THE F

TH

AM

E F

I

AM L

I Y U

L

N

Y U I

N FI

I CA

FI

TI

CA O

TI N

O

N

PROG

P

RAM:

ROG

A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Monograph

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Visit PD&R’s website

www.huduser.org

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.

A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Monograph

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

M. Robin Dion

Rebecca Kleinman

Jackie Kauff

Mathematica Policy Research

Amy Dworsky

Chapin Hall

May 2014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people contributed in significant ways to this study. The authors are particularly grateful for the excellent guidance of Anne Fletcher in the Office of Policy Development and Research of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Others at HUD who provided valuable input include Brianna Benner, Caroline Crouse, Amaris Rodriguez, and Todd Shenk.

The authors thank Catherine Heath and Laura Radel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for their continued support, information, and feedback, all of which were necessary for the successful completion of this report.

The authors especially appreciate staff from the local public housing agencies, public child welfare agencies, and community-based organizations who shared their experiences using the Family Unification Program (FUP) for youth. Their insights contributed to the understanding of how FUP can help youth as they transition to adulthood and highlighted promising practices for serving youth through FUP.

Many colleagues at Mathematica Policy Research provided valuable research assistance and advice. Lisa Vogel and Debra Wright led the survey development and administration, and Shilpa Khambhati prepared the survey data. Brandon Coffee-Borden, Miriam Rosenau, and Lisa Vogel arranged and participated in site visits alongside the authors of this report. Matthew Stagner provided insightful reviews. Amanda Bernhardt carefully edited the report, and Donna Dorsey provided production support.

Any errors that remain are solely those of the authors and are not the responsibility of HUD or HHS.

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care CONTENTS

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... vii

Use of FUP for Youth ................................................................................... vii

Potential Barriers to Referring Youth for FUP ................................................ viii

Cross-Agency Coordination ........................................................................ viii

Implications ................................................................................................. ix

I. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ...............................1

Program Serves Child-Welfare-Involved Families and Youth

Aging Out of Care ....................................................................................... 1

Program Requires Distinct Agency Roles and Interagency Col aboration .......... 3

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES ........................5

Communities Use FUP Primarily To Serve Families ......................................... 5

Reasons for Lack of Youth Referrals ............................................................... 6

Most Youth With a FUP Voucher Are Able To Lease Up ................................... 8

Agencies Offer Assistance To Help Youth Find and Maintain Stable Housing ... 9

Most PCWAs Offer Youth Services To Promote Independent Living Skil s ....... 10

Some PHA-PCWA Partnerships May Need Strengthening ..............................11

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH

THROUGH FUP .................................................................................. 13

Agencies Must Balance Referrals for Youth and Families ............................... 13

Communities May Target Youth With Specific Characteristics for FUP ............ 14

Joint Decisionmaking on Targeting and Al ocation Is Vital .............................15

Open Communication and Agency Flexibility Enhance Process ......................15

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care v

CONTENTS

Strategic Partnerships and Policies May Encourage Participation in

Supportive Services .....................................................................................16

Agencies Suggest Reconsidering the Time Limit on FUP Vouchers for Youth ....17

IV. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ..................................... 19

Areas for Future Research ............................................................................19

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................21

Survey of FUP Providers .............................................................................. 21

Site Visits to FUP Communities .................................................................... 22

REFERENCES .....................................................................................23

LIST OF TABLES

I.1. Services and Assistance Offered to FUP-Eligible Youth .............................. 2

III.1. PHAs and PCWAs Included in Site Visits ............................................... 13

A.1. Response Outcomes for Survey Sample ................................................ 21

LIST OF FIGURES

II.1. Fewer Than One-Half of PHAs Operating FUP Currently Serve Youth ....... 5

II.2. Primary Reason PHAs Do Not Serve Youth Through FUP Is

Lack of Referrals .......................................................................................... 6

II.3. Most—but not Al —Youth With a FUP Voucher Lease Up and

Stay Leased Up ............................................................................................ 8

II.4. One or Both Partner Agencies Offer Assistance To Help Youth Find and

Maintain Housing ........................................................................................ 9

II.5. Most PCWAs Offer Supports for Independent Living and Rental

Compliance ............................................................................................... 10

II.6. One-Half of PHAs Serving Youth Hold Regularly Scheduled

Meetings With Their PCWAs ........................................................................12

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE

youth. The surveys were designed to identify the

universe of communities providing FUP vouchers

SUMMARY

to youth and to gather basic information about

how they administer the program. The site visits

sought to provide a finer grained understanding

When youth in foster care reach age 18 (age 21

of how communities are using FUP to serve this

in some states) and leave the child welfare system population and sought to identify promising without having achieved permanency through

practices and lessons learned.

reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship, they

must abruptly transition to living independently.

The surveys and site visits were conducted as part

Unlike their peers, these youth typically must

of a larger study undertaken by Mathematica

make the transition without financial or other

Policy Research and Chapin Hall on housing

support from parents. As a result, many who age

options for youth who are aging out of foster

out of foster care find themselves homeless or

care. The larger study included a review of the

precariously housed.

relevant literature on housing for youth aging out

of foster care, developed an inventory of state and

One resource for such youth is the Family

local housing programs for this population, and

Unification Program (FUP). FUP is a

identified several potentially innovative features

special-purpose voucher program under the

of non-FUP programs that merit additional

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

attention (Dworsky et al., 2012). Other study

Development’s (HUD’s) Housing Choice

activities included a forum focused on current

Voucher (HCV, also known as Section 8)

research in this area and its policy implications.

program. The primary purpose of FUP is to

provide housing vouchers to child-welfare-

USE OF FUP FOR YOUTH

involved families for whom the lack of adequate

housing is the primary reason for imminent

The results of the survey indicated that 47

out-of-home placement of children or delays in

percent (91 of 195) of PHAs operating FUP had

family reunification. Youth ages 18 to 21 who

awarded vouchers to former foster youth in the

leave foster care at age 16 or older and who do

18 months prior to the survey. Many PHAs also

not have adequate housing, however, are also

offered FUP-eligible youth assistance with their

eligible for a time-limited housing voucher. FUP

housing searches and premove and postmove

vouchers offer up to 18 months of rental subsidy

counseling to help them secure and maintain

and supportive services to help such youth gain

housing. PHAs reported that the majority of

skills for independent living.

