Housing Solutions for Child Welfare Families and Youth Improving Representation in the Child Welfare System: The Third National Parent Attorneys Conference 2013 Ruth White National Center for Housing and Child Welfare

NCHCW NCHCW links housing resources to child welfare agencies to improve family functioning, prevent family homelessness, safely reduce the need for out-of-home placement, and ensure that each young person who ages out foster care is able to access safe, decent, permanent housing. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

What is the “Child Welfare System”? The child welfare system is a group of services designed to promote the well-being of children by ensuring safety, achieving permanency, and strengthening families to successfully care for their children. While the primary responsibility for child welfare services rests with the States, the Federal Government plays a major role in supporting States in the delivery of services through funding of programs and legislative initiatives National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

What kinds of services do CW organizations and their partners provide? Along with their partners in the community, CW agencies can provide services such as: in-home family preservation services foster care, residential treatment mental health care substance abuse treatment parenting skills classes employment assistance Limited cash assistance, emergency housing assistance, etc. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Poverty and Child Welfare Poverty is the best predictor of whether or not a child will enter foster care. (Pelton, 2008; Sedlak, Mettenburg, Basena, Petta, McPherson, & Greene, 2010) Housing is a tangible manifestation of poverty that provides a unique challenge to child welfare workers (Shdaimah, 2009). National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Housing Matters Housing affects families at each decision point in the child welfare continuum. Children from families with housing problems are: More likely to be investigated by CPS (Culhane et al, 2004) More likely to be placed in out-of-home care (Courtney et al, 2004) Longer stayers in foster care (Jones, 1998) Thirty percent of children in foster care are there because of housing problems (Doerre & Mihaly, 1996; Hagedorn, 1995; Thoma, 1998). Disproportionality 2007 GAO report on disproportionality identified housing as a major contributor to the overrepresentation of minorities in foster care. Rodenborg (2004) in her study of service matching in child welfare found that housing was the least well-matched service and alarmingly, when it was matched to need, race was the best predictor of whether or not a family would get the service – this may indicate an interaction effect between race and housing on the independent variable of foster care placement. The “Thirty Percent Solution” - hesitant to use this because these types of things can be politically charged (as in Pelton’s three percent solution) but this is short hand for say that housing interventions would safely reduce the need for foster care by 30 %. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Housing and Overrepresentation of Minorities in foster care Disproportionality 2007 GAO report on the African American Children in foster care identified housing as a major contributor to the overrepresentation of minorities in foster care. A 2004 service matching in child welfare study found that housing was the least well-matched service and alarmingly, when it was matched to need, race was the best predictor of whether or not a family would get the service – this may indicate an interaction effect between race and housing on the independent variable of foster care placement. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Housing and Overrepresentation of Minorities in foster care (cont.) A 2004 service matching in child welfare study found that housing was the least well-matched service and alarmingly, when it was matched to need, race was the best predictor of whether or not a family would get the service – this may indicate an interaction effect between race and housing on the independent variable of foster care placement. (Rodenborg, 2004) National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Most neglect statutes include housing All but 13 states have the inability of a caregiver to provide shelter as a part of their state definition of abuse and neglect. Nine of these states exceptions for families who are unable, due to economic reasons to provide shelter for their families from being charged with neglect. Washington state (where Mark Courtney conducted his recent study) incudes an exemption for economic problems as well, even though housing is not included in the neglect statute. These definitions and statutes are available on the Child Welfare Information Gateway website at: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Substantiated cases of maltreatment by type of Abuse and Neglect (USDHHS, 2012

2010 Child Welfare Funding Source: ChildTrends, 2012

Housing is Cost-Effective A $15 million investment in FUP means that more than 9,000 children can return home. This will result in a savings of $101 million in foster care expenditures. (Harburger and White, 2004). (or $56, 892 per family) It costs approximately $53,500 to serve a homeless young person on the street or in residential treatment but supportive housing for one young person costs only $5,300. (Van Leeuwen, 2004). Foster care is an expensive alternative to affordable housing. According to the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare the average cost of foster care for the children of one family is $56,892. By contrast, it costs approximately $13,193 to house one family and provide supportive services for one year. HUD’s investment in affordable housing will save more than $101 million in foster care expenditures. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Housing is a smart investment "If we can invest resources that we now spend to have kids in foster care to help stabilize their families so that they can take care of their own kids, that would be better for the kids, better for the families, and better for the child-welfare system," Donald says. "The system's past failures are not due to lack of resources. They really are not. And that definitely includes Baltimore City." Instead, she says resources have been poorly allocated. It is cheaper to provide services for families than to house kids in group homes, which can cost the system $72,000 a year per child. (MD DHR Secretary Brenda Donald, June 10, 2009, Baltimore City Paper) National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

NCHCW 2013 cost analysis Estimated National Annual Average Savings for Two Bedroom and Three Bedroom FMR Per child annual savings in a two bedroom: $12,021 Per family annual savings in a two bedroom: $32,458 Per child annual savings in a three bedroom: $9,954 Per family annual savings in a three bedroom: $26,878 National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

NCHCW 2013 cost analysis Estimated National Annual NATIONAL Average Savings for Two Bedroom and Three Bedroom FMR National savings if housing plus services intervention applied to all Title IV-E eligible families who need it: $822,992,330 (two bedroom) National savings if housing plus services intervention applied to all Title IV-E eligible families who need it: $681,494,639 (three bedroom) National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2013

