What is the key question addressed in this article? (or what is the "purpose" of the research?)

2. What kind of evidence or data does the researcher use to reach this conclusion. You need to describe the data the author is using to support their conclusions.

3. What are the key concepts we need to understand in this article? (Look for how the author is defining key concepts. Examples: human trafficking, domestic violence, intimate partner violence (IPV), undocumented worker, illegal immigrant, etc.)

4. How are the concepts related to your social enterprise?

5. Identify three important points and include direct quotations. document the page number of the journal article page for each direct quote.

6. What conclusions does the researcher make? How does the author answer their research question?

"These policy proposals includesex purchase laws prohibiting the purchase ofsex instead of the sale ofsex, stricter penalties for pimps andsex buyers, increased funding for victims' services and law enforcement education, and the criminalization of extraterritorial commercialsex with adults at the federal level"(Hartjen, 2021:243).

Reunifying Families, Cutting Costs: Housing-Child Welfare Partnerships for Permanent Supportive Housing Deborah S. Harburger, with Ruth A. White In the absence of an adequate supply of affordable, quality housing, child welfare agencies are placed in the unenviable position of separating families to protect children from the debilitating effects of homelessness. This article presents recommendations for costeffective housing-child welfare partnerships that will shift the burden of providing adequate housing back to housing agencies. These partnerships have the potential to move child welfare agencies closer to achieving permanence and well-being for all children. Deborah S. Harburger, MSW, LGSW, is Policy Development Specialist, Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, Baltimore, MD. Ruth A. White, MSSA, is Director of Housing and Homelessness, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC. 0009-4021/2004/050493-16 $3.00 2004 Child Welfare League of America 493 494 CHILD WELFARE Vol. LXXXIII, #5 September/October I n the absence of an adequate supply of affordable, quality housing units, child welfare agencies find themselves in the unenviable position of separating families to protect children from the debilitating effects of homelessness. Child welfare agencies will not be able to meet the permanency standards set forth in the Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA; RL. 96- 272) until they place children who are in care primarily due to a lack of housing with their families in permanent supportive housing. Child welfare agencies lack the capacity to provide permanent supportive housing, but even more fundamentally, they lack the mandate to do so. Housing agencies are responsible for providing housing for families, whereas child welfare agencies are responsible for providing services and ensure the safety and wellbeing of children and families. Unfortunately, the issues of a crisis in affordable housing, a decreasing real minimum wage, and an increasing number of families in poverty mean that workers must place many children in foster care primarily because they lack adequate housing. Child welfare agencies should not and cannot do the job of both housing and child welfare; the onus of providing safe, affordable housing to families must be returned to housing agencies. This article identifies the forces that have created this situation and proposes establishing a partnership between housing and child welfare agencies that could save as much as $1.94 billion annually while providing permanence for many more children. Background Child Welfare and Housing Most families can successfully and safely care for their children in their own homes with the proper assistance (CWLA, n.d.); however, the current child welfare funding structure prioritizes maintaining children in out-of-home care over preserving them in their homes (Cornerstone, 1999). Few, if any, housing resources are available to child welfare workers; as a result, workers frequently Deborah S. Harburger 495 use foster care as a stopgap measure to ensure the safety of children who lack adequate housing. This is a costly solution to homelessness, both in terms of the emotional effect on each child and the cost to the taxpayer. Nationally, the average family in the child welfare system has 2.7 children (Doerre & Mihaly, 1996). The average annual cost to the United States of keeping the children of one family of this size in foster care is approximately $45,377,* although this number varies widely by state. Approximately 30% of children in foster care are there primarily due to a lack of housing (Doerre & Mihaly, 1996; Hagedorn, 1995; Thoma, 1998). Agencies find that most of their federal funds (specifically from Title IV-E) are for maintaining poor children in foster care, leaving child welfare agencies with few options to ameliorate a family's living situation. Partially as a result of this funding structure and partially as a result of their poverty, homeless and impoverished families are more likely to come into contact with the child welfare system (Billings, Moore, & McDonald, 2003; Shook, 1999). Workers are more likely to place children with housing problems in foster care