The Source for

Housing Solutions

4.2 Bringing Housing and

Child Welfare Agencies

Together: We Know How!

Thursday, June 9

CSH Summit 2016

csh.org

Supportive Housing Partnerships to Demonstrate the

Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for

Families with Child Welfare Involvement

June 7, 2016

Overview

Introduction to

Keeping Families

Together Model

Core components

Families Served

Results

Evolution of Model

2007-2017

Supportive Housing

Housing Affordable

Non-time-limited

Independent

Support

Services Flexible

Tenant-Centered

Voluntary

Case Management

Parenting Coaching/Life

Skills

Substance Abuse

Treatment

Mental Health Services

Primary Health Services

Employment Services

Pilot Core Components

Supportive Housing

Targeting

Multi-system Collaboration

Capacity Building

Evaluation 5

1998

Felicia

Felicia born placed

in Foster Care Returned home

Felicia placed in

Foster Care Returned home

Ronald and

Felicia move

into family

homeless shelter

Total Foster Care Days: 585

Total Shelter Days: 610

1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2009

Exit Shelter

2011 2013

Family Moves into

Supportive Housing

495 Days in Foster Care

Family remains

reunified, Stably

housed!

90 Days in Foster Care

Child Welfare

case closed

616 days

Shelter

Snapshot of Keeping Families Together

Parent

Recurring homelessness

Long child welfare

history

Less than high school

education

Substance abuse

Little work history

Diagnosed with mental

illness

Extensive trauma history

7

Keeping Families Together Results

90% remained housed

100% of children reunified

61% of cases closed within 10 months

87% decrease in indicated reports

Steady increases in school attendance

Significant cost-offsets

KFT--National Demonstration 2012-2017

10

Housing + Services for Child Welfare

Involved Families

San Francisco Human

Services Agency

San Francisco, CA Families Moving Forward

CSH

Keeping

Families

Together

New York,

NY

Community Alliance for the Homeless

Memphis, TN Memphis Strong Families Initiative

State of CT Department of Children and

Families

Hartford, CT Intensive Supportive Housing for

Families

Four Oaks Family and Children’s Services

Cedar Rapids, IA Partners United for Supportive Housing

Kids in Distress, Inc

Wilton Manors, FL HEART Alliance

New Jersey Department

of Children and Families

Mecklenburg

County

Department of

Community

King County

New Mexico

Supportive Housing for Families

in the Child Welfare System

Principal Investigators: Mike Pergamit: mpergamit@urban.org

Mary Cunningham: mcunningham@urban.org

CSH SUMMIT 2016

Chicago, IL

Findings from the national evaluation

Study Research Question Data Sources

Targeting and Prediction Study

Who are the highest need families and would benefit most?

Child welfare and homeless system administrative data

Implementation and Process Study

What are the major housing and services components? What are the challenges? Does the model lead to better coordination?

Annual key informant interviews

Impact Study What impact does the model have on child welfare involvement, homelessness, and child well-being?

Random assignment to treatment and control. Child welfare, homeless system, and other systems’ administrative data; baseline and follow up family survey data

Cost Study What are the costs and benefits? Same as Impact

Family Interviews How do housing and services act as mediators of child and family well-being?

In-depth family interviews

How will we learn? Multi-Methods RCT Study

Program Model

All sites are implementing a set of common

components with some variation

• developing or expanding triage for high-need child welfare families facing housing instability Targeting

• implementing a supportive housing service model using community resources that would be useful to the target population;

Supportive Housing

• providing case management for children and parents using evidence-based practices and trauma-informed care

Case Management

• evaluating the effectiveness of their site-specific service model. Evaluation

Lead grantees and housing subsidies vary

across sites

Child Welfare Agency

• Connecticut

• San Francisco

Non-profit Service Provider

• Broward

• Cedar Rapids

Continuum of Care

• Memphis

Vouchers (Scattered-Site)

• Broward

• Connecticut

• San Francisco

Project-Based

• Memphis

• Cedar Rapids

Lead Grantee

Housing Subsidy

Different program models provide lessons

on different opportunities and challenges

• Strong relationship with 5 local PHAs Broward

• Long-time supportive housing program, but now more intensive

• Developed housing needs assessment tool Connecticut

• Affordable housing network—short time to housing Cedar Rapids

• Coordinated enrollment with shelter system Memphis

• Enrollment built into existing process

• Modified SDM tool to better capture housing status San Francisco

Who are the families?

