Every child deserves a safe, stable home. However, there’s currently very little evidence on which strategies communities can use to prevent child abuse and neglect and ultimately help more children live safely at home with their families. 

One program that’s been shown to work is the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Family Unification Program (FUP). FUP provides housing assistance to families involved in the child welfare system who are homeless or unstably housed.

Though HUD provides some guidelines for the program, FUP is administered at the local level by public housing authorities, child welfare agencies, and continuums of care. These local agencies can impose additional criteria on which families are eligible and decide which services they’ll provide.

In a new study, we find that FUP can help reunify children with their parents, but outcomes can vary widely depending on how a community chooses to implement the program.

We offer four ways federal, state, and local policymakers and service providers can improve FUP implementation and provide more children the opportunity to grow up in a safe, stable environment.

1. Local child welfare agencies can focus on referring families with children who are waiting to reunify with their family or who are at the greatest risk for removal. 
   
   Our study found that among the control group, few children were removed from their families. This suggests that identifying families at imminent risk of separation can be difficult.
   
   That’s likely because inadequate housing alone is not usually what puts children at risk of removal. Other risk factors such as substance use can make it harder for parents to find housing and take care of their children. 
   
   To have the greatest impact on keeping families together, FUP programs should focus their resources on families with children at the greatest risk of removal and families with children waiting to reunify.
2. Local housing authorities can keep family eligibility to HUD’s minimum requirements.
   
   Families involved in the child welfare system often face multiple challenges, such as involvement with the criminal justice system or a history of substance use. Some communities disqualify families facing these challenges from participating in FUP, partly out of a concern that these families may not be able to find housing with a voucher and stay housed.
   
   Out of the seven housing authorities we worked with, five set additional eligibility criteria that disqualified some families with a criminal background or history of substance use.
   
   However, results from our randomized controlled trial show that sites with fewer eligibility restrictions had high shares of families enter housing with a FUP voucher. At these sites, FUP made a bigger difference in whether a family reunified.
   
    Minimizing eligibility criteria could mean families need additional services to successfully access housing. Among the sites we studied, the housing authorities serving King County and Seattle, Washington, had the least restrictive criteria for FUP referral in terms of how close the child welfare case was to closing, criminal history, and substance use. They also provided services to help families get housed. We found 76 percent of families referred to FUP in King County and Seattle entered housing with a FUP voucher—which is higher than the average across all other sites (64 percent). 
   
   To help more children leave foster care and return to stable homes, state and local leaders should consider how expanding eligibility criteria can help the families with the greatest need.
3. HUD can provide local FUP programs with funding that will allow them to help families complete their housing voucher applications.
   
   Voucher applications are complicated. They require families to gather a lot of documentation, such as birth certificates, all while a family is dealing with the child welfare system.
   
   In our randomized controlled trial, 15 percent of families referred for FUP never completed the housing voucher application and therefore didn’t have the opportunity to access housing they were eligible for.
   
   Our study strongly suggests that having dedicated staff to help families navigate completing and submitting their FUP housing voucher application could help more families enter stable housing and reunite children in foster care with their families. Sites with these services had high rates of housing entry and had large effects on reunification.
4. HUD can provide local FUP programs with funding for staff to help families find and secure housing.
   
   Finding suitable housing is a challenge for families involved in the child welfare system. Help with searching for housing can be critical for families trying to take care of their children.
   
   Families have varied needs when it comes to finding housing. Dedicated staff can help by identifying available and appropriate housing, taking families to view the housing, and advocating with landlords to rent to the family. Staff can also help them understand the lease and obtain the goods and services needed to move in and maintain their housing.
   
   We found sites with dedicated staff—either from the local child welfare agency or an external service provider—had significantly higher rates of families who entered housing than those not providing assistance. Furthermore, at these sites, FUP had a large effect on whether a family reunified.
   
   To help more families use their FUP housing vouchers, HUD should provide funding for staff to help families find and secure appropriate housing. State and local policymakers could also facilitate partnerships with local organizations that provide housing search assistance.

FUP can be the difference between children being at home with their families and family separation. By ensuring the families most in need can access FUP and related housing supports, policymakers can help more children reunite with their families and live safely at home.