Housing Did Not Solve Everything": Perspectives of Housing and Long-Term Housing Outcomes of Participants in a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Approximately 25% of families who undergo child welfare system investigation for child maltreatment experience housing instability. The lack of safe and stable housing is a significant concern for families involved with the child welfare system. Housing-unstable families are more likely to have their children placed in out-of-home placement and less likely to achieve reunification. Thus, housing interventions, such as providing housing vouchers, have been identified as a promising solution to assist families in reunifying with their children quickly and safely. Partnering for Family Success (PFS) represents such a housing intervention. PFS was a randomized controlled trial program in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that provides housing assistance and intensive case management to quickly house housing-unstable parents, and safely reunify them with their children. However, little is known about the long-term impacts of these housing interventions and the perspectives of unstable housed families involved in the child welfare system regarding housing assistance. The objectives of this current study were: 1) to assess long-term housing stability among child welfare-involved families who have received housing interventions; 2) to explore the experiences of housing-unstable families who received housing interventions.

Methods: A mixed-method approach was used to describe the experiences of PFS participants in the treatment group regarding their housing situations and the outcomes associated with long-term housing stability. Quantitative data on use of homeless services were obtained from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). We tracked the use of homeless services by PFS participants in both the treatment and control groups four years after they entered the PFS program. Individual qualitative interviews and focus groups (N=52)were conducted with participants, program workers, and child welfare workers to explore their experiences with receiving housing assistance. Qualitative data trustworthiness safeguards included peer debriefing, and analyst and methodological triangulation.

Results: Prior to joining the PFS program, all participants (N=272) experienced various forms of housing instability. Of these, 188 participants had records through HMIS (treatment = 101, and control = 87). Specifically, 154 participants in treatment group and 196 participants from the control group

entered emergency shelter. After four years of the PFS program, fewer participants in the treatment group (n=30) used emergency shelter services compared to the control group (n=61). Qualitative interviews revealed that both participants and workers had concerns regarding neighborhood safety and long-term stability.

Implications: The findings indicate that having quick access to public housing is a critical step to improve the well-being of housing-unstable, child welfare involved families. Furthermore, participants in the treatment group seem to have better housing stability than those in the control group, confirming the promise of providing housing assistance among child welfare involved families. However, more efforts are needed to address systematic and structural barriers, and concerns related to housing assistance confronting low-income families in the housing market.