youth receiving a FUP voucher were able to

FUP functions as an interagency collaboration

obtain a lease in the allotted time; many kept

between local public housing agencies (PHAs)

their leases for the full 18-month term. For their

and public child welfare agencies (PCWAs).

part, most PCWAs reported offering a wide

Participating communities decide whether to

range of supportive services to youth receiving a

apply for FUP vouchers, and, if awarded vouchers, FUP voucher, including those required by FUP

whether to serve families, youth, or both in their

regulations, although the quality of the services,

FUP programs. In communities using FUP for

the number of youth receiving them, and their

youth, PCWAs refer eligible youth to PHAs and

effectiveness remains unknown.

offer supportive services to those who receive

Youth represented only about 14 percent of total

a FUP voucher. When PHAs receive youth

FUP program participants. Of the 20,391 FUP

referrals, they verify HCV eligibility and subsidize vouchers in circulation, 2,912 were being used by the rent of eligible youth who are able to find and youth in the fall of 2012. The overall number of secure housing.

youth with FUP vouchers was relatively small for

This report describes the extent to which—and

two reasons: (1) slightly more than one-half of

how—communities are using FUP to support

FUP-operating PHAs were not serving youth,

youth. The research draws on findings from a

and (2) PHAs that were serving youth allocated

survey of PHAs administering FUP, a survey of

less than one-third of their FUP vouchers, on

PCWAs partnered with PHAs that serve youth,

average, to youth.

and site visits to four areas that use FUP to serve

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Another contributing factor to the small number

A second factor that may function as a

of youth with FUP vouchers is that vouchers

disincentive is that providing FUP vouchers to

initially awarded to youth may wind up in the

youth, although important, does not directly

hands of families after the youths’ 18-month

address the key goals of PCWAs, such as

voucher terms expire. Families, unlike youth, can

permanency, reducing caseloads, or reunifying

keep their vouchers for as long as they remain

families. Although many agencies offer some

HCV eligible, are compliant with program rules,

aftercare services, youth are no longer in the child

and continue to need housing assistance. One way welfare system after they age out.

communities can address this issue is to set aside

some proportion of FUP vouchers specifically

A third barrier to greater youth participation

for youth. Under a set-aside, youth vouchers are

in FUP may be the time limit on the rental

reallocated to other youth, rather than families,

subsidy for that age group. Most staff at PHAs

when the 18-month period expires. Only one-

and PCWAs suggested that the 18-month

third of FUP communities had established such

time limit is too short. First, they noted that

set-asides at the time of the surveys.

landlords generally prefer annual leases and are

reluctant to extend a 12-month lease unless it is

Among the 53 percent of FUP-operating

for another year. Second, frequent turnover of

PHAs that reported not serving youth, the most

vouchers requires more agency staff resources

common reason given for not doing so was a lack and creates greater administrative burden. Third, of referrals. More than 70 percent of these PHAs staff reported that the 18-month period often indicated that their partner PCWAs do not refer

does not align well with youths’ educational needs

youth. The lack of youth referrals, however, likely

and may not be appropriate for youth who need

did not arise from a lack of demand. Only 9

more time to become self-sufficient and ready for

percent of the PHAs not serving youth reported

independent living. Communities reported they

that the reason was too few youth who age out

would prefer to see voucher terms for youth that

of foster care; only 10 percent reported that the

are 2 to 5 years in length or that incorporate some

housing needs of youth aging out of care are

flexibility to be tailored to the needs of individual

being met in other ways.

youth.

About one-half of the PCWAs working with

CROSS-AGENCY COORDINATION

youth-serving PHAs reported that they do

not refer all FUP-eligible youth they identify.

The findings suggested that serving youth

The lower level of referrals in communities

with FUP requires considerable cross-agency

serving youth with FUP vouchers and the lack

communication and collaboration. Effective

of referrals in communities that do not provide

implementation of FUP requires joint, upfront

FUP to youth may reflect unintended barriers or

decisionmaking between agencies about how

disincentives.

to balance the needs of families and youth and,

POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO

because demand usually exceeds supply, which

youth to target. The findings indicate that some

REFERRING YOUTH FOR FUP

communities preferred to target the youth

most in need (such as those who are pregnant

One disincentive to referring youth may be

or parenting); others preferred to target youth

the financial burden on PCWAs of providing

who are in school or working and lack only

supportive services. Although FUP requires that

housing to help them succeed as they strive for

PCWAs provide such services, the cost of doing

self-sufficiency and independence. Ongoing

so is not funded by FUP. Many communities

cross-agency collaboration is also needed to

struggle to identify sources of funding for the

ensure that supportive services are coordinated.

required supportive services for FUP youth

Among PHAs that were not serving youth, nearly

because state and federal funding that could be

one-third (31 percent) said they would be more

used for this purpose is often tight. Privately

likely to do so if they had assistance establishing

funded services are available in some resource-

or strengthening their collaboration with their

rich areas (through foundations, for example) but

partner PCWA.

not across the board. Of the child welfare agencies

surveyed, 40 percent indicated that the cost of

providing supportive services was somewhat of a

challenge or a major challenge.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPLICATIONS

The findings suggest that FUP can be a useful

resource, but for various reasons it is not widely

used for youth. More research is needed to fully

understand why more than one-half of the

communities that issued FUP vouchers do not

allocate any to youth despite the apparently high

need and to understand more about the takeup,

intensity, and quality of supportive services

offered to youth receiving FUP vouchers.

These findings suggest that to increase the

potential of FUP for serving eligible youth, more

communities should develop awareness of the

risk of homelessness in this population, learn how

FUP can be used as a resource to help prevent

and address youth homelessness, and understand

the importance of cross-agency collaboration and

set-asides to ensure that at least some portion of

eligible youth get served. Because FUP is a small,

resource-constrained program, however, FUP is

unlikely to be a major resource for youth aging

out of care. Additional policy innovations to meet

the housing needs of former foster youth should

be explored.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care ix

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care I. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

I. BACKGROUND FUP was first authorized by Congress in 1990

to preserve or reunite families. Families are

AND PROGRAM

eligible for FUP if the lack of adequate housing

is a primary reason for the imminent foster care

DESCRIPTION

placement of their children or for the delay of

children in foster care being returned home.2

In 2000, Congress extended FUP eligibility to

Among the groups at greatest risk of becoming

youth ages 18 to 21 who exit foster care at age 16

homeless are the 25,000 to 30,000 youth who

or older, and U.S. Department of Housing and

“age out” of foster care each year (HHS, n.d.).1

Urban Development (HUD) eligibility criteria

Aging out occurs when youth turn age 18 or, in

further specified that eligible youth must lack

states that have extended eligibility for foster care, adequate housing.

