1. Housing and Child Welfare: Litigation Strategies and Advocacy Tools for Parents’ Attorneys Ruth White Marta Beresin Michael Mirra John Cheney Egan

2. The 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.

3. 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).

4. 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 investigated by CPS (Culhane et al, 2004) More likely to be placed in out-of-home care (Courtney et al, 2004) More likely to be placed in out-of-home care (Courtney et al, 2004) Longer stayers in foster care (Jones, 1998) 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).

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. Is this overlap by design?

8. 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 includes 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/de fine.cfm

9. Child welfare assessments  While ending homelessness is not a major thrust of America’s child welfare system, child welfare assessments regularly inquire about housing  For example, the next slides provide the definitions of a few variables from one of the most common assessment tools in the U.S., the North Carolina Family Assessment Survey for reunification (NCFAS-R).

10. Overall Environment +2 Clear Strength Refers to family receiving very high ratings in the following areas: housing stability, safety in the community, housing habitability, income/employment, financial management, food and nutrition, personal hygiene, transportation, and learning environment. 0 Baseline/Adequate 0 Baseline/Adequate Refers to family experiencing minimal problems in the following areas: housing stability, safety in the community, housing habitability, income/employment, financial management, food and nutrition, personal hygiene, transportation, and learning environment. However, problems do not interfere in family’s ability to function, and problems do not need to be addressed. -3 Serious Problem Refers to family receiving very low ratings in the following areas: housing stability, safety in the community, housing habitability, income/employment, financial management, food and nutrition, personal hygiene, transportation, and learning environment.

11. Housing Stability +2 Clear Strength Refers to family occupying the same, adequate residence for more than three years. If less than three years, move is prompted by a job change or move to better housing, etc. Rent/mortgage are paid on time. There are no problems meeting financial obligations of rent or mortgage. 0 Baseline/Adequate 0 Baseline/Adequate Refers to family experiencing, or previously experiencing, minor problems in remaining in the same residence, but family is relatively capable of meeting financial obligations, present housing is not threatened, and family members are not inhibited in pursuing other obligations due to these problems. -3 Serious Problem Refers to family being threatened with eviction. Unable to meet rent or mortgage obligations on time, or at all. Or, family does not have housing, is living with different relatives or friends, or living in a homeless shelter. Family is not satisfied with living situation.

12. Safety in Community +2 Clear Strength Refers to a safe and secure neighborhood for the children. Parents can allow children to play outside without fear. Neighbors look out for each other (i.e., neighborhood “watch”). 0 Baseline/Adequate 0 Baseline/Adequate Refers to minor disturbances in the neighborhood, but disturbances do not prevent family members and children from spending time outside in the community. -3 Serious Problem Refers to many disturbances such as fights and/or outbursts in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is not safe for children to play outdoors or walk to the bus or to school. Evidence of violence, “boarded up” or barred windows, gun fire, the use of alcohol or drugs, and/or drug “trafficking” in the neighborhood. Neighbors fearful of “getting involved.”

13. Habitability of Housing +2 Clear Strength Refers to family and neighbors experiencing home as “warm.” Home is very clean and neat. Plenty of space and privacy for children. Plenty of furnishings in good repair. Safety precautions are considered and taken, such as the use of smoke alarms and dead bolts on outside doors. Poisonous items are kept locked and out of children’s reach. Plumbing is in good condition. 0 Baseline/Adequate 0 Baseline/Adequate Refers to minimal problems in the home, such as slight overcrowding, or some clutter. However, most safety precautions are taken (e.g., poisons are out of sight but not locked). Minor house repairs (e.g., crumbling plaster) may be evident, but do not require immediate attention. -3 Serious Problem Refers to unsanitary situations, including roaches, litter, clutter, and/or unpleasant odors present in the home. Food particles and/or rotting food on the counters and tables. Urine-soaked or stained furniture, dirty diapers, dirty dishes, overflowing garbage, and/or animal or human feces on the floor. Hesitance to sit down or enter the home. Nonfunctioning plumbing and/or no electricity. Many hazards within the reach of children, such as guns, knives, street drugs, or open medication and poisons.

14. Why ask about housing?  Gambrill questioned the application of assessment tools based on social work practice, and ultimately ecological systems theory.  She poses the following question , “Why train staff in effective assessment skills if they have neither the time nor the tools needed to use them?” (Gambrill, 2008, p. 190).

15. Why Don’t child welfare workers have access to housing resources?

16. 2010 Child Welfare Funding

17. 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).

18. 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)

19. 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.

20. What should CW be doing on housing.  Train cw workers on housing issues and resources.  Consider instituting “Alternative” or “Differential Response”  Partner with local housers – like PHAs, HFAs and private non-profit developers  Set up a local Family Unification Program (More from John)  Apply for a Title IV-E waiver (More from Michael)  Apply for the upcoming HHS FOA – Partnerships to Demonstrate the Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for Families in the Child Welfare System. Issued TODAY by ACF for more info visit www.nchcw.org

21. Homelessness among Families on the Rise Since recession hit, homelessness among families has increased sharply in DC & nationally:  DC: 18% from 2011 to 2012 18% from 2011 to 2012 73% from 2008 to 2012 73% from 2008 to 2012  Nationally: Increased 28 percent between 2007 and 2010 to nearly 170,000 families in 2010 (HUD data) Increased 28 percent between 2007 and 2010 to nearly 170,000 families in 2010 (HUD data) Four times as many families were living “doubled-up” or in other unstable home situations in 2010 as compared to 2007 (DOE data) Four times as many families were living “doubled-up” or in other unstable home situations in 2010 as compared to 2007 (DOE data)

