days.
although in the first months of the program they were substantially higher than the
costs of rent payments, and the cost of screening families was left out. Even if we
assume that costs of screening, administration, and mediation were reduced even-
tually to equal the costs of back-rent payments, the estimated costs per family
would need to be doubled. Next, the calculation assumes that without the program,
all families who were threatened with eviction would have been evicted, gone to
shelter, and stayed the maximum of 100 days. Alternatively, if only half of those
threatened would have been evicted, and half of those evicted would have gone to
shelter, the cost per shelter episode prevented (including mediation costs) would
rise to $3,816 in Hartford and $7,680 in New Haven, leading to no savings in the
latter city. (Recall that only one-fifth of families actually evicted in New York city
went to shelter.) Further, if the average shelter stay were 30 days rather than the
maximum of 100 days, the savings in Hartford would also evaporate. The authors'
calculation also assumes that 100% of households who came to a mediated agree-
ment with landlords were durably prevented from entering shelter. This may be
plausible, because 6-month follow-ups were conducted, but no data were reported.
Cost-benefit analyses depend heavily on assumptions that should be put to empiri-
cal test. A more sophisticated analysis might also consider other costs to families
who lose their homes and enter shelter (loss of belongings, difficulty in maintain-
ing jobs); costs for stabilizing families after shelter; and benefits to others, such as
landlords, when tenancies are secured. These factors would enhance the cost-
effectiveness of the program. In sum, the Connecticut program looks promising,
but a more rigorous analysis is necessary to determine if it is really cost-effective.
fit to some households at risk of homelessness and to the communities in which
they live. The few studies with follow-up data found that a substantial portion of
those who were helped remained housed, at least for the period of assistance, and
often appeared to be reasonably stable at the end of that period. But calculation of
specific costs and benefits is subject to the same problems that plague determina-
tion of effectiveness. It requires data about the extent to which clients of the pro-
grams avoid homelessness over the long run and the extent to which they would
have become homeless in the absence of the programs. Such data are rarely
collected.