21. These youth are more likely to be on their

own when they age out of care than non-foster

Public child welfare agencies (PCWAs)

care peers, who often continue to live with or

determine whether families and youth meet these

receive financial assistance from parents.

criteria and refer eligible candidates to PHAs.

PHAs then determine their HCV eligibility and

One of the greatest challenges youth face as

issue vouchers. Like other HCV participants,

they leave foster care is finding and maintaining

FUP families and youth typically contribute 30

housing (Brown and Wilderson, 2010; Osgood,

percent of their monthly adjusted gross income

Foster, and Courtney, 2010). A review of the

toward rent and utilities, and FUP vouchers

1 In FUP, “homeless” is defined as

research published between 1990 and 2011

ensure that the PHA will cover the difference

any person (including a youth) or

suggests that 11 to 36 percent of these youth

family who lacks a fixed, regular, and

between the contribution of the voucher holder

adequate nighttime residence or has

become homeless during their transition to

and the total monthly rent. Those with no income

a primary nighttime residence that is

adulthood. In one recent study, 36 percent of

(1) a supervised, publicly or privately

(as is common for youth leaving foster care) are

operated shelter designed to provide

26-year-olds who aged out of foster care reported typically not required to pay anything.3

temporary living accommodations

at least one episode of homelessness after aging

(including welfare hotels, congregate

shelters, and transitional housing); (2)

out (Dworsky and Courtney, 2010; Fowler,

FUP operates differently for youth than for

an institution that provides a temporary

Toro, and Miles, 2009; White et al., 2011). By

families. As with general HCV voucher holders,

residence for people intended to be

institutionalized; or (3) a public or

comparison, about 4 percent of the nationally

FUP families can keep their voucher for as long

private place not designed for, or

representative sample of 18- to 26-year-olds

as they are compliant with program rules and

ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping

accommodation for human beings.

who took part in the third wave of the National

continue to be in need of housing assistance. In

2 In FUP, “lack of adequate housing” is

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

fact, federal regulations prohibit PHAs from

defined as a family or youth who is (1)

reported ever being homeless (Harris, 2009).

revoking a FUP voucher even if parental rights

living in substandard or dilapidated

housing; (2) homeless; (3) in imminent

are terminated or if all the children in the family

danger of losing housing; (4) displaced

PROGRAM SERVES CHILD-

have reached adulthood. PCWAs may, but are not

by domestic violence; (5) living in

WELFARE-INVOLVED FAMILIES

an overcrowded unit; or (6) living in

required to, offer FUP families case management

housing not accessible to the family’s

AND YOUTH AGING OUT OF CARE and other supportive services. By contrast, disabled child or children, or to

the youth, due to the nature of the

FUP vouchers for youth are time-limited: they

disability. For definitions of other terms

The Family Unification Program (FUP) is a

provide a maximum of 18 months of rental

used in this brief, see http://archives.

hud.gov/funding/2010/fupsec.pdf.

relatively small, special-purpose program that

assistance. In addition, the PCWAs are required

3 F amilies and youth are required to pay

provides Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to

to offer supportive services to youth throughout

more than 30 percent of their monthly

eligible families and youth. FUP vouchers are

the period of FUP participation, to help them

adjusted gross income if their rent

exceeds the payment standard for the

awarded to communities through a competitive

develop the skills necessary to live independently.

local housing market, if 10 percent

process (although funding for FUP vouchers has

Required services include instruction in basic life

of the family’s monthly income is

more than 30 percent of the family’s

not been appropriated and awarded since fiscal

skills, such as money management, nutrition, and

monthly adjusted income, or if the

year 2010). Because only some public housing

housekeeping; counseling to prepare youth for

PHA’s minimum rent is higher than 30

percent of the family’s monthly adjusted

agencies (PHAs) administer the program, the

employment; educational and career-advancement

income. Payment standards are

number of PHAs with FUP vouchers is much

counseling; and individual case plans. These

generally set by the PHA at any level

between 90 and 110 percent of the

fewer than the number of PHAs that administer

services differ from assistance provided to FUP-

HUD-determined fair market rent (FMR)

an HCV program. Approximately 20,391 FUP

eligible youth to help them locate, obtain, and

for a particular unit. FUP covers (1) the

payment standard for the family minus

vouchers (leased or available to be leased) were in retain a housing unit (table I.1).

the family’s required contribution, or (2)

circulation as of September 2013, spread across

the rent and utilities minus the family’s

required contribution, whichever is less.

243 PHAs.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 1

I. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Services and

Type of

Services and

Type of

Required or

Provider

Required or

Provider

Assistance Offered

Service or

Definition

Assistance Offered

Service or

Definition

Encouraged*

Encouraged*

Assistance

PHAs PCWA

Assistance

PHAs PCWA

to FUP-Eligible

to FUP-Eligible

SERVICES TO PROMOTE INDEPENDENT LIVING SKILLS

ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING AND RETAINING HOUSING

Youth

Youth

Information/counseling on money

Providing a current list of organizations

management; use of credit;

that can help find units in low-poverty

housekeeping; proper nutrition and

Housing

census tracts, and at least one of the

Basic life skills meal preparation; and access to

Required

ü

search in low- following—neighborhood tours, unit

Encouraged

physical and mental health care,

poverty census viewings, landlord introductions in

ü

ü

including doctors, medication, and

tracts

low-poverty census tracts, or financial

mental and behavioral health services.

assistance for moving costs (security

deposit, for example).

Job preparation and attainment

counseling (for example, where to

Providing information on the benefits of

Employment

look, how to apply, dress, grooming,

Required

ü

living in low-poverty areas, information

Premove and

and relationships with supervisory

on tenant rights and responsibilities,

postmove

Encouraged

personnel).

and at least one of the following—

ü

ü

counseling

budget counseling, credit counseling,

Educational and career-advancement

or landlord mediation.

counseling regarding attainment of

GED; attendance or financing of

Education

Required

ü

Cash

Cash assistance for security deposits,

education at a technical school, trade

Encouraged

assistance

utility arrears, and rent arrears.