than other children (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 1997). Neglect is the primary reason children enter foster care (Badeau & Gesiriech, 2003; Petit et al., 1999), and inadequate housing is one of the main causes of neglect (Badeau & Gesiriech, 2003). More than half of child maltreatment cases are due to neglect (HHS, 2003); 98.5% of these cases come from families who earn less than $30,000 annually (Petit et al., 1999). The number of children who enter the child welfare system and come from impoverished homes with inadequate housing results in a disproportionate burden being placed on social service agencies. More than 1 in 10 parents involved with the foster care system are homeless, battered by a partner, or have another housing problem (HHS, 1997). HHS (1997), however, found that out of more than half a million primary caregivers for children in foster * In state FY 2000, states spent $9.2 billion for room, board, and supportive services (Urban Institute, 2002) for the 547,415 children in out-of-home care. 496 CHILD WELFARE Vol. LXXXIII, #5 September/October care, only 1 in 50 received temporary shelter or a housing payment, and only 5% received housing. Workers did not even offer housing services to two-thirds of caregivers who were homeless or who had housing problems. Unavailability and wait listing alone accounted for one-third of this failure. Families in the child welfare systemlike all impoverished familieshave limited resources for housing and other basic needs. Even as incomes have increased for the wealthiest Americans, both the median income and the minimum wage have continued to decrease in real terms (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2002; Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2003; National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, 2002). Both the breadth and depth of poverty increased in 2001 (Center on Budget, 2002), and families leaving welfare are often unable to sustain gains they made while they received assistance, frequently because they do not have sufficient income to afford rent, food, and utilities (Children's Defense Fund, 2000). Affordable Housing Crisis The United States is experiencing an affordable housing crisis, and in no state can an extremely low-income earner afford a twobedroom apartment at the fair market rent (FMR; National Low Income Housing Coalition [NLIHC], 2003b).* The United States has 5.4 million families in a housing affordability crisis, meaning that they pay more than half their income for rent, and therefore have no money to pay for unforeseen crises such as medical emergencies (National Alliance to End Homelessness, n.d.). Rents have * An extremely tow-income earner is someone who earns less than 30% of the annual median income of his or her region. Having affordable housing is defined as paying no more than 30% of a household's income for housing (National Low Income, 2003a, 2003b). The fair market rent (FMR) is an annual determination that sets payment standards for housing assistance programs: FMRs are gross rent estimates that include both shelter rent paid by the tenant to the landlord and the cost of tenant-paid utilities, except telephone...FMRs are set at a percentile within the rent distribution for standard quality rental housing units in each FMR...HUD sets FMRs either at the 40th percentile rent or at the 50th percentile rent. For most FMR areas, the FMR is set at the 40th percentile rent. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2002, p. 61382) Deborah S. Harburger 497 increased at almost double the rate of inflation (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], 1999), claiming an ever-greater portion of real income and leaving more families without a place to live. Employment does not ensure that families will have a place to live: 42% of homeless individuals in shelters are employed (Bringing Home America Act, H.R. 2897, 2003), but those jobs increasingly are part-time or temporary, with lower benefits and fewer work hours (Hillier & Culhane, 2003). These factors an environment in which even employment is not a guarantee of being able to afford housing (Children's Defense Fund, 2000; National Governors' Association [NGA], 2002). Although it varies by region, on average, a worker needs to earn $15.21 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment (NLIHC, 2003a, 2003b). The median hourly wage nationally is $8.94 for a security guard, $9.37 for a file clerk, and $12.50 for a word processor (National Housing Conference, 2003). Even salaried workers are facing high cost burdens. The average starting salary in 1996 for investigative social workers was $25,262 (Petit et al., 1999), which averages out to $12.15 per hournot enough to afford the national two-bedroom FMR. Even casework supervisors do not earn much more than is needed to afford a two-bedroom apartmentthe average salary in 32 states was $31,654, or $15.22 per hour (Petit et al., 1999). As a result of the housing affordability crisis, 4% to 6% of America's poor become homeless each year. Homeless families with children now represent 41% of the homeless population, and they are the fastest-growing segment (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2002). Many families face barriers to maintaining both housing and employment; during the housing search, families