and besides, several program evaluations I did just this year showed that not to be the case…those organizations that thought only they served the “hardest to serve” ended up serving clients with no higher acuity than other organizations; it just so happened the staff with the organizations tended to be less trained.) Life is too short and our mission of ending homelessness is too critical to get trapped in pettiness rather than the important work.
  1. Stop focusing on the barriers. Some people and organizations seem to spend more time focusing on the things that get in their way rather than focusing their time and energy on finding solutions. The solution – in whatever form it may take – is worth more than endless hours lamenting a problem but doing nothing about it; or making excuses about why something won’t work without trying anything new that may get a different result. Anyone can feel overwhelmed and give up; it takes a wise person to take compassionate, persistent and committed action every day.
  1. Stop pointing fingers at everyone else. Point a finger at someone and there are three pointing back at you. Want to be effective at ending homelessness? Accept that if you want to be part of the solution you have to acknowledge that you have been part of the problem. Focusing on making your own work better, not on the deficiencies of everyone around you. I am baffled that even some of the best service providers are non-judgmental with their clients, but completely judgmental with other organizations.
  1. Stop accepting that you can be anything other than awesome. Do not second-guess or belittle your potential. Your awesomeness to end homelessness – one person or family at a time – is a great gift. Do not desensitize yourself to the experience of making a difference. Cherish your role in making the world a better place. Sure, you are 1 out of 7,000,000,000 on the planet; but you are the one best positioned to play your role in ending homelessness today. Do not let the potential of your awesomeness slip away.


Click here to access the original blog post.

The Boston Globe: Governor Patrick Plans Ambitious Overhaul of State’s Troubled Public Housing

From the Boston Globe

 

Governor Patrick Plans Ambitious Overhaul of State’s Troubled Public Housing

 

 

By Sean P. Murphy
January 9, 2013

 

Governor Deval Patrick on Thursday will propose eliminating the state’s troubled patchwork of 240 public housing authorities and replacing them with six regional agencies in an effort to eliminate waste and corruption from the housing program for low-
income and elderly people, state officials say.

 

Public housing, which shelters more than 300,000 people in Massachusetts, has been buffeted by controversy for more than a year since the Globe reported the inflated $360,000 salary of Chelsea’s housing director. Several other directors were forced to resign amid allegations of abuse of their position.

 

Patrick’s proposal, which is sure to be controversial on Beacon Hill, would consolidate public housing management — including budgeting, planning, and administrative functions — into six central ­offices, while leaving a corps of managers and maintenance workers at local housing author­ities.

 

Local boards would be cut, eliminating the need for more than 1,000 politically appointed commissioners.

 

“We think this would dramatically improve public housing for those who need it and at the same time save money by delivering it more efficiently,” said Lizbeth ­Heyer, the state’s associate ­director of public housing and rental ­assistance.

 

“The current public housing system is antiquated,” she said. “This is a very bold and smart proposal to transform it.”

 

Some legislators may find Patrick’s plan too bold. For ­decades, housing authorities have been run like separate fiefdoms in each town or city, each with its own board and a chief often selected for political rather than managerial skills.

 

“The interests are just too entrenched to make it happen,” said one member of a commission appointed by Patrick last year to recommend public housing reforms, who asked not to be identified for fear of alienating others in the housing industry.

 

“You would have a thousand commissioners calling their state reps and senators complaining bitterly,” the commission member said.

 

The president of the organization that represents public housing leaders said his group would strongly oppose elimination or consolidation of any housing authorities.

 

“We will be unveiling our own proposal soon, one that does not undermine local respon­sibilities,” said Richard Leco, adding that the group would go to legislators for support.

 

 

 

 

As the Globe reported in ­October, critics say that a significant part of the public housing problem in Massachusetts is the huge number of housing authorities, making it difficult for poor and elderly people to navigate the system while straining the leadership talent pool.

 

Only the state of Texas has more housing authorities than Massachusetts, making state or federal oversight of each individual authority challenging.

 

Michael E. McLaughlin, the former executive director of the Chelsea Housing Authority who resigned in 2011 after the Globe reported his huge salary, graphically illustrated the lack of accountability among public housing officials.

 

He is now under investigation by federal and state officials in the apparent diversion of millions in federal money from construction projects.

 

But, for years, McLaughlin received awards for his performance, and his board did not even know how much they were paying him.

 

A Globe review of records showed McLaughlin failed to carry out some $3.5 million in promised improvements, such as heating and kitchen upgrades, thus freeing up an enormous slush fund that benefited himself, his family, and his friends.

 

But the lack of oversight went far beyond Chelsea. ­Easton’s housing director, ­Susan Horner, spent hours at work sending flirtatious ­e-mails to various men, while problems were piling up, from unsanitary apartments to money missing from the laundry room.


Click here to access the full article.

Thinking about Homelessness Prevention

From the National Alliance to End Homelessness Blog

 

Field Notes: Thinking about Homelessness Prevention

 

By Norm Suchar
January 9, 2013

 

Improving homelessness prevention programs requires that providers and funders shift how they determine whom to award prevention funds. As the chart below will demonstrate, we can have the highest impact by serving the highest risk households, even though our success rate will be lower.

 

One of the biggest challenges with doing homelessness prevention well is targeting to the right group. For a prevention presentation I did recently, I created a chart that shows some of the paradox involved in targeting prevention assistance well. An expanded version of the chart is below. The chart shows success rates for low, high, and extremely high risk households and calculates the number of episodes of homelessness that would be prevented under each scenario. The figures I’ve used in the chart are for illustrative purposes. There are some resources at the bottom of this post if you’re interested in more data and discussion on this topic.

 

 

Here’s how to read the chart. The first row represents low-risk households, who have a 10 percent likelihood of becoming homeless if they do not receive prevention assistance. (Although it’s labeled low risk for the purpose of this chart, most prevention programs target even lower risk households.) If you assume that the intervention has a 90 percent likelihood of succeeding for the households who would have become homeless that would mean that for every 100 people served, 9 episodes of homelessness would be prevented and one person would become homeless. The way most people calculate the effectiveness of prevention programs, this program would have a 99 percent success rate.

 

The most important thing the table shows is that it’s possible to have a program that looks like it’s performing worse by traditional success measures, but is actually performing very well. The program targeting extreme risk households is actually preventing many more episodes of homelessness than the other programs.

 

Expecting that a program is going to prevent homelessness for 99 percent of the people served will discourage the program from serving higher risk households. But it is in serving those higher risk households that prevention assistance can have a bigger impact.

 

Additional Resources

Presentation on New York City targeting and prevention efforts

Presentation of New York City screening criteria

Prevention Targeting paper