Enrollment is close to complete (as of 4/30/16)

• Began Fall 2012

• 827 families referred Referrals

• 359 families offered supportive housing so far

• Target: 428 families offered supportive housing (84% of target enrolled so far)

Enrollment

• 295 families housed so far

• 82% take-up among families offered supportive housing

Take-Up

Across sites, half of families have preservation cases

and half have reunification cases

55%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Preservation Reunification

Cross-Site

Cross-Site

Source: Referral Data Report

At time of program entry, families have high rates of

homelessness and housing instability

41%

35%

32%

33%

34%

35%

36%

37%

38%

39%

40%

41%

42%

Homeless Unstably housed

Cross-Site

Cross-Site

Source: Referral Data Report

Across sites, there are high rates of child welfare

history

73%

42%

54%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Prior report of

abuse or

neglect

History of child

welfare

services

Primary

caregiver abuse

or neglect as a

child

Primary

caregiver foster

care as a child

Cross-Site

Cross-Site

Source: Referral Data Report

Across sites, primary caregivers and children have

high needs

60%

50% 46%

38%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Caregiver

mental

health

Caregiver

substance

abuse

Caregiver

criminal

justice

involvement

Household

domestic

violence

Child with

high needs

Cross-Site

Cross-Site

Source: Referral Data Report

(Definitions vary across sites)

System Changes

Cross site findings from systems change framework

• Multi-agency team meetings for treatment families and co-location

Strong interagency teams

• Challenges to clarify roles and capacity across systems and with service providers

Some challenges in teaming

• At the frontline, most information is shared informally; at the middle management level, some aggregate information is shared.

Data sharing has been a major hurdle

• Universal screening

• Increase in housing search capacity

• Co-location of child welfare and service providers

Some influence on child welfare practice

• Voucher preference and housing priority Early signs of

systems change

What are we learning?

Families are housed after one year

85%

43%

9%

39%

8%

5% 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Treatment Control

Somewhere else

Shelter

House/apartment

without own lease

House/apartment w/

own lease

Source: Family Survey

Treatment families have more stable housing after

one year

• Few treatment families (3%) have had a homeless spell in the past 6 months

• Almost a fifth (19%) of control families have had a homeless spell in the past 6 months

Homeless Spells

• Treatment families have moved fewer times

• Treatment families have been evicted fewer times

Moving and Eviction

• Majority of treatment families (66%) expect to live in their current housing in 6 months

• Half of control families (47%) expect to live in their current housing in 6 months

Planning to Stay

Source: Family Survey

Treatment families report better housing quality after

one year

• Treatment families less likely to spend more than 30% of income on rent (6%) than Control families (40%)

Rent Burden

• Treatment families report 1.5 people per bedroom

• Control families report 1.9 people per bedroom Crowding

• 63% of treatment families rate their housing as excellent or very good

• 40% of control families rate their housing as excellent or very good

Quality

Source: Family Survey

Neighborhood quality is somewhat better

Across most sites, treatment families live in somewhat better neighborhoods than control

families

Treatment families report less:

People drinking in public

Shootings and violence

Groups of people hanging out

People selling drugs

People using drugs

And somewhat less:

Trash and junk

People being attacked or robbed

Gangs

Rapes or sexual attacks

Source: Family Survey

Treatment families reported little or no improvement

in family wellbeing after one year

• No reduction in material hardship

• No improvement in employment Economic

• No apparent improvement in physical health for parents or children

• No apparent improvement in mental health for parents or children

Health

• No apparent improvement in parenting practices or parent-child relationships

• No reduction in parental stress Parenting

Source: Family Survey

Next Steps for the

National Evaluation

Interim outcomes will be released late summer

• Interim report examining cross-site child welfare and housing outcomes to be released late summer

Impacts

• Cost of a night in shelter (in process), cost of child welfare services (this fall), cost of program services (2017), costs to other systems (2017/2018), benefits such as increased employment (2017/2018)

Benefit-Cost Analysis

• Examining evidence-based services and sustainability plan at each site this fall

Program observation

• Second group of interviews begins this fall to dive deeper into themes identified in first group

In-depth family interviews

National Evaluation Study Products

Program Models Report: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/supportive-housing-high-need-families-child-welfare-system

Systems Change Report: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/evolution-programs-offering-supportive-housing-child-welfare-involved-families-services-integration-and-systems-change-half-way-point

HEART Alliance for Sustainable Families

ROLE OF SYSTEM COLLABORATION

Stephen Ferrante, MSW - Group Victory LLC

sferrante@groupvictory.net - 954-249-2323

SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Project Planning

Gathering Key Stakeholders

Facilitated Dialogue Need & Priorities

Ideal System of Care

Resource & Service Leveraging

Gaps & Capacity Building

Program Model

Community Consensus

HEART TARGETED FAMILIES

Extremely Low Income: 30% of area median income

Inadequate Housing / Housing Instability HUD Definition for Homelessness

Child Welfare Involvement Verified Maltreatment Child Removal Risk / Child Removal History of Family Child Welfare Recidivism Legal Sufficiency for Judicial Involvement / Judicial Involvement Reunification Family: Housing one of Remaining Barriers

At-Risk & Multiple High Needs Mental Health Substance Abuse Domestic Violence Development &/or Physical Disabilities Young Children Many Children Household Trauma