ü

school, or college, including successful

work ethic and attitude models.

FUP = Family Unification Program. GED = general equivalency diploma. HCVP = Housing Choice Voucher Program. PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

Participation of FUP-eligible youth in

* “Encouraged” means the grant applicant receives points for including these services.

the assessment and implementation

Note: Services required of PCWAs can be provided by the PCWA or another agency under agreement or of actions to address their needs,

contract with the PCWA.

including developing an individualized

Source: HUD (2010)

case plan regarding services to be

Assessment

received and the youth’s commitment

and individual

Required

ü

Table I.1 (continued)

to the plan (youth are required to

case planning sign a service plan agreeing to attend

counseling or training sessions and to

take other actions deemed appropriate

to the youth’s successful transition from

foster care).

PROGRAM REQUIRES

DISTINCT AGENCY ROLES AND

ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING AND RETAINING HOUSING

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

Housing

Help locating a housing unit; working

Required

search

with a landlord to secure a unit.

ü

PHAs and PCWAs have distinct roles but

Providing assurances to owners of

share responsibility for the implementation

Assurances to rental property that are reasonable

Required

ü

of FUP. PHAs and their partner PCWAs

landlords

and necessary to assist a FUP-eligible

apply for FUP vouchers in response to a notice

youth to rent a unit with a FUP voucher.

of funding availability (NOFA) from HUD.4

Compliance

Counseling on compliance with rental

The applications for vouchers must include a

with rental

lease agreements, including assistance

Required

ü

memorandum of understanding (MOU) between

lease

or referrals for security deposits, utility

the PHA and PCWA. As described in HUD’s

agreements

hookup fees, and utility deposits.

latest NOFA (HUD, 2010) and a sample MOU

Compliance

Counseling on compliance with HCV

(HUD, n.d.a.), the roles and responsibilities of

with HCV

Required

program participant requirements.

ü

ü

each agency generally include the following.

program

• PCWAs or their contractors identify youth

and families who meet the FUP eligibility

Table I.1

criteria and refer them to the PHAs.

PCWAs typically offer, but are not required,

to help youth find suitable housing and must

provide supportive services throughout their

18 months of rental assistance. During

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 2

I. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Services and

Type of

Services and

Type of

Required or

Provider

Required or

Provider

Assistance Offered

Service or

Definition

Assistance Offered

Service or

Definition

Encouraged*

Encouraged*

Assistance

PHAs PCWA

Assistance

PHAs PCWA

to FUP-Eligible

to FUP-Eligible

SERVICES TO PROMOTE INDEPENDENT LIVING SKILLS

ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING AND RETAINING HOUSING

Youth

Youth

Information/counseling on money

Providing a current list of organizations

management; use of credit;

that can help find units in low-poverty

housekeeping; proper nutrition and

Housing

census tracts, and at least one of the

Basic life skills meal preparation; and access to

Required

ü

search in low- following—neighborhood tours, unit

Encouraged

physical and mental health care,

poverty census viewings, landlord introductions in

ü

ü

including doctors, medication, and

tracts

low-poverty census tracts, or financial

mental and behavioral health services.

assistance for moving costs (security

deposit, for example).

Job preparation and attainment

counseling (for example, where to

Providing information on the benefits of

Employment

look, how to apply, dress, grooming,

Required

ü

living in low-poverty areas, information

Premove and

and relationships with supervisory

on tenant rights and responsibilities,

postmove

Encouraged

personnel).

and at least one of the following—

ü

ü

counseling

budget counseling, credit counseling,

Educational and career-advancement

or landlord mediation.

counseling regarding attainment of

GED; attendance or financing of

Education

Required

ü

Cash

Cash assistance for security deposits,

education at a technical school, trade

Encouraged

assistance

utility arrears, and rent arrears.

ü

school, or college, including successful

work ethic and attitude models.

FUP = Family Unification Program. GED = general equivalency diploma. HCVP = Housing Choice Voucher Program. PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

Participation of FUP-eligible youth in

* “Encouraged” means the grant applicant receives points for including these services.

the assessment and implementation

Note: Services required of PCWAs can be provided by the PCWA or another agency under agreement or of actions to address their needs,

contract with the PCWA.

including developing an individualized

Source: HUD (2010)

case plan regarding services to be

Assessment

received and the youth’s commitment

and individual

Required

ü

Table I.1 (continued)

to the plan (youth are required to

case planning sign a service plan agreeing to attend

counseling or training sessions and to

take other actions deemed appropriate

4 The most recent NOFA, released in

housing searches, PCWAs may provide

to the youth’s successful transition from

fiscal year 2010 (posted on http://

grants.gov on October 5, 2010),

youth with listings of vacant units, offer

foster care).

announced the availability of $15

PROGRAM REQUIRES

information about different neighborhoods,

million for about 1,900 new FUP

DISTINCT AGENCY ROLES AND

ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING AND RETAINING HOUSING

vouchers, which were awarded in

educate youth about their rights and

2011. Previous NOFAs awarded

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

responsibilities as tenants, and take youth

Housing

Help locating a housing unit; working

vouchers in 2010, 2009, and each

Required

ü

year from 1992 through 2001.

on neighborhood tours or to view specific

search

with a landlord to secure a unit.

5 Eligibility is also determined based

PHAs and PCWAs have distinct roles but

units.

Providing assurances to owners of

on the PHA’s family definition,

share responsibility for the implementation

Assurances to rental property that are reasonable

documentation requirements of

Required

ü

citizenship or eligible immigration

of FUP. PHAs and their partner PCWAs

• PHAs determine whether families and

landlords

and necessary to assist a FUP-eligible

status, and history of eviction from

apply for FUP vouchers in response to a notice

youth are HCVP eligible based on general

youth to rent a unit with a FUP voucher.

public housing or any HCVP for

drug-related criminal activity, among

of funding availability (NOFA) from HUD.

income guidelines and other criteria.5 They

4

Compliance

Counseling on compliance with rental

other criteria. For more information on

The applications for vouchers must include a

must serve eligible families and youth

with rental

lease agreements, including assistance

HCV and FUP regulations, see http://

Required

ü

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/

memorandum of understanding (MOU) between

referred by the PCWA as FUP vouchers

lease

or referrals for security deposits, utility

program_offices/public_indian_

the PHA and PCWA. As described in HUD’s

become available.6 During meetings with

agreements

hookup fees, and utility deposits.

housing/programs/hcv/about.

