Search

This paper reports results of mixed methods, population survey of housing instability, and homelessness. Child welfare personnel conducted the Quick Risks and Assets for Family Triage ( QRAFT), a three-question screening tool intended to identify housing instability and homelessness. The QRAFT requires users to assess family housing history, current housing arrangement, and current housing condition, on a four-point scale from 'asset/not a risk' to 'severe risk.' The QRAFT was completed among 6828 families undergoing new child maltreatment investigations. Approximately 5.4% of families demonstrated significant to severe housing problems; approximately one-third exhibited moderate housing risk. Housing problems and homelessness were significantly associated with the outcome of child welfare investigations; among families with substantiated child welfare determinations, 21% demonstrated significant to severe housing risk, a significantly higher proportion than among families where the investigation outcome was unsubstantiated or differential response (i.e., voluntary services). Of significant to severe housing risk families, 15.7% later met eligibility criteria for a supportive housing intervention, suggesting that housing concerns combined with substantial parent and child functional difficulties. Qualitative data indicated the QRAFT was perceived as easy to administer, effective as a screening tool, and useful to 'apply the housing lens' early in child welfare involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inadequate housing and homelessness represent significant barriers to family stability and child development. An accumulating body of evidence documents the relatively high risk of family separation among families experiencing housing instability and homelessness, the extent of housing problems experienced by families involved in the child welfare system, and the disproportionately high rates of homelessness among youth aging out of foster care. Vulnerable youth and families interact frequently with various social service programs intended to mitigate multifaceted and multilevel risks, however, systems efforts and resources are rarely coordinated and results to date are mixed. We introduce 13 papers that are part of a burgeoning, increasingly sophisticated body of scholarship that inform coordinated responses to inadequate housing experienced by families involved in child welfare and related interventions. We note emergent themes and state a pressing need for research that accounts for ecological and contextual influences, examines the differential impact of housing and service interventions, identifies critical ingredients of effective housing and service interventions, and positions for scale-up. We distill findings into a set of observations and recommendations that align with best intentions to improve quality of life and promote well being among some of society's most vulnerable individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family break-up is common in families experiencing homelessness. This paper examines the extent of separations of children from parents and of partners from each other and whether housing and service interventions reduced separations and their precursors among 1,857 families across 12 sites who participated in the Family Options Study. Families in shelters were randomized to offers of one of three interventions: permanent housing subsidies that reduce expenditures for rent to 30% of families' income, temporary rapid re-housing subsidies with some services directed at housing and employment, and transitional housing in supervised facilities with extensive psychosocial services. Each group was compared to usual care families who were eligible for that intervention but received no special offer. Twenty months later, permanent housing subsidies almost halved rates of child separation and more than halved rates of foster care placements; the other interventions did not affect separations significantly. Predictors of separation were primarily homelessness and drug abuse (all comparisons), and alcohol dependence (one comparison). Although housing subsidies reduced homelessness, alcohol dependence, intimate partner violence, and economic stressors, the last three variables had no association with child separations in the subsidy comparison; thus subsidies had indirect effects via reductions in homelessness. No intervention reduced partner separations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]