meet obstacles such as not having transportation to see the housing units, needing child care, and not being able to find money for credit checks and security deposits (Sard, 2001b). Homelessness and foster care are inextricably linked, as families across the country report putting their children into "limbo care" (foster care, kinship care, or informal care with relatives or 498 CHILD WELFARE VoL LXXXIII, #5 September/October friends) after losing welfare benefits or becoming homeless (Homes for the Homeless, 1999). Of homeless families surveyed in San Diego, 18% reported that they had a child placed in foster care (Homes for the Homeless, 1999). It is important to note the interplay among domestic violence, homelessness, and child maltreatment. The feminization of poverty is at its worst when examining the demographics of the homeless population: 95% of homeless parents are female (Homes for the Homeless, 1999), and the typical homeless family is a single mother in her 20s with two children younger than 6 (Homes for the Homeless, n.d.). Victims of domestic violence often turn to battered women's shelters as their only refuge (Mulroy, 1995), thus becoming homeless to escape battering. Single homeless mothers frequently have personal histories that include domestic violence, substance abuse, poor health, and limited work experience; it is very likely that they lack both transportation and child care (Homes for the Homeless, 1996). As many as 45% of children who have been abused or neglected have a mother who is a victim of domestic violence (Aron & Olson, 1997). Housing Assistance Programs Housing voucher programs are one type of housing assistance program that child welfare agencies can sometimes access. Housing subsidies are the only way for many low-income families to afford housing (Joint Center, 2003; NGA, 2002). The Section 8 Housing Voucher Program serves families with an income that does not exceed 50% of the annual median income in their region (Hillier & Culhane, 2003). HUD sets the "payment standard" (total rent and utility costs) for vouchers based on FMR in a region. The families pay 30% of their income toward rent, and the subsidy covers the difference between the payment standard and the tenant's income (NLIHC, 2003a); however, three-quarters of eligible households are unable to receive these vouchers due to lack of funding (NLIHC, 2003a). Deborah S. Harburger 499 The government did not appropriate any new vouchers between FY 95 and FY 98. These could have offset the loss of 372,000 affordable housing units (HUD, 1999). Furthermore, the Bush Administration's FY 2005 HUD budget proposal falls more than $1.6 billion short of what is needed to maintain the current program (Sard & Fischer, 2004). Although the Section 8 program is very successful, it only partially addresses the needs of child welfare families. The Family Unification Program (FUP) is a housing voucher program that provides permanent supportive housing. This HUD-administered program provides vouchers to low-income families with inadequate housing who have been separated or who face separation from their children; it also provides vouchers to youth who have aged out of foster care (HUD, n.d.). Families receiving FUP vouchers receive support services such as counseling and mental health services, parenting classes, transportation, health care, money management and budgeting instruction, and employment services (Rog, Gilbert-Mongelli, & Lundy, 1998). Betw^een 1993 and 1998, the government aw^arded FUP grants to 8,000 families in the United States, for a total of $240 million (Rog et al, 1998). FUP evaluations of 1992 grantees found that the families avoided 1,275 foster care placements and workers reunified 869 children from foster care (Doerre & Mihaly, 1996). The Grand Junction, Colorado, housing authority found that it could convert extra grant monies into a security deposit fund for these families, and it was able to assist 49 families with a onetime average of $405 (Gregory, 2003). This supportive or "service-enriched" housing can help break the cycle of poverty by making a systemic change. It also can be highly cost-effective, as organizations are able to access community resources to coordinate services to residents (TuU, 1996). Housing authorities with a family self-sufficiency program can provide both case management services and an escrow account to participating families w^ho receive Section 8 housing vouchers, using specifically allocated HUD funding at no cost or limited cost to the agencies (NLIHC, 2003a; Sard, 2001a). 