HEART INTENT

ADDRESS

Child Welfare & Child Protective Services Involvement

Family Homelessness

Family Economic Instability

Family Recidivism

HEART GOALS 50 High Risk / High Need Families

Primary Goals

Reduce the number of child welfare contacts

Reduce the incidents of child maltreatment

Reduce the number of child removals

Reduce the number of foster care placements

Increase housing stability

Decrease costs associated with child welfare involvement & homelessness

Secondary Goals

Increase healthy parenting skills

Increase emotional coping strategies among family members

Increase family employment

Increase family financial management and stability

Increase legal self-advocacy

Increase attainment of permanent affordable housing

HEART PARTNERS & SYSTEM OF CARE

KID, Inc. (Kids In Distress) Lead Youth & Family Services Agency: Project Lead & Clinical Case

Management

ChildNet Lead Child Welfare Agency: Referral & Triage; Housing Coordinator

Broward Sheriff’s Office Lead Child Protection Agency: Referral & Triage

5 Public Housing Authorities Housing Choice Voucher Provider & Liaison (50 Vouchers Commitment)

HOPE South Florida Emergency & Transition Housing

Urban League of Broward

County

Economic Self-Sufficiency Provider

Legal Aid of Broward County Legal Counsel & Guidance

Broward Health Health Access, Education & Screening

Broward Addiction Recovery

Center

Substance Abuse & Behavioral Health Support

Women in Distress Domestic Violence Prevention

Broward County Homeless

Initiative

CoC Lead Agency; CoC Access; Family Identification

Barry University Local Evaluation

Group Victory, LLC Planning, Implementation & Sustainability Support

HEART PRIMARY DIRECT SERVICE TEAM

KID, Inc. Project Director

Clinical Case Managers

(10:1 Ratio)

ChildNet Housing Coordinator

Urban League of

Broward County

2 Family Life Coaches

Legal Aid of

Broward County

1 Family Attorney

HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Supportive Housing Model

INTENSIVE SUPPORT SERVICES

Community Targeting

Multi-Partner Triage

Regular Multi-Partner Staffing

Single Family Strengthening Plan

Seamless Service Coordination

Evidence-based Modalities

In-home & Community Service Delivery

HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Supportive Housing Model

HOUSING FIRST APPROACH – SCATTERED SITE

Rapid Rehousing

Seamless Access to Emergency Sheltering

Consolidated Housing Voucher Commitment

Prompt Housing Voucher Appointments

Combined Housing Voucher Certification & Orientation

Follow-up Legal Aid Housing Briefing

Landlord Engagement & Inventory Building

Leasing & Inspection Process Communication & Efficiency

HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Successes

Increase in Housing Stability (94% FAMILIES)

Decrease in Evictions

Maintenance of Housing Vouchers

Sense of Home

Decrease in Child Maltreatment (PRE: 282 / CURRENT: 35)

Decrease Child Removals (96% FAMILIES)

Increase in Family Reunification (47 CHILDREN / 21 FAMILIES)

Increase in Family Employment (50% FAMILIES)

Project Fit in Child Welfare, Homeless & Public Housing Systems

Sustainability Commitment & Activities

HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Successes LEGAL ISSUES COMPARISON

Issue HEART Program 1 Program 2

Evictions 1% 29% 30%

3 Day Notices 2% 11% 20%

Lease Review 45% 7% 7%

Notice of Termination 2% 4% 6%

Security Deposit 3% 4% 6%

Prohibited Practice 0% 2% 1%

Writ 0% 4% 4%

Tenant in Foreclosure 0% 2% 1%

HEART SYSTEM COLLABORATION: Success Factors

Single Project Identification

Advisory Council & Partner Meeting Structure

Unified Interagency Staff

Shared Mission, Priorities & Values

Role Clarification & Compliment

Shared Tasks & Responsibility

Strong Interagency Communication

Effective Interagency Collaboration

Consistent Family Communication

Resource Sharing & Mutual Support

Celebrations of Success & Each Other

New Resources for

Effectively Serve

Vulnerable Families

Alison Harte, CSH

Overview

• Review New Resources

– Tenant Guide and Welcome Packet

– Practice Guidebook

– Practice Profile

• How to Access

48

Tenant Guide and Welcome Packet

• Support around common problems families face

• Support for parent’s role in managing child behavior

• Clarity around lease & violations

• Clear processes and protocols for dealing with conflicts and issues

Home is Where Children Grow

• Key considerations for serving families and youth

• Addresses stress and trauma

• Supports optimal child and youth development

• Builds Resiliency

• Strengths-based and trauma-informed

• Self Assessment

Delivering Services to Families in

Supportive Housing: A Practice Profile

• Framework for practice

• Guides and supports the work of front line staff

• Defines core components of case management practice and requisite skills and knowledge

• Direction for assessing how well practice components are being implemented

• Organizational support for staff

Resources

• http://www.csh.org

• Child Welfare & Supportive Housing Newsletter

• Learning Community

Contact Information

Alison Harte, Associate Director

Government Affairs & Innovations

alison.harte@csh,org

(917) 532-2642

Leah Rhea, Senior Program Manager

Government Affairs & Innovation

Leah.rhea@csh,org

(612) 721-3700 x 114