6 According to the 2010 FUP NOFA,

latest NOFA (HUD, 2010) and a sample MOU

youth and families (called voucher briefings),

Compliance

Counseling on compliance with HCV

PHAs must add referred families and

(HUD, n.d.a.), the roles and responsibilities of

PHAs issue vouchers, explain the program’s

with HCV

Required

program participant requirements.

ü

ü

youth to their HCV waiting list. In

addition, they must identify potential

each agency generally include the following.

rules, and inform participants about

program

their rights and responsibilities as tenants.

FUP families or youth on their HCV

waiting list and refer them to the PCWA

• PCWAs or their contractors identify youth

After issuing vouchers, PHAs may provide

to determine their FUP eligibility. For

and families who meet the FUP eligibility

basic housing search assistance and

Table I.1

more information on FUP program

rules, see the 2010 NOFA available at

criteria and refer them to the PHAs.

counseling. They also inspect and approve

http://archives.hud.gov/funding/2010/

PCWAs typically offer, but are not required,

units, establish payment contracts with

fupsec.pdf, or HUD’s frequently asked questions on FUP, available at http://

to help youth find suitable housing and must

landlords, and make adjustments to

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/

provide supportive services throughout their

housing assistance payments (HAP) based

huddoc?id=fupfaqs_dec2012.pdf.

18 months of rental assistance. During

on family size and income once a year.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 3

I. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

To facilitate interagency collaboration, HUD

requires both partner agencies to (1) designate a

“FUP liaison” responsible for referrals, (2) meet

at least quarterly, and (3) cross-train one another

on HCV eligibility and referral procedures. In

the most recent NOFA, partner agencies that

collaborated on a plan to provide premove or

postmove assistance to youth were ranked more

favorably than agencies that did not plan for this

assistance. Such assistance includes providing

information on arranging utility hookups,

budgeting and credit, landlord mediation, and

the benefits of living in low-poverty areas. HUD

further requires that partners ensure that when

vouchers are turned in because a household exits

the program, those vouchers be reissued to other

FUP-eligible families or youth.

PHAs and PCWAs must decide how they will

divide their vouchers between families and

youth. For example, partner agencies may decide

to designate a fixed percentage of their FUP

vouchers (which some PHAs referred to as a “set-

aside”) for youth based on perceived needs or the

availability of other housing options for youth and

families in the community. Alternatively, they may

decide to refer all FUP-eligible youth and allow

them to compete with eligible families on a first-

come, first-served basis. These decisions ideally

are made intentionally and collaboratively.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 4

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

II. SURVEY

HUD as operating FUP were surveyed. If the

PHA indicated that it currently served youth

FINDINGS ON

through FUP, the PHA’s partner PCWA was

also surveyed. The surveys requested that PHAs

FUP USE AND

or PCWAs contracting out any administrative or

service provision responsibilities seek input from

PROCESSES

their partner organizations when completing

the surveys. The surveys, which were fielded

Although FUP is a potential source of housing

in the fall of 2012, addressed the allocation of

and supportive services for youth aging out of

FUP vouchers, the nature of the PHA-PCWA

foster care, little is known about how it is being

collaboration, the provision of supportive services

used to address the needs of this population. To

(if relevant), and factors that may help or hinder

learn more about how communities are using

program implementation. This section highlights

FUP to serve youth, all PHAs identified by

key findings from the surveys.

Fewer Than One-Half

of PHAs Operating FUP

Currently Serve Youth

PHAs that never

PHAs currently

served youth

serving youth

(n=98)

(n=91)

50%

47%

PHAs that

served youth in

the past (n=6)

3%

Figure II.1

COMMUNITIES USE FUP

serving youth had 112 FUP vouchers at the time

PRIMARILY TO SERVE FAMILIES

of the survey, 29 percent of which were being used

by youth who had “leased up,” or were leasing a

Less than one-half of the PHAs operating

unit with FUP assistance. Most of the remaining

FUP are providing vouchers to youth. Of

vouchers were being used by families (a few were

the responding PHAs with FUP vouchers, 47

unused). Applying these averages across all PHAs

IN THE FALL OF

percent had served at least one youth within the

operating FUP, youth make up about 14 percent

2012…

past 18 months (figure II.1). One-half reported

of program participants. Of the 20,391 FUP

never serving youth, and another 3 percent had

vouchers in circulation, 2,912—an average of

91 PHAs were serving

most recently served youth more than 18 months 32 vouchers each across 91 PHAs—were leased youth through FUP.

before the survey.

up by youth. In part, this figure reflects the fact

Youth made up about

that only one-third of PHAs serving youth set

14 percent of FUP

PHAs that do serve youth still allocate most of

aside vouchers for youth, and, on average, those

program participants.

their FUP vouchers to families. Agencies have

set-asides make up less than one-third of their

a finite number of vouchers. On average, PHAs

vouchers (31 percent).

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 5

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

REASONS FOR LACK OF YOUTH

for FUP.8 About 20 states have extended foster

REFERRALS

care to age 21. The survey results suggest that

the number of referrals reported by PHAs and

Some PCWAs do not refer any FUP-eligible

PCWAs in these states is similar to the number

youth; others refer only a few. Of the PHAs that of referrals in states that have not extended do not serve youth, more than 70 percent cite the eligibility.

7

lack of PCWA referrals as a reason (figure II.2).

About 46 percent of PCWAs that

PCWAs appear to be very selective in

partner with youth-serving PHAs

PHAs that do serve youth receive an average

determining the number of youth they refer for

reported they do not refer all eligible

of about 20 youth referrals per year from their

youth; another 9 percent did not know

FUP. To the extent that PCWAs selectively refer

whether they referred all eligible youth

partner PCWAs. Survey data suggest that other

candidates to the PHA, they serve as gatekeepers

or they did not respond to the survey

youth may be eligible but are not referred. Among

question.

to FUP vouchers. Survey responses from PHAs

8

PCWAs working with youth-serving PHAs,

The Fostering Connection to Success

and PCWAs suggest several reasons why PCWAs

and Increasing Adoptions Act of

about one-half reported that they do not refer all

are not referring more potentially eligible youth.

