|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
on_going
|
After
completed
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
The Family Unification Program (FUP), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides child welfare–involved families with permanent Housing Choice Vouchers. The program provides vouchers to families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in (a) the imminent placement of the family’s child, or children, in out-of-home care or (b) the delay in the discharge of the child, or children, to the family from out-of-home-care. The program aims to prevent children’s placement in out-of-home care, promote family reunification for children placed in out-of-home care, and decrease new reports of abuse and neglect.
The goal of the evaluation is to determine whether FUP increased family preservation and reunification for families receiving vouchers and associated services, document how the program is implemented across the sites, and identify how the variations in implementation across sites might explain impact differences across sites. This evaluation has two main components, an implementation study and an impact study. The impact study examines the effect that the program had on outcomes, using quantitative data collection and analysis. The impact study will employ a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 5-10 sites across the United States. The evaluation will randomly assign families to be referred either to receive a FUP voucher or to receive services as usual. The study will follow all randomized families in the sites in the evaluation. The implementation study examines how the program is executed, the context of FUP within each site's child welfare and housing policies and practices, and the successes and challenges faced by the child welfare and housing agencies.
|
After
The Family Unification Program (FUP), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides child welfare–involved families with permanent Housing Choice Vouchers. The program provides vouchers to families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in (a) the imminent placement of the family’s child, or children, in out-of-home care or (b) the delay in the discharge of the child, or children, to the family from out-of-home-care. The program aims to prevent children’s placement in out-of-home care, promote family reunification for children placed in out-of-home care, and decrease new reports of abuse and neglect.
The goal of the evaluation is to determine whether FUP increased family preservation and reunification for families receiving vouchers and associated services, document how the program is implemented across the sites, and identify how the variations in implementation across sites might explain impact differences across sites. This evaluation has two main components, an implementation study and an impact study. The impact study examines the effect that the program had on outcomes, using quantitative data collection and analysis. The impact study will employ a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 6 sites across the United States. The evaluation will randomly assign families to be referred either to receive a FUP voucher or to receive services as usual. The study will follow all randomized families in the sites in the evaluation. The implementation study examines how the program is executed, the context of FUP within each site's child welfare and housing policies and practices, and the successes and challenges faced by the child welfare and housing agencies.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
September 29, 2023
|
After
March 31, 2025
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
September 16, 2021 11:49 PM
|
After
June 02, 2025 02:28 PM
|
|
Field
Study Withdrawn
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Data Collection Complete
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
|
Before
|
After
812 families randomized; 423 allocated to treatment; 389 allocated to services as usual;
269 of treatment referrals were treated;
|
|
Field
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
|
Before
|
After
1628 children; 731 families
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
|
Before
|
After
384 treatment families; 347 control families; 836 children in treatment families; 792 children in control families;
|
|
Field
Is there a restricted access data set available on request?
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Program Files
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Data Collection Completion Date
|
Before
|
After
April 03, 2024
|
|
Field
Is data available for public use?
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
September 29, 2023
|
After
June 30, 2024
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
The evaluation will employ a household level randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 5-10 sites. The evaluation will select sites where the target population for the FUP program includes many more families eligible for the program than can be accommodated by the program’s limited number of vouchers. Within each site, the evaluation will allocate the limited program vouchers by randomly assigning families to be referred either to receive a FUP voucher or services as usual.
|
After
The evaluation will employ a household level randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 6 sites. The evaluation will select sites where the target population for the FUP program includes many more families eligible for the program than can be accommodated by the program’s limited number of vouchers. Within each site, the evaluation will allocate the limited program vouchers by randomly assigning families to be referred either to receive a FUP voucher or services as usual.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
The specific referral and randomization strategy across the sites is for caseworkers to identify cases eligible either through a screening tool or caseworker judgment. Eligible cases are then referred to a central person (either at Urban or at the public child welfare agency), who randomizes the family into either treatment or control. All sites use a customized online randomization tool, designed by the Urban Institute. The randomization tool collects the family’s identification number, whether they are preservation or reunification, and their referral form and determines whether a family is to be referred to FUP or services as usual. Three out of four sites are using a one-to-one randomization ratio, with one family randomized to treatment for every control family. One site is using a two-to-one ratio, with two families randomized to treatment for every control family.
