![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
On a single night in January 2023, over 186,000 families were identified as homeless in the United States. This striking figure represents just the tip of the iceberg of housing instability, which includes frequent moves, evictions, and rent burden—all of which have deleterious, long-lasting impacts on family well-being. Research consistently shows that families experiencing housing instability are more likely to have their children placed in foster care and are less likely to achieve reunification. In response, supportive housing programs have been implemented nationwide. One notable initiative is the Family Unification Program (FUP), the largest HUD-sponsored effort addressing housing instability among families involved in the child welfare system. To date, most studies have assessed the impacts of housing instability at the individual level, often overlooking how county-level housing assistance efforts might alleviate these outcomes. This study aims to examine the association between county-level housing assistance and child welfare outcomes.
Method:
This study utilized administrative data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), county-level eviction rates from the Legal Services Corporation (2019–2021), and records of Family Unification Program (FUP) voucher receipts. A county-level map was developed to visualize the geographic distribution of eviction rates—as a proxy indicator of housing instability, FUP allocation, and child welfare outcomes. Multilevel binary logistic and linear regression models were employed to assess the associations between individual- and county-level factors with two primary outcomes: (1) the odds of family reunification and (2) the length of stay in foster care. Models accounted for clustering at the county level.
Results:
The spatial analysis revealed substantial geographic disparities in both eviction rates and FUP allocation. Notably, some high-eviction counties lacked FUP voucher distribution, highlighting significant gaps in housing support infrastructure. Regression results indicated that counties receiving FUP vouchers had 21% higher odds of family reunification compared to counties without FUP support (OR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.784, 0.807], p < .0001). Individual-level factors significantly associated with reunification included child age, race/ethnicity, and whether substance use or neglect were documented as reasons for removal.
Conclusions and Implications:
This study demonstrates the value of linking child welfare data with county-level housing indicators to better understand the structural factors that shape family outcomes. Counties with lower eviction rates and greater FUP investment tend to exhibit better child welfare outcomes, including shorter stays in foster care and higher rates of reunification. These findings support the objectives of the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), which emphasizes the prevention of child maltreatment and the promotion of family preservation. Housing should be viewed as a foundational component of these efforts. Policymakers and practitioners should consider strengthening housing–child welfare partnerships to enhance family well-being across communities.