Perspectives of caregivers with child welfare involvement in a supportive housing program

Abstract

Summary

The literature is absent on qualitative research that documents perspectives of caregivers involved in child welfare and who participated in a U.S. Housing First supportive housing intervention. A program evaluation of a social work-led, Housing First intervention was conducted, and this study reports the qualitative findings of the evaluation. Drawing on the focus group method, nine caregivers, involved in child welfare and with a history of homelessness risk, shared their perspectives on the Housing First intervention as well as the impact of the Housing First intervention on their families.

Findings

Using two-cycle coding for theme analysis, researchers independently analyzed the focus group transcripts and jointly identified seven themes. The themes include: (1) experience with adversity, (2) spiritual impact, (3) resources and services, (4) role of support of staff, (5) housing stability, (6) self-sufficiency, and (7) family stability.

Applications

This research provides insight into for social work administrators to develop a trauma-informed, strengths-based Housing First program to assist child welfare-involved families. Further, specific roles are delineated that social workers occupy when working with families in a Housing First program; these roles include educator, advocate, and nurturer. This information can provide supervisors and grant writers with specific staff functions that can be helpful in creating staffing patterns, providing job descriptions, and detailing program support. Finally, the themes of housing stability, family stability, and self-sufficiency support the U.S Children’s Bureau’s goals of safety, permanency, and well-being and meet the social work profession’s obligation to protect children and improve family functioning

Keywords

Social work housing homelessness family interventions child and family welfare qualitative research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beebe

S. A.

Masterson

J. T.

(2011). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices (10th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.

Culhane

Webb

Grim

Metraux

Culhane

(2003). Prevalence of child welfare services involvement among homeless and low-income mothers: A five-year birth cohort study. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(3), 79–97. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol30/iss3/6

Cunningham

Pergamit

Gillespie, S . (2019, June 5). Supportive housing can help keep families together. The Urban Institute. https://howhousingmatters.org/articles/supportive-housing-can-help-keep-families-together/

Farrell

A. F.

Britner

P. A.

Guzzardo

Goodrich

(2010). Supportive housing for families in child welfare: Client characteristics and their outcomes at discharge. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.06.012

Farrell

A. F.

Luján

M. L.

Britner

P. A.

Randall

K. G.

Goodrich

S. A.

(2012). ‘I am part of every decision’: Client perceptions of engagement within a supportive housing child welfare programme. Child & Family Social Work, 17(2), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00831.x

Fowler

Farrell

(2017). Housing and child welfare well being: Implications for research, policy and practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12154

Gaizauskaite

(2012). The use of the focus group method in social work research. Social Work, 11(1), 19–30. https://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/social-work/

Gewirtz

Hart-Shegos

Medhanie

(2008). Psychosocial status of homeless children and youth in family supportive housing. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(6), 810–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207311989

10.

Guterman

N. B.

Berg

K. L.

Taylor

C. A.

(2014). Prevention of child abuse and neglect. In Mallon

G. P.

Hess

P. M.

(Eds), Child welfare for the 21st century (2nd ed., pp. 207–235). Columbia University Press.

11.

Harburger

D. S.

White

R. A.

(2004). Reunifying families, cutting cost: Housing-child welfare partnerships for permanent supportive housing. Child Welfare, 83, 493–508.

12.

Hong

Piescher

(2012). The role of supportive housing in homeless children’s well-being: An investigation of child welfare and educational outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1440–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.025

13.

Jianbin

(2016). Pargament’s theory of religious coping: Implications for spiritually sensitive social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 46, 1394–1410. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcv080

14.

Kemp

S. P.

Burke

T. K.

Allen-Eckard

Becker

M. F.

Ackroyd

(2014). Family support services. In G. P. Mallon & P. M. Hess (Eds), Child welfare for the 21st century (2nd ed., pp. 51–69). Columbia University Press.

15.

Krueger

Casey

(2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Sage.

16.

Landsman

Rosenwald

(2017). Strategies for strengthening the utility of research in supportive housing-child welfare partnerships. Child Welfare, 94(3), 135–150.

17.

Levenson

(2017). Trauma-informed social work practice. Social Work, 62(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swx001

18.

MacCauley

Montgomery

Mossey

Bailey

(2015). Canadian community mental health workers’ perceived priorities for supportive housing services in northern and rural contexts. Health and Social Care in the Community, 23(6), 632–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12187

19.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. B.

Saldana

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

20.

National Association of Social Workers. (2017). Code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/about/ethics/code-of-ethics/code-of-ethics-english

21.

National Association of Social Workers. (2018). Social work speaks (11th ed.).

22.

Padgett

(2016). Qualitative methods in social work research (3rd ed.). Sage.

23.

Parsell

Petersen

Culhane

(2016). Cost offsets of supportive housing: Evidence for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 47, 1534–1553. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw1154

24.

Rog

D. J.

Henderson

K. A.

Greer

A. L.

(2015). Family stability and child welfare involvement among families served in permanent supportive housing. Child Welfare, 94, 189–208.

25.

Royse

Thyer

B. A.

Padgett

D. K.

Logan

T. K.

(2005). Program evaluation (4th ed.). Brooks/Cole.

26.

Saleeby

(2013). The strengths perspective (6th ed.). Pearson.

27.

Slesnick

Glassman

Kalafiasz

Collins

J. C.

(2012). Experiences associated with intervening with homeless, substance-abusing mothers: The importance of success. Social Work, 57(4), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sws025

28.

Tabol

Drebing

R. A.

Rosenheck

(2010). Studies of “supported” and “supportive” housing: A comprehensive review of model descriptions and measurement. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.002

29.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing. (2019). Supportive housing 101. https://www.csh.org/supportive-housing-101/

30.

U.S. Children’s Bureau. (2017). CB fact sheet. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/about

31.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2014). Housing first in permanent supportive housing. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3892/housing-first-in-permanent-supportive-housing-brief/

32.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2018). HUD reports homelessness unchanged in U.S. in 2018 with notable declines among veterans and families with children. https://www.navigatehousing.com/hud-reports-homelessness-unchanged-us-2018-notable-declines-among-veterans-families-children/

33.

Wayne

R. H.

(2013). Focus groups. In A. E. Fortune, W. J. Reid, & R. L. Miller, Jr. (Eds), Qualitative research in social work (2nd ed., pp. 164–283). Columbia University Press.