Partnerships to Demonstrate Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for Families in the Child Welfare System

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

217 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-11-01

Study Completion Date

2017-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This was a randomized controlled trial comparing child welfare business as usual (BAU) with two levels of supportive housing (SH). To identify eligible families, a screening tool was developed that helped social workers apply a "housing lens" very early in family child welfare involvement. The study examined the extent to which implementation was faithful to the model and how well state and community partners collaborated. The research included a process evaluation, outcomes study, and economic analysis. Access to either intervention group was associated with higher family preservation and reunification, with service model intensity demonstrating minimal impact. An economic evaluation revealed that the intensive model cost the most, but the existing SH program and routine care incurred equivalent per-child costs.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Chicago Parent Program for Foster and Kinship Caregivers

NCT06170047

Behavior Problem Parenting

RECRUITING NA

Family Navigator Plus for Foster Parents

NCT06978959

Intervention

RECRUITING NA

Improving Access to a Primary Care Based Positive Parenting Program

NCT03077321

Program Implementation Child Behavior Problem Positive Parenting

COMPLETED NA

Tailoring a Home Supervision Intervention for Low-Income Families

NCT03517475

Injuries

COMPLETED NA

Delivering Evidence-Based Parenting Services to Families in Child Welfare Using Telehealth

NCT06109766

Parenting Parent-Child Relations Child Behavior +1 more

RECRUITING NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Supportive Housing for Families is a care management program that serves families who are experiencing child welfare needs (risk of losing custody of children or difficulty regaining custody of children) and severe housing needs. The program has been in operation for over 10 years and has been demonstrating positive outcomes for clients in terms of housing stability and family environment outcomes.

A federally funded, five-year demonstration project and evaluation focused on a new and enhanced version of the program, the Intensive Supportive Housing for Families program (ISHF). Through a three arm randomized controlled trial, this study compared clients in three groups: parents who are randomly assigned to (1) enroll in ISHF, (2) participate in the existing Supportive Housing for Families (SHF) program, and (3) receive Child Welfare Business as Usual Services. This was the first randomized evaluation of this program, and the grant required examination of whether those who participate in an enhanced version of the program, which incorporates prompt access to evidence-based interventions, vocational services, and trauma services, show superior outcomes than clients randomized to the existing program. Further, clients in both of these conditions (SHF and ISHF) were compared to those receiving child welfare services in Connecticut as usual (BAU) without a supportive housing intervention.

This research has three components: a) a process evaluation, b) a cost/economic analysis, and c) an impact analysis.

The process evaluation and cost analysis were previously completed while the project was ongoing. Now that the project has ended, the final report on all project activities has been submitted to the funder, the Administration for Children and Families.

This impact analysis addressed the following primary research questions:

1. Do clients who receive supportive housing services (SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child welfare outcomes compared to those in the Child Welfare (DCF) Business as Usual (BAU) intervention?
2. Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved parental well-being compared to those in the Child Welfare (DCF) Business as Usual (BAU) intervention?
3. Do clients who receive supportive housing services (SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved parenting skills compared to those in the BAU intervention?
4. Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate increased self-sufficiency compared to those in the BAU intervention?
5. Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child development compared to those in the Child Welfare Business as Usual intervention?
6. Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child well-being compared to those in the Child Welfare Business as Usual intervention?

A set of secondary research questions ask: across each of these outcomes (i.e., child welfare, parental well-being, parenting skills, self-sufficiency, child development, child well-being), are there differential effects across the three intervention options, ISHF, SHF, and BAU \[such that those in ISHF show greater improvement than clients in the SHF program who show greater improvement than those in BAU\]?

Main outcome measures were assessed at 12, 18, and 24 months post-randomization. Housing outcomes included shelter stay and subsidy deployment. Child welfare outcomes included child removal and reunification, subsequent allegations and substantiations, and case closure.

Results: Access to either intervention group was associated with higher family preservation and reunification, with service model intensity demonstrating minimal impact. An economic evaluation revealed that the intensive model cost the most, but the existing SH program and routine care incurred equivalent per-child costs.

The PI of this research was originally at the University of Connecticut and moved to Chapin Hall. The research has concluded and the investigators are drafting a manuscript.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Mental Health Physical Health

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

OTHER

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Business As Usual

Families who were involved in the child welfare services

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Intensive Supportive Housing for Families

Families who were randomly assigned in this group

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Intensive Supportive Housing Services

Intervention Type OTHER

an intensive treatment SH model with a higher dosage of case management, family teaming, and access to a vocational specialist

Program Supportive Housing for Families

Families who were randomly assigned in this group

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Program Supportive Housing Services

Intervention Type OTHER

The existing statewide SH model that included routine access to housing (voucher) and case management

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Program Supportive Housing Services

The existing statewide SH model that included routine access to housing (voucher) and case management

Intervention Type OTHER

Intensive Supportive Housing Services

an intensive treatment SH model with a higher dosage of case management, family teaming, and access to a vocational specialist

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Families who were newly involved with the child welfare system, demonstrated high housing instability or homelessness, and evidenced high service needs.