Evaluation Findings from a Supportive Housing Intervention for Child Welfare Involved Families

Background

Research has consistently found a higher rate of child welfare system involvement among families that are homeless or otherwise precariously housed than among low-income families with stable housing (Cowal et al., 2002; Culhane et al., 2003; Font & Warren, 2013; Slack et al., 2007). Addressing the housing needs of homeless or precariously housed families may reduce or even eliminate the risks that inadequate housing can pose to children’s health and safety, thereby preventing their placement in out-of-home care (Fowler & Schoeny, 2017). This presentation includes findings from an evaluation of Bringing Families Home (BFH), a supportive housing program for child welfare system involved families experiencing homelessness in San Francisco County that began in 2017. The program provides housing assistance in the form of a permanent voucher or time-limited subsidy and supportive services to homeless families with an open child welfare case. It aims to prevent out-of-home care placement or facilitate reunification by stabilizing families’ housing and addressing their other service needs.

Methods

We evaluate the outcomes of participating families in three key domains: housing stability, caregiver well-being (measured using the Adult Needs and Strengths Assessment), and child welfare system involvement. While some families referred to BFH are still in the program, preliminary outcomes data are available for 195 families (248 adult caregivers and 339 children) that enrolled in BFH between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2023. Administrative child welfare data are used to answer questions about out-of-home placement prevention and the likelihood and timeliness of reunification using survival analysis. Case management data are used to answer research questions about housing stability, service receipt, and improvements in family wellbeing measured using chi-square tests. Nine caregivers were interviewed to learn about their experiences with the program and thirty-three families completed a follow-up survey six months after exiting the program to determine if they remained stably housed and connected to services.

Results

Most of the families in BFH (84%, N=195) found stable housing, usually within 4 months of enrolling in the program. Family and caregiver well-being improved while families were engaged in the program, especially in the domains of residential stability, family functioning, and substance use problems that require treatment (p<0.05). Families typically remain in BFH for a year and a half and most had stable housing at exit. However, some families exited the program because reunification efforts were terminated or they became disengaged. Six months after exiting BFH, families were still housed, but some were struggling to pay bills and facing employment-related challenges. Few families receiving in-home services when they were referred to BFH experienced an out-of-home care placement and most families receiving reunification services successfully reunified and their children did not re-enter foster care.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that supportive housing interventions may help homeless families stabilize and successfully close their child welfare case. Fewer children in foster care—either because they never entered or because they were returned to their families—translates into cost savings for state and county child welfare systems.