22. Recession’s Impact on Affordable Housing  Recession = decreased city/state/fed’l revenues  Decreased revs = cutbacks in AH, safety net, and human services programs like shelter (locally and nationally)  In DC, 60% of cuts have fallen on human services programs  Human services = 30% of budget  In DC = turning families away from shelter

23. Change in Long-Standing Policy Towards Homeless Families  End of hypothermia season, families applying for shelter began calling WLCH  DC told them if they couldn’t find a safe place to stay, they would be reported to CPS (e.g.’s: “Are you sure…?”)  Chilling effect on applications  Reporting families for doing the right thing  Part of nat’l trend towards criminalization of homelessness and poverty

24. Two-fold Approach of DC Advocates Built coalition of advocates including:  DV advocates  Homeless/housing advocates  Parents/children’s attys to: 1) Advocate with DC agencies (DHS, CFSA, Deputy Mayor for CYF) to change policy/protocol 2) Use stories of our clients to advocate for new housing resources for homeless families from local budget $$

25. Agency Reform Strategy Met with Directors of CFSA and DHS, Deputy Mayor for CYF’s office:  Intolerable to have families deterred from seeking assistance and reported for doing so  Chilling effect on parents applying for shelter will put children at greater risk  Housing is the solution – (i.e., yes, homelessness has a debilitating effect on children, BUT housing not foster care is the answer)  Housing is humane & more cost effective

26. Budget Advocacy for More Housing Resources 1.Educated Public: Wrote blogs about clients who were reported to CPS just b/c they were homeless and seeking shelter 1.Educated Public: Wrote blogs about clients who were reported to CPS just b/c they were homeless and seeking shelter 2.Educated our local legislature via email campaign and Council visits 2.Educated our local legislature via email campaign and Council visits 3.Worked with local arm of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (DCFPI) to come up with budget proposal to house 250 families with LRSP vouchers (locally funded Section 8) for $4 mil in FY13 and $0 this fiscal year. 3.Worked with local arm of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (DCFPI) to come up with budget proposal to house 250 families with LRSP vouchers (locally funded Section 8) for $4 mil in FY13 and $0 this fiscal year. 4. Outcome: 250 LRSP vouchers for homeless families!!

27. Potential Housing Resources to look out for or Advocate for: Unique opportunity to advocate for housing solutions b/c they are so much more cost-effective and humane than foster care:  Permanent Supportive Housing (local PSH or fed’l S+C)  Locally funded Section 8 vouchers  Transitional Housing for Reunifying Families  FUP Section 8 vouchers  Vouchers for young parents aging out of FC  New Fed’l funding opps – e.g., Health and Human Services (HHS) giving $5 million in housing/child welfare partnership grants

28. 2 Strategies to Equip the Child Welfare System with Housing Resources Dependency Court making the dependency court an authority to determine the need for housing and to compel the child welfare agency to provide it or arrange for it. Collaboration between the Child Welfare Agency and Housers matching child welfare services with housing

29. Dependency Court Making the dependency court and the dependency system an authority to determine the need for housing and to compel the child welfare agency to provide it or arrange for it. Norman v. Johnson (Illinois) Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. DSHS (Washington) Advantages and disadvantages as an advocacy strategy and as a way to provide housing advantages disadvantages

30. Collaboration between the Child Welfare Agency and Housers matching child welfare services with housing Public Housing Authorities and other housers as a source of housing dedicated to the clients of the child welfare system clients (e.g, Family Unification Program (FUP)) Advantages of collaboration between the child welfare system and housers Some models of collaboration Some challenges to an effective collaboration

31. Norman Services Because Every Child Deserves a Home

32. Norman History  DCFS not ready for the surge in the number of homeless families.  Understanding that it is more expensive to have children in care than to serve appropriate parents.  Lawsuit against DCFS resulting in the Norman Consent Decree.

33. Housing Advocacy (HAP)  Crisis Intervention.  Develop relationships with landlords.  Provide apartment listings.  Provide tenant counseling.  Advocate with housing providers.  Provide linkages to community services.  Provide follow-up services.

34. HAP Eligibility  Has children who are in danger of being placed in, or cannot be returned home from, DCFS custody due to inadequate housing.  Need assistance locating housing. Understanding that it is more expensive to have children in care than to serve appropriate parents.

35. HAP Cost  Client:Staff Ratio between 25:1 and 32:1.  Agencies bill between 20 and 80 hours per client on average, 40 hours is ideal.  Agencies paid between $20 and $28 per hour.  Cost should be about $1,000 per client.

36. Cash Assistance (CAP)  Housing costs, such as security deposit  Utilities  Food  Clothing  Necessary Furniture  Transportation

37. CAP Eligibility  An item is needed to keep the child from being placed in, or to return a child home from, DCFS custody that the family cannot afford to purchase themselves.

38. CAP Cost  Price of the item purchased (typically $1,000 per client)  5% administration fee to the agency processing the cash assistance requests

39. Norman Effectiveness The effectiveness of Norman Services is best demonstrated by the Chicago FUP.  98% obtained housing.  Less than 5% return their voucher each year.

40. Housing Subsidy Needed  One year monthly rental subsidy for reunification cases  Subsidy equal to approximately 1/3 - 1/4 of the FMR for clients paying more than 30% of their income on rent  5% administration cost

41. Funding for Housing Services  Unused TANF funds  IV-E Waiver  Super NOFA  Chafee Funds  User fee added to the cost of recording mortgage documents

42. Questions?