2008 (P.L. 110-351) provides federal

eligible youth they identify.7 Because the surveys

reimbursements to states for the costs

of providing foster care until eligible

covered only those PCWAs whose partner PHAs

• Lack of service funding for independent

youth turn 21.

serve youth, no information on this question

living skills may be a deterrent. PCWAs

9 Authorized by Title I of the Foster

Care Independence Act of 1999

is available from the subset of PCWAs whose

are required to provide supportive services

(P.L. 106-169) and administered by

partner PHAs did not report serving youth.

to youth while they are leased up, but

the Children’s Bureau at the U.S.

HUD does not fund these services. PCWAs

Department of Health and Human

Lack of referrals does not appear to reflect lack

Services, Chafee is the primary source

are expected to finance the services using

of federal funds for services for

of demand for services. Of the PHAs that do

their own resources or resources available

independent living. Youth who age

not serve youth through FUP, only 9 percent say

out of foster care or exit foster care

elsewhere. Of the respondent PCWAs, 60

when they are at least 16 years old are

it is because too few youth age out of foster care,

percent reported using funds from the John

eligible for Chafee-funded services until

and only 10 percent say it is because the housing

they turn 21. In addition to providing

H. Chafee Foster Care Independence

services that promote education,

needs of youth aging out of care are being met

Program (hereafter, Chafee),9 64 percent

employment, positive connections

in other ways (figure II.2). It is also likely not

with adults, and basic life skills, states

reported using state funds, and 41 percent

can also spend up to 30 percent of

the case that policies extending eligibility for

reported using funds from other sources

Chafee funds on housing-related costs

foster care to age 21 have eliminated youths’ need

(Dworsky et al., 2012).

to support required services. The fact that

Primary Reason PHAs Do Not Serve

Youth Through FUP Is Lack of Referrals

Percentage of PHAs (n=104) reporting reasons for not serving youth PCWA has not referred any youth

70%

PHA prefers to serve families

18%

PCWA lacks resources to provide supportive services

13%

Needs of youth being met in other ways

10%

Too few youth

9%

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 percent because PHA respondents could choose more than one answer.

Figure II.2

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 6

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

PCWAs are not required to provide services

could result in more children being placed

to FUP families may create a disincentive

in foster care or lead to children not being

to referring youth (who must be offered

able to leave foster care as soon as they

services). Fewer than 6 percent of PCWAs

otherwise would. In this respect, prioritizing

reported the cost of providing services was a

families may also be a cost-saving measure

major challenge, however. Another 34 percent

for PCWAs. Furthermore, providing

indicated these costs were somewhat of a

FUP vouchers to families is responsive to the

challenge, but 47 percent of PCWAs

pressure to preserve and reunify families, a

reported that the costs were not a challenge

key objective of the U.S. Department

at all.

of Health and Human Services (HHS).

• PCWAs may not have sufficient training

These hypotheses are consistent with the

on FUP. PCWAs may need more

fact that 18 percent of PHAs that do

knowledge of FUP and HCV eligibility

not serve youth reported that they prefer to

requirements. Although 84 percent of

devote FUP vouchers to families (figure

PHAs serving youth provide training

II.2). The relatively low rate of set-asides for

on FUP eligibility and other requirements

youth among youth-serving PHAs provides

to their partner PCWAs, only one-third

further evidence of prioritizing families.

do so more than once per year. Given

• The 18-month time limit on assistance

the high rate of staff turnover in child

for youth may create a burden for agencies.

welfare agencies, more frequent training

PCWAs may prefer to refer families

may be needed.

instead of youth because the time-limited

• PCWAs may have difficulty identifying

nature of vouchers for youth could create

FUP-eligible youth. Families who are

an administrative burden. Frequent turnover

referred to FUP have an open child welfare

of vouchers requires more staff resources

case. One or more of their children is in

to identify and serve additional participants.

foster care or at imminent risk of being

Extra resources may also be needed to assist

placed. By contrast, youth do not typically

youth whose landlords are reluctant to

become eligible for FUP until their cases

extend a 12-month lease for the 6

are closed and they are no longer in care.

additional months the voucher is available

Hence, identifying FUP-eligible youth

(leases are typically 1 year in duration).

may be a greater challenge than identifying

Again, the survey data provide some

FUP-eligible families.

support for this hypothesis. Of PHAs

that do not serve youth, 13 percent cite the

• PCWAs may perceive better alternatives to

18-month time limit as a reason; 30 percent

FUP. PCWAs might be concerned that

say they would be more likely to serve youth

youth with FUP vouchers do not

if the time limit were eliminated. In addition,

receive adequate supervision. They may,

46 percent of PCWAs and 41 percent of

therefore, be inclined to refer youth to other

PHAs reported that the 18-month time

types of housing programs, such as

limit was a major challenge to administering

single-site or clustered apartments. Only

FUP. Another approximately one-third of

16 percent of the PCWAs reported that

PCWAs and PHAs reported that it was

single-site or clustered apartments would be

somewhat of a challenge.

available in their community within the next

6 months, however. Other near-term options

• Agencies may believe they do not have

identified by PCWAs include scattered-site

enough FUP vouchers to serve youth and

or semi-supervised apartments (37 percent),

families. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent)

adult-roommate apartments (10 percent)

of PHAs not currently serving youth

and host homes (16 percent). These options

say they would be more likely to do so if they

provide some degree of supervision, although

had more vouchers. Many PHAs have

typically less than single-site or clustered

relatively few FUP vouchers. Data

apartments provide.

collected by HUD to monitor utilization

indicate that, in the fall of 2012, 42

• Families may be a higher priority than

percent of PHAs in the analysis sample

youth.