Housing versus Cash Assistance Sustained economic investments make the difference – in cases of great financial stress, a small handout or purchase of equipment may not tangibly improve the plight of families. (Littell and Schuerman, 2002). Families who received housing subsidies improved their circumstances, while families who received cash assistance continued to have problems. In order to get cash assistance, you have to continue to report problems. This is not the case with housing – it is quite the opposite. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2012

What can child welfare agencies do about housing? Train child workers on housing issues and resources. Consider instituting “Alternative” or “Differential Response” (see handout) Use the considerable flexibility ALREADY available in local, state, and federal child welfare dollars for housing assistance for families and youth. Create an FSS-like Program for families and youth Partner with local housers – like PHAs, HFAs and private non-profit developers Set up a local Family Unification Program (or FUP like partnership) Apply for a Title IV-E waiver and include housing and economic security services within the waiver request Lack of appropriate tools to do the job affects self-efficacy, which affects turnover (Ellet, 2006). The federal resource allocation becomes an ethical dilemma for front line case workers. “CPS is not a housing agency” (Shdaimah, 2008). Consider the assessment tools such as NCFAS – Duncan Lindsey’s new book asks – why train workers on assessment tools if they don’t have the tools to address the problems such tools reveal? National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2012

Knit funding streams together to maximize time for youth to achieve self-sufficiency Age 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Independent Living Title IV-E Family Foster Care/Residential FUP for youth Regular Sec. 8 Other Subsidy Roommate Private Housing/LL

Partnerships with Public Housing Family Unification Program Priority Codes for Youth Leaving Care Housing Choice Vouchers Project Based Section 8

What is the Family Unification Program (FUP) FUP is a housing program for families and youth in the child welfare system. At minimum, FUP provides Section 8 vouchers to child welfare families and youth aging out of care. FUP is a collaboration between Public Housing Authorities and Public Child Welfare Agencies.

FUP Eligible Youth A young person referred by a public child welfare agency who lived in foster after the age of 16 and is currently between the age of 16 and 21 (FUP goes THROUGH age 21 until the 22 birthday) who is homeless or living in adequate housing is eligible for FUP. They will need also need to meet the eligibility requirements of the PHA Presentation Footer Info 11/9/2018

HUD requires CW to provide services for FUP youth Services must be available for the entire 18 months the youth has the voucher. Presentation Footer Info 11/9/2018

Required Services include: Basic life skills counseling which includes education on money management, house keeping, proper nutrition, meal preparation and how to access both physical and mental health care. Tenant counseling which includes counseling on tenant’s rights and responsibilities. Assistance or referrals to programs that provide assistance, with security deposits and/or utility deposits. Presentation Footer Info 11/9/2018

Required Services include (cont.): Job preparation and attainment counseling Education and career advancement counseling and services Assessments and the development of individual case plans Assurances to property managers that these services will be provided. Presentation Footer Info 11/9/2018

The FUP Partnership Model US Dept of Housing and Urban Devt. (HUD) Department of Children and Families (child welfare) MOU Info and cooperation Funding for Sec. 8 vouchers Funding and referrals Young person Issues voucher to youth Local Public Housing Authority (PHA) Housing assistance and case management Pays rent on time Supportive Housing (IL Program) Landlord Pays rent on time

The Status FUP Funding In 2008 and 2009, Sens. Murray and Bond directed HUD to spend $20 million per year on FUP, those funds have been distributed (see handout). HUD has issued $50 million for new FUP vouchers from 2009-2011 Any community can opt to create a FUP or expand one using regular vouchers – or any permanent housing resource

FUP is a cost effective cw intervention It is the preferred option and it’s cheaper: a 2004 cost benefit analysis showed that it costs Colorado $53,655 to maintain one youth in the criminal justice system, but it only costs the state $5,887 to provide housing and services.

Connecticut Connecticut has a state level housing-child welfare partnership between DCF and the state PHA which is referred to as DSS. The state DSS earmarked over 600 Section 8 vouchers for child welfare families. This program was recently extended to youth The state DCF uses state child welfare funds to subsidize rent for families when no Section 8 vouchers are available. The state-wide program is handled by a non-profit called The Connection, Inc. – this program is nationally renown and the case managers uses motivational interviewing, intensive case management, etc. to help families achieve self-sufficiency and improve their quality of life. This robust program actually SAVES the state money.

Colorado The Colorado Family Unification Program (FUP) focuses on serving former foster care youth experiencing homelessness. In 2001, the Colorado Department of Human Services received 100 FUP vouchers. These Section 8 vouchers last for 18 months and are targeted specifically for youth ages 18–21 that leave foster care at age 16 or older with inadequate housing. Recently partnered with Mile High United Way to beef up case management. Through this partnership, youth have access to job training and IDAs!

New York City HA Decade-long partnership with the city child welfare organization Includes a local FUP preference for both PH and HCV Uses HCV eligibility to leverage LIHTC Casey Family Programs and LISC are involved in this partnership Presentation Footer Info 11/9/2018

City of Las Vegas PHA Example As a proactive measure, the Housing Authority of the City of Las Vegas created a local waitlist preference to ensure when its Housing Choice Voucher Wait list opens, the first 10 eligible foster youth through a referral system, receive vouchers. With the success of the first ten youth, we plan to increase this allocation each year.

Some final thoughts on where to start Pay a visit to the states that have made strides, learn from their mistakes and achievements. States can use some homeless services and housing dollars for youth, but again, there are restrictions. Collaborations are the fastest, most efficient way to create a range of housing options.

Contact information Ruth White, MSSA Executive Director National Center for Housing and Child Welfare 6711 Queens Chapel Rd University Park, MD 20782 (301) 699-0151 rwhite@nchcw.org www.nchcw.org