|
After
The specific referral and randomization strategy across the sites is for caseworkers to identify cases eligible either through a screening tool or caseworker judgment. Eligible cases are then referred to a central person (either at Urban or at the public child welfare agency), who randomizes the family into either treatment or control. All sites use a customized online randomization tool, designed by the Urban Institute. The randomization tool collects the family’s identification number, whether they are preservation or reunification, and their referral form and determines whether a family is to be referred to FUP or services as usual. Five out of six sites are using a one-to-one randomization ratio, with one family randomized to treatment for every control family. One site is using a two-to-one ratio, with two families randomized to treatment for every control family.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
We are still in the process of recruiting new sites to participate in the evaluation. With seven total sites (three additional sites), our goal is 1034 households: 536 treatment and 498 control (see Table 1B).
|
After
With six total sites, our goal is 1034 households: 445 treatment and 413 control (see Table 1B).
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
498 control households
536 treatment households
|
After
Total Sample: 372 control households, 406 treatment households
Reunification Sample: 210 control households, 223 treatment households
Preservation Sample: 162 control households, 183 treatment households
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
To determine the appropriate sample size, we estimated Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE) sizes for both Intent-to-Treat (ITT) and Treatment-on-the-Treated (TOT) estimates. The effect size scales the effect of the intervention on an outcome by the control group’s standard deviation on that outcome.
Tables 4A and 4B in the analysis plan present Minimum Detectable Effect sizes based on our current expected sample size with four sites as well as estimates based on additional sites. To be able to detect meaningful effect sizes, that is, effect sizes of 0.20 or greater in the TOT, we need a sample of 1,034 families (536 treatment and 498 control). This would require additional sites contributing a total of 150 vouchers.
This sample size estimates pool outcomes for families who enter the program intact, whose goal is to prevent removals, and families who enter the program with one or more children in foster care, whose goal is to be reunified. We expect to estimate impacts for each of these two groups separately. Assuming about half of the families will be preservation cases and half reunification cases, the selected sample size would allow us to estimate an ITT effect size in the treated group between 0.22 and 0.28 and a TOT effect size between 0.27 and 0.35. If the current four sites do not provide roughly equal size groups of preservation and reunification cases, we will consider whether to add a criterion to our future site selection that would help even this out.
|
After
To determine the appropriate sample size, we estimated Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE) sizes for both Intent-to-Treat (ITT) and Treatment-on-the-Treated (TOT) estimates. The MDE for reunification outcomes is
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
- Child welfare case closures
- Time to child welfare case closure
- Reduced emergency homeless shelter stays
- Re-entry into child welfare system
- New child maltreatment reports
|
After
- Child welfare case closures
- Time to child welfare case closure
- New child maltreatment reports
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
We will measure case closures as whether the child’s case was closed at 1 year and 2 years post randomization for the full sample as well as whether the child’s case had closed within 1 year and 2 years of randomization. We will measure time to case closure as the number of days from randomization to case closure. While we believe that removal and investigation data will be available in all sites, case-related data, such as dates cases are opened and closed, varies widely in definition, quality and availability. For case-related outcomes, we may have to analyze the results for a subset of sites that have high-quality case-related data. We will measure homeless shelter stays as the number of stays in the two years after randomization.
|
After
We will measure case closures as whether the child’s case was closed at 1 year and 2 years post randomization for the full sample as well as whether the child’s case had closed within 1 year and 2 years of randomization. We will measure time to case closure as the number of days from randomization to case closure. While we believe that removal and investigation data will be available in all sites, case-related data, such as dates cases are opened and closed, varies widely in definition, quality and availability. For case-related outcomes, we may have to analyze the results for a subset of sites that have high-quality case-related data.
|
|
Field
Pi as first author
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|