PCWAs may prioritize serving

administering FUP had fewer than 50

families over youth for several reasons.

vouchers; another 36 percent had 50 to 100

They may perceive families as having greater

vouchers.

needs than youth because not serving families

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 7

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

MOST YOUTH WITH A FUP

secure housing before the initial period expires

VOUCHER ARE ABLE TO LEASE UP

more than half the time, and two-thirds of the

PHAs said that more than 75 percent of youth

In communities serving youth via FUP, most

who receive a voucher lease up eventually (figure

youth who are issued a voucher successfully

II.3). That said, some PHAs reported much lower

lease up within the allotted time. Like other

rates of success. For example, 16 percent of PHAs

HCV voucher holders, youth with FUP vouchers reported that youth issued a voucher do not have at least 60 days to lease up. Two-thirds of

usually lease up or that they lease up only about

youth-serving PHAs give youth an initial 60

half the time. To put this finding in perspective,

days to find housing, and they usually extend this slightly more than one-half of all youth-serving period if needed. Even PHAs that give youth

PHAs think it takes youth with FUP vouchers

90 or 120 days (13 and 18 percent of PHAs,

about the same amount of time to lease up as it

respectively) are more likely than not to extend

takes families with traditional HCVs, and about

this period if needed. Nearly three-fourths of

one-fourth think it takes youth more time.

the PHAs serving youth reported that youth

Most—but not All—Youth With a FUP

Voucher Lease Up and Stay Leased Up

Percentage of PHAs (n=91) reporting the proportion of youth that lease up 66%

11%

6%

8%

2%

7%

More than 75%

50 to 75%

About 50%

25 to 50%

Less than 25%

Don’t know

Percentage of PHAs (n=89) reporting how often youth use full 18 months of subsidy 42%

24%

12%

11%

6%

6%

Almost always

More than half

About half of

Less than half

Almost never

Don’t know

of the time

the time

of the time

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

Figure II.3

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 8

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

Slightly more than one-half of youth who lease

In more than 90 percent of the FUP communities

up with a FUP voucher are likely to receive the

serving youth, the PHA, PCWA, or both provide

full 18 months of housing assistance. Of youth-

information and referrals to help them with

serving PHAs, 42 percent said that youth nearly

their search (figure II.4). PCWAs, however, are

always receive payments for housing assistance for more likely to provide more intensive, hands-on the full 18 months and 12 percent said that youth assistance (such as taking youth to vacant units or receive payment for the full 18 months more

on neighborhood tours, or working with landlords

than half the time. Another 22 percent, however,

to help secure housing) than their PHA partners.

reported that youth receive the full 18 months of

rental assistance only half the time or less, one-

Most agency partnerships offer premove or

half of which reported that youth nearly never

postmove assistance to help youth maintain

receive the full 18 months of assistance. Another

housing. Most youth-serving agencies (72 to 81

one-fourth of PHAs were not sure.

percent) offer premove or postmove information

10

about budgeting, credit, and landlord mediation

AGENCIES OFFER ASSISTANCE

to youth who lease up (figure II.4). Although

TO HELP YOUTH FIND AND

not required to, many PCWAs also report

10

MAINTAIN STABLE HOUSING

helping youth cover the costs of security or utility

It is unclear from the data if the

deposits (84 percent) or rent or utility arrearages

attrition rates for youth are similar

to the rates for general HCV holders

Most communities serving youth through FUP (59 percent). In addition, most PCWAs report or for FUP families. Although these

groups are not limited to 18 months

offer several types of housing-search assistance. that they will work with landlords or property of rental assistance, they nonetheless

Nearly all PHAs (96 percent) and PCWAs (87

managers to respond to problems identified

may be terminated from the program

if they are not compliant with program

percent) report offering youth who are issued a

by youth (80 percent), landlords or property

rules, or they may voluntarily relinquish

FUP voucher at least some help finding housing.

managers (70 percent), or the PHA (69 percent).

their voucher.

One or Both Partner Agencies Offer

Assistance To Help Youth Find and

Maintain Housing

Percentage of PHA-PCWA partners (n=58)

Info on subsidized housing

98%

Info on tenant rights and responsibilities

97%

Info on vacant rental units

93%

Info on public transportation services

91%

Work with landlords/property managers

91%

Refer youth to property managers/landlords

91%

assistance

Housing search

Help youth locate housing near school or work

88%

Info on different neighborhoods

88%

Transport youth to visit housing units

85%

Take youth on neighborhood tours

53%

e

Info about credit

81%

Info about budgeting

79%

Info about landlord mediation

72%

counseling

Premove/postmov

Info about low-poverty neighborhoods

60%

Transitional counseling

74%

PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

Figure II.4

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 9

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

Most agency partnerships help youth transition HCV waiting list have a preference category for out of FUP as they approach the end of their

youth whose FUP voucher expired, and one-fifth

18-month time limit. In nearly 75 percent of the have a preference category for youth who aged communities that serve youth with FUP, one or

out of foster care.

both agency partners help find housing the young

person can live in after the FUP voucher expires,

MOST PCWAs OFFER YOUTH

although the program does not require doing so.

SERVICES TO PROMOTE SKILLS

The assistance typically involves informing youth FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING

about other housing programs in the community,

but it also may include taking youth to visit

Most PCWAs or their contractors offer

vacant units or referring them to vacant units and the requisite services to promote skills for property managers or landlords. PHAs can also

independent living. Although evidence of the

give preference to youth on their HCV waiting

effectiveness of life-skills programs is limited,

list whose FUP vouchers have expired, enabling

more than 90 percent of the PCWAs report

them to receive vouchers before a general HCV

teaching at least one basic life skill to youth.

applicant. About one-fourth of the 76 PHAs that These skills most commonly include money give preference to some groups on their general

management and help accessing physical and

Most PCWAs Offer Supports for

Independent Living and Rental

Compliance

Percentage of PCWAs (n=70)

Money management

90%

Housekeeping

77%

Proper nutrition

61%

Basic Life Skills

Meal preparation

69%

Access health care

90%

Other basic life skills

93%

Job readiness training

t

84%

Help finding a job

83%

Career

Educational services

86%

Developmen

Career counseling

87%

Case planning

81%

Case

Assess needs

91%

Management

Tenant rights/responsibilities

76%

Assistance with deposits

84%

Rental

Help with rent arrearages

59%

Compliance

Help with utility arrearages

59%

Other assistance

89%

PCWA = public child welfare agency.

