Strategy. Housing and CPS Policies (Child)
Approach. Engage families through social service support programs to reduce both homelessness and CPS involvement
Return to main MCHbest page >>
Overview. It is crucial for child welfare systems, policymakers, and communities to address the root causes of homelessness and provide support services to families to prevent children from experiencing the harmful effects of homelessness and Child Protective Services (CPS) involvement. Early intervention, stable housing, access to mental health services, and support for families can help mitigate the impact of these challenges on children's well-being and development. Homelessness and involvement with CPS can have significant negative effects on children's well-being and development.[1]
Evidence. Emerging Evidence.
Strategies with this rating typically trend positive and have good potential to work. They often have a growing body of recent, but limited research that documents effects. However, further study is needed to confirm effects, determine which types of health behaviors and conditions these interventions address, and gauge effectiveness across different population groups. (Clarifying Note: The WWFH database calls this "mixed evidence").
Access the peer-reviewed evidence
through the MCH Digital Library or related evidence source.
(Read more about understanding evidence ratings).
Source. Peer-Reviewed Literature
Outcome Components. This strategy has shown to have impact on the following outcomes (Read more about these categories):
- Policy. This strategy helps to promote decisions, laws, and regulations that promote public health practices and interventions.
- Social Determinants of Health. This strategy advances economic, social, and environmental factors that affect health outcomes. SDOH include the conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.
Detailed Outcomes. For specific outcomes related to each study supporting this strategy, access the peer-reviewed evidence and read the Intervention Results for each study.
Intervention Type. Policy Development and Enforcement (Read more about intervention types and levels as defined by the Public Health Intervention Wheel).
Intervention Level. Population/Systems-Focused
Examples from the Field.
There are currently no ESMs that use this strategy. As Title V agencies begin to incorporate this strategy into ESMs, examples will be available here. Until then, you can search for ESMs that have similar intervention components in the ESM database.
Sample ESMs. Here are sample ESMs to use as models for your own measures using the Results-Based Accountability framework (for suggestions on how to develop programs to support this strategy, see The Role of Title V in Adapting Strategies).
|
Quadrant 1:
Measuring Quantity of Effort ("What/how much did we do?")
- Number of social service support programs and providers trained to address the intersecting needs of families facing housing instability and child welfare involvement. (Assesses workforce capacity building for integrated support)
- Number of collaborative partnerships established between housing providers, child welfare agencies, and community-based organizations to coordinate support for families. (Shows cross-system collaboration and service integration)
- Number of families with children who avoid or exit homelessness and maintain stable housing through participation in social service support programs. (Measures impact on housing stability outcomes)
- Number of children in families receiving social service support who remain safely in their homes and communities, without need for foster care placement. (Shows impact on preserving family unity and stability)
|
Quadrant 2:
Measuring Quality of Effort ("How well did we do it?")
- Percent of social service support programs that utilize evidence-based, trauma-informed, and culturally responsive practices to engage and serve families at risk of homelessness and CPS involvement. (Measures quality and responsiveness of service delivery)
- Percent of social service support providers and partners who demonstrate cultural humility, anti-racist values, and commitment to dismantling the disproportionate impact of housing instability and CPS involvement on communities of color. (Shows equity and social justice orientation of workforce)
- Percent of families receiving social service support who report increased housing stability, economic security, and overall family wellbeing. (Measures family-reported outcomes and resilience)
- Percent of families receiving social service support who demonstrate improved protective factors and reduced risk factors associated with child maltreatment and neglect. (Assesses impact on family strengthening and prevention)
|
|
Quadrant 3:
Measuring Quantity of Effect ("Is anyone better off?")
- Number of housing and child welfare policies and practices reformed to prioritize prevention, early intervention, and family preservation for families at risk of homelessness and CPS involvement. (Measures systems change and alignment)
- Number of community-wide initiatives implemented to build public awareness and support for addressing the intersecting challenges of housing instability and child welfare involvement faced by families. (Shows efforts to shift narrative and build political will for systems change)
- Number of families receiving social service support who experience improved child health, developmental, and educational outcomes as a result of increased housing stability and reduced CPS involvement. (Measures long-term, two-generation impact on child and family wellbeing)
- Number of communities that demonstrate significant reductions in rates of family homelessness and foster care placement through implementation of integrated housing and child welfare prevention strategies. (Assesses population-level impact on key outcomes)
|
Quadrant 4:
Measuring Quality of Effect ("How are they better off?")
- Percent of resources and funding allocated to community-rooted, culturally-specific organizations and initiatives working to address the disproportionate impact of housing instability and child welfare involvement. (Assesses equity and tailored universalism in resource allocation and program prioritization)
- Percent of housing, child welfare, and social service system leaders who demonstrate increased understanding and commitment to dismantling the structural inequities that drive the intersection of family homelessness and CPS involvement. (Shows transformative narrative and institutional change impact)
- Percent reduction in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in experiences of housing instability, CPS involvement, family separation, and other forms of institutional control among families engaged in social service support. (Measures impact on advancing racial equity and social justice)
- Percent of families from historically medically underserved communities who report that social service support affirmed their cultural identities, protected their family unity, and upheld their right to self-determination in the face of systemic inequities. (Assesses effectiveness of support in embodying anti-bias and liberatory practices)
|
Note. When looking at your ESMs, SPMs, or other strategies:
- Move from measuring quantity to quality.
- Move from measuring effort to effect.
- Quadrant 1 strategies should be used sparingly, when no other data exists.
- The most effective measurement combines strategies in all levels, with most in Quadrants 2 and 4.
Learn More. Read how to create stronger ESMs and how to measure ESM impact more meaningfully through Results-Based Accountability.
References
[1] Palmer, A. R., Piescher, K., Berry, D., Dupuis, D., Heinz-Amborn, B., & Masten, A. S. (2023). Reprint of: Homelessness and child protection involvement: temporal links and risks to student attendance and school mobility. Child abuse & neglect, 139, 106156.
