In this issue, we will feature examples of data helping us better understand the housing needs of families in the child welfare system. Sites in San Francisco, Connecticut, and a Keeping Families Together replication in New Jersey, are helping discern families who need affordable housing from those who will do better in supportive housing. In addition, sites are encouraging systems collaboration and ultimately change, which is working to streamline and deliver vital resources to those who need them most.

Of particular note in this edition is the recent work of the University of Connecticut and the ISHF team on a pilot project to determine housing status and vulnerabilities of families involved with the child welfare system. The study was undertaken to determine if eligible families were falling through the cracks in the referral process. The results are incredibly informative and may have important implications beyond Connecticut and the demonstration initiative.

Similarly in New Jersey, where the State Department of Children and Families has created a very small pilot similar to Keeping Families Together, their data has been drilled down county by county to determine which families are “Frequently Encountered” by the child welfare system and are homeless or living in untenable conditions.

Consistent with Connecticut’s findings, the number of families fitting within the New Jersey cohort is not large —which is good news and entirely what we would expect. The intensive intervention of supportive housing has always been intended for those with the most complex needs, for whom traditional services are ineffective.

The numbers we are seeing do suggest we can scale up supportive housing for families engaged in child welfare to actually meet the need—like we have been able to do for other populations like chronic homeless individuals and veterans. These efforts have made important progress on policy challenges long thought to be unsolvable.

In addition to helping figure out the need, our demonstration is creating innovative partnerships between public systems that will serve as our vehicle to a more simplified and effective system of care for families. For instance, you will read how Cedar Rapids has successfully brought together several systems to break the logjam that for too long kept families away from vital Section 8 affordable housing vouchers. In Broward County and in Memphis, our site teams are using every tool at their disposal to ensure supportive housing works in every way for our families and leads to systems change in their communities.

The lessons we are learning through this demonstration, and the data sites are working so hard to collect and analyze, are moving us to real systems change. We are realizing something that has been enigmatic to most public systems delivering services -- how to use funding more efficiently and more effectively by targeting the most intense resources to the most appropriate families.

Working together with our partners at ACFand in the philanthropic community, it is becoming more clear we can help inform an effective, integrated and coordinated approach, changing the lives of families as well as the life trajectory of children who might otherwise grow-up in foster care.

Spotlight on Intensive Supportive Housing for Families - Connecticut
 
The Connecticut Intensive Supportive Housing for Families (ISHF) is using data to refine its demonstration design and advocate for lasting systems change.

The Connecticut (CT) project has three partners: the Department of Children and Families (DCF; the state child welfare agency), The Connection, Inc. (TCI; the service hub which runs the supportive housing initiative), and the University of Connecticut (UConn) evaluation team. The partners completed a 3-month pilot implementation of a “universal housing screen” with all families coming to the attention of the DCF through a child protection services investigation.

In its report on the pilot, UConn makes two key recommendations for systems change.  First, the housing screen should continue to be used in the pilot site, CT DCF Region 3.  Second, DCF should expand the use of the screener to the entire state – making this an institutionalized practice, not an isolated demonstration exercise. 
 
The pilot was prompted by lower than anticipated referrals to the CT housing and child welfare project in its first three quarters of implementation.

Using the Quick Risks and Assets for Family Triage (QRAFT)[1] instrument developed for the CT project, the Investigations Unit of DCF Region 3 completed a rapid appraisal of housing concerns and, when indicated, a referral to TCI on all families who experienced an investigation for maltreatment or removal of a child.
  
“The goal of this screening procedure was to ensure that every family underwent a housing review very early in their child welfare involvement and to enable prompt referral of families who appear to have severe to very severe housing problems,” said Jean Wigglesworth, TCI’s Project Director for ISHF. “UConn monitored the quality and process of the pilot by following all of the cases screened and consulting with the staff of the DCF investigations units, and gathering contextual data that informs the project.”
 
QRAFTs were completed on 616 families investigated by three different offices in DCF Region 3. Among these, most (48%) were referred to CT’s differential response system (family assessment response), 36% were unsubstantiated, and 16% (n=98) were substantiated. Less than 10 percent of the 616 families had “severe or very severe housing” problems such as frank or chronic homelessness, safety concerns, imminent eviction, current shelter stays, or imminent danger.  While many more families may have had complex needs related to mental illness, trauma, substance abuse, and/or domestic violence, the majority had no or moderate housing problems at the time of the child protection investigation.
 
Among the 98 cases that were substantiated, however, 21% had severe to very severe housing concerns and another 12% had housing challenges considered to be unsustainable (e.g., above 30% of income, safety concerns, instability). Families with substantiated child welfare reports experienced significantly more housing instability than the other two groups.
 
Not all who had severe or very severe housing problems also had other challenges that rendered them eligible for the randomized study. Those families are referred to the state’s existing supportive housing program.
 
Ultimately, 12 families met all the targeted eligibility criteria for the demonstration, which is intended to reach families in the child welfare system with the most significant challenges in housing as well as parent and child functioning. As a result of the QRAFT pilot, the demonstration did experience a greater proportion of referrals that were appropriate than had been experienced before the pilot. It’s important to note that most referrals to the CT project come through the child welfare program, rather than the shelter system; rates and severity of housing concerns will always reflect the specifics of the population under study.  
 
UConn also interviewed child welfare leadership and social work staff in DCF Region 3 to understand how their experiences with the pilot and obtain feedback on “what worked, challenges experienced, and recommendations for future implementation at other sites across the state.”  These interviews produced helpful insights including “the QRAFT was easy to use, brought housing stability to the forefront in the initial assessment process, and facilitated conversations about housing history.”  It also gave staff a better, more concrete method for targeting the appropriate families for this very intensive supportive housing service.
 
Expanding the use of the QRAFT statewide will not only inform the CT demonstration, it will enable a statewide examination of the apparent extent of housing instability and crisis among families referred for child welfare investigations.
 
The source for this report is Farrell et al., Universal Screening of Families Undergoing Child Welfare Investigation: Technical Report on CT’s Pilot of the QRAFT. March 9, 2015, University of Connecticut, Center for Applied Research.
 

---

[1] The QRAFT is an abbreviated version of the Risks and Assets for Family Triage (RAFT®) tool originally developed to inform screening on entry to CT’s Supportive Housing for Families program. ®The Connection, Inc.


 

• Intensive Supportive Housing for Families
• Families Moving Forward
• HEART
• Partners United for Supportive Housing Cedar Rapids
• Memphis Strong Families