500 CHILD WELFARE Vol. LXXXIII, #5 September/October Recognizing the crifical imporfance of supportive housing programs, child welfare workers often rely on partnerships with faith-based agencies, local nonprofit housers, and public housing authorities to access housing subsidies for families and youth. Hennepin County, Minnesota, has been at the forefront of supportive housing programs, providing housing with onsite case management for families with children who are homeless and who have substance abuse problems. The county found that crisis costs declined by $6,200 on average per family because of reduced costs for foster care and chemical health treatment and that the costs shifted from being crisis to preventive costs. (Even when costs increase for prevention, many officials are willing to allocate extra dollars when they know that they are investing in the long-term stability of at-risk families [Herzfeld & Devitt, 2003a]). Researchers found that the contracts for supportive housing pay for themselves: Supportive housing for the chronically homeless is cost neutral at six months into the program, with expected savings after that, and the total number of out-of-home placements and casework hours are reduced as well (Herzfeld & Devitt, 2003b). Cost Comparison Given the effectiveness of supportive housing programs both in terms of cost and the ASFA indicators, it seems only logical to suggest the establishment of a partnership between child welfare and housing agencies to share the burden of housing and providing services to families and children. The foUow^ing are the calculations the authors used to determine the potential savings of providing supportive housing for the 30% of children in foster care who are in need of housing instead of maintaining them in out-of-home care. Method Current Costs. In 2000,547,415 children were in out-of-home care (CWLA, 2001). Studies have found that 30% of children currently Deborah S. Harburger 501 in foster care could be reunified with their families if they had safe, affordable housing (Doerre & Mihaly, 1996; Hagedorn, 1995; Thoma, 1998). In state FY 2000, states spent $9.2 billion for room, board, and supportive services for children in out-of-home care (Urban Institute, 2002), of which they spent $2.76 billion on the 30% of children who could be reunified if they had adequate housing ($9.2 billion X 30% = $2.76 billion/year). Proposed Costs. The Public Housing Authority determines the payment standard for Section 8 vouchers, which can range from 90% to 110% of FMR (NLIHC, 2003a). The average FMR for the nation in 2003 was $701 for a two-bedroom apartment, or $8,412 per year (NLIHC, 2003a, 2003b). This analysis uses the payment standard of 100% of FMR for simplicity. It assumes no financial contribution from the family, so the authors can make the most conservative estimates of cost savings; however, it is likely that the families would have some source of income to contribute toward rent.* The National Alliance to End Homelessness (n.d.) estimated that the costs of supportive services for families in subsidized housing range on average from $3,000 to $8,000 per year, depending on geographic region. Adding a cost of $5,000 per family to this housing cost, it would cost $13,412 per family to provide housing and support services.** Approximately 202,746 families have children in foster care. Workers could reunify 30% of them, or 60,824, if the families had adequate housing (Doerre & Mihaly, 1996; Hagedorn, 1995; Thoma, 1998). The cost to provide housing and supportive services to them, therefore, is $696 million annually ($13,412 X 60,824 families = $816 million per year). * Family contributions will likely offset any administrative costs incurred by the housing agency. ** To keep the figures manageable, the analysis only used fair market rent for a twobedroom apartment. For a family of 2.7 children, the unit size would depend on the local housing codes, child welfare standards, and the family composition (such as age of children, gender, etc.). The average FMR for a three-bedroom apartment, however, is $931 per month, or $11,172 per year. Including supportive services, the cost per family would be $16,173 per year using the same method. 502 CHILD WELFARE VoL LXXXIII, #5 September/October Results It costs $2.76 billion per year to maintain 30% of children in foster care with supportive services. In contrast, it costs $816 million per year to subsidize just the 30% of children in foster care and their families in housing while also providing supportive services. The cost of supportive housing is 70% less than the cost to maintain children in foster care. Savings could amount to more than $1.94 billion per year or $31,964 per family.* Although these are the national savings, each state stands to save a considerable amount of money by providing supportive housing (see Table 1). Discussion and Next Steps Of the many benefits of a partnership between housing and child welfare agencies, the most fundamental is that workers would be able to preserve and reunify 60,824 struggling families and move them closer to achieving permanence and well-being. Beyond that, deficit-ridden local, state, and federal governments stand to save 70% of what they currently spend on the 30% of children who are in foster care due to a lack of adequate housing. The crux of this proposed alliance is that it is realistic, affordable, and achievable to provide housing and support services to keep families together. Although some may point to the at-times low voucher use rate of housing choice vouchers, NLIHC (2003a) said reasons for this low rate are low vacancy rates, lack of affordable housing stock, landlords who decline to participate, and voucher holders who have difficulty with the housing search process. Rental housing, however, is available for this initiative. Rental vacancies were at their highest rate overall in the fourth quarter of 2003 since 1979, at 10.2% across the United States, with 64% of those vacant units renting for less than $800 per month * Using a three-bedroom fair market rent, the total savings would be $1.6 billion, with an average savings per