Young Adult Homelessness Prevention through Direct Cash Transfers (DCT-P): Housing Outcomes and Implementation Insights

Background: Youth homelessness represents a growing crisis in the United States, with an estimated 4.2 million youth and young adults experiencing homelessness annually, including 700,000 unaccompanied minors. Access to and engagement with healthcare services, including HIV prevention and treatment services, which is already suboptimal for young people, may be further compromised by unstable housing. Despite growing needs, most communities lack effective interventions to prevent or address youth homelessness. Cash transfers have demonstrated impact as a social safety net intervention including demonstrated efficacy on improving poverty, education, nutrition, and employment. However, real world implementation of cash transfers has been limited by administrative complexities, conditions tied to work or behavior change, and lack of flexibility to evolving needs. Specifically, eligibility criteria include expensive drug testing, proof of employment, and for certain health-related assistance programs, proof of a health condition (e.g, Housing Opportunities for People Living with HIV/AIDS requires proof of positive HIV status). Studying implementation of direct cash transfer programs can support strategies to optimize the effectiveness and equity of these interventions in reducing homelessness among young people.

Methods: Point Source Youth’s Young Adult Homelessness Prevention through Direct Cash Transfers (DCT-P) has been designed as a community-led approach to quickly provide flexible housing support to young people at risk of homelessness. Addressing documented barriers to cash transfer programs, DCT-P removes bureaucratic barriers, decentralizes decision-making, and empowers community-based organizations to distribute funds efficiently. Participants engage in Creative Housing Conversations and complete a Housing Action Plan before receiving assistance. Additionally, service providers offer optional six months of case management, housing navigation, financial counseling, and relationship mediation. As part of the evaluation of the delivery and implementation of the DCT-P pilot, quantitative data were collected at intake and 1-, 3-, and 6-months post receipt of cash. Qualitative data in the form of in-depth interviews with young people and focus group discussions with providers help to better understand fidelity, acceptability, and sustainability.

Results: The program has directly served 345 households (and 623 individuals total) across seven states (Oregon, California, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Michigan, and New York), with 90% of participants remaining stably housed one month post receipt of cash. DCT-P costs on average $3,937 per youth household served, including all associated services. This is in comparison to emergency shelters and transitional housing, which can cost between $3,103 - $14,418 per household for shorter stays. Additional results regarding implementation, including qualitative data, will be reported.

Conclusions: Initial results suggest that, by addressing immediate financial barriers, DCT-P empowers young people to secure stable housing. Critical insights regarding implementation are shared and will help determine scalability and sustainability.