Can Housing and Service Interventions Reduce Family Separations for Families Who Experience Homelessness?

Abstract

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.

Housing and Child Welfare: Emerging Evidence and Implications for Scaling up Services

“…Surveys conducted 20 months on average after random assignment showed a modest rate (16%) of caregiver-reported child separation in the past 6 months for families receiving homeless services as usual (Shinn, Brown, & Gubits, in press). Families referred for permanent housing reported nearly half the rates of informal separations (10%) and formal placements (2%).…”

“…Families referred for permanent housing reported nearly half the rates of informal separations (10%) and formal placements (2%). Furthermore, analyses suggested that risk reductions were explained not by changes in caregiver behavior (substance abuse, domestic violence) or economic circumstances, but rather reductions in days homeless (Shinn et al, in press). No other signifi-cant differences existed between conditions on preservation, or on rates of reunification (33%) with children who had been living away from caregivers at random assignment (Gubits et al, 2016).…”

“…Linked child welfare records showed no differences in rates of formal placement into foster care; however, overall placement levels were small among a relatively small group of families referred for HomeBase ( n = 11/150) versus control families ( n = 3/145; Rolston et al, 2013). Although direct evidence does not exist, homelessness prevention affects a key process linked to child welfare involvement (Shinn et al, in press), as well as addresses neighborhood-level risks.…”

“…Results suggested families assigned to supportive housing housed more quickly and children experienced more positive well-being over a 2-year follow-up; however, no differences emerged on child out-of-home placement (Samuels et al, 2015; Shinn, Samuels, Fisher, Thompkins, & Fowler, 2015). The large-scale randomized controlled trial of homeless services also showed no impact of transitional housing that provided housing up to 24 months plus case management on formal or informal out-of-home placements (Gubits et al, 2016; Shinn et al, in press). Across interventions, limited impacts on parental and child well-being were observed (Bassuk et al, 2014).…”

“…Foremost, permanent housing is essential to mitigate the impact of homelessness on child maltreatment. Vouchers represent a key component of housing interventions delivered across service systems; evidence clearly demonstrates their value for families entering homeless shelters (Gubits et al, 2015; Shinn et al, in press). Although effect sizes appear more modest, permanent housing shows promise in keeping families together among those already under investigation (Fowler, Brown, et al, 2017b; Pergamit et al, in press).…”