Figure II.5

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 10

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

mental health care (figure II.5). Fewer PCWAs,

of the time, the number of referrals reported by

but still a majority, report teaching youth about

one agency was at least 75 percent more than

proper nutrition and meal preparation. About

the number reported by the other. Partners also

85 percent of the PCWAs reported providing

disagreed about the percentage of youth referred

some form of career development, such as career

to FUP who ultimately lease up.

counseling or help finding a job. Although the

survey did not ask about the extent to which

Discrepancies between partner agencies may be

youth are involved in their own case planning,

in part because of differences in record keeping,

most PCWAs communicate with youth in person question wording, response options, or recall (74 percent) or by telephone, e-mail, or text

issues. For example, PHAs were asked about the

message (81 percent) once a month or more while number of referrals in a typical quarter; PCWAs they are leased up.

were asked about referrals made during the past

fiscal year.11 Partners may also differ in how they

Additional research is needed to assess

count referrals, such as whether ineligible referrals

the intensity and quality of the supportive

are included. Nevertheless, many PHAs and

services offered, the percentage of youth who

PCWAs do not appear to be taking full advantage

receive them, and how helpful the services

of cross-agency meetings and training that could

are. Although the survey findings give some

facilitate communication and collaboration.

insight into how FUP works for youth, they

do not indicate whether PCWAs that provide

• More communication occurs informally

youth with a particular supportive service do so

than through regularly scheduled cross-

for all FUP youth. Moreover, 7 to 19 percent

agency meetings. One-half of the PHAs

of the 70 PCWA respondents did not know

currently serving youth hold regular

whether youth in their community were even

meetings with their PCWAs, one-fifth of

offered a particular type of supportive service.

which meet with their partners less than

This knowledge gap might be because PCWAs

once per quarter (figure II.6). Most of the

may rely on one or more community partners to

partners that do not have regularly scheduled

provide the supports. Although PCWAs were

meetings do communicate informally

asked to collaborate with their partners during

through e-mails, through phone calls, or

survey completion, some may not have done so.

in person. More than one-half of the PHAs

This research also cannot determine the extent

reported having informal communication

to which supportive services contribute to young

with PCWA staff at least quarterly, and more

people’s success, which forms of assistance matter

than one-third reported having informal

most, and what other supports youth need to live

communication as needed or when youth

independently.

are referred. Although this type of

communication may be useful, it might

SOME PHA-PCWA PARTNERSHIPS

not be a good substitute for regular

MAY NEED STRENGTHENING

in-person meetings when it comes to

coordination.

Some PHAs and PCWAs might not be

• Although most PHAs do train their

collaborating effectively. Among PHAs that are

partner PCWAs, PCWAs are less likely

not serving youth, nearly one-third (31 percent)

to train the PHAs. The percentage of

said they would be more likely to do so if they

youth-serving PHAs that provide training

had assistance establishing or strengthening

to PCWA staff ranges from 80 percent

collaboration with the PCWA. In addition,

(for training on the HCV housing search

PCWAs and PHAs often did not agree about

and lease-up process) to 92 percent (for

key facets of the program. For example, of the

training on HCV eligibility). By contrast, the

steps involved in administering FUP, the referral

percentage of PCWAs that provide training

process arguably benefits most from collaboration

to PHA staff ranges from slightly more than

between the two agencies, and that should be an

one-third (for training on the characteristics

area in which they agree about the process and

and housing needs of youth aging out of

statistics. A wide discrepancy exists, however,

foster care) to two-thirds (for training on the

between the number of referrals PHAs report

referral process). For both agencies, training

11 The PHA responses were multiplied

receiving and the number that PCWAs report

sessions are generally infrequent. About

by 4 to make them more comparable

with PCWA responses.

making in a single year. More than one-third

one-half of the PHAs and three-fourths

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 11

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

of the PCWAs that provide training do so

12 Only PHAs were asked about training

less than once a year.12 This frequency may

that PHAs and PCWAs provided. It

is possible that PCWAs would have

be insufficient, given the frequent staff

reported providing more training to

turnover in child welfare agencies and

the PHAs and receiving less training

from the PHAs if they had been asked.

PHAs.

One-Half of PHAs Serving

Youth Hold Regularly Scheduled

Meetings With Their PCWAs

50%

3%

Frequency of

7%

Regular Meetings

Annually

24%

50%

Twice a year

Quarterly

Monthly

14%

Regular meetings

No regular meetings

PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

Note: Numbers do not sum to total because of rounding.

Figure II.6

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 12

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH THROUGH FUP

III. SITE-VISIT

AGENCIES MUST BALANCE

REFERRALS FOR YOUTH AND

FINDINGS ON

FAMILIES

STRATEGIES FOR

The site visits suggested two interrelated factors

SERVING YOUTH

that may explain why the proportion of youth

served with FUP is smaller than the proportion

THROUGH FUP

allocated to families: (1) local decisions regarding

set-asides and the referral process, and (2) the

time-limited nature of FUP vouchers for youth.

To obtain a deeper and more nuanced perspective

Decisions regarding set-asides and choices

of how communities use FUP to serve youth

underlying the referral process and allocations

aging out of foster care, site visits were made to

differed across communities.

four communities (table III.1). Each selected

community was providing FUP vouchers and

Two communities set aside a proportion of

associated services to former foster youth at

their FUP vouchers specifically for youth. One

the time of the visit.13 In each community,

community set aside 30 percent of its FUP

conversations with administrators and staff at the

vouchers for youth; the other dedicated 15

PHAs and PCWAs, along with other community

percent of its FUP vouchers to youth. Set-asides

13

agencies involved in FUP, focused on issues that

mean that as the 18-month terms for youth expire

Altogether, 178 youth were housed

with FUP vouchers at the time of

could not be fully explored through the surveys.14

and vouchers are returned to the PHA, they are

the visits (ranging from 7 to 117 per

Although these communities are not necessarily

reallocated to other youth rather than families,

community); additional youth had

been issued vouchers and were

representative of all that serve youth with FUP, the effectively maintaining the agreed-on balance searching for units.

information gathered identified several themes and between youth and families. These upfront and 14 In all, the site visits included

lessons that may be useful for other communities

explicit agreements between the PHAs and

conversations with 70 individuals.

PHAs if they had they been asked.

interested in serving youth through FUP.

PCWAs to reserve a specific proportion of FUP

vouchers for youth eliminated the need to make

PHAs and PCWAs

Community

Jurisdiction

Location Visited

PHA

PCWA

Included in Site

Visits

Massachusetts

Department of

Massachusetts Department

Massachusettsa

Boston

Housing and

of Children and Families

Community

Development

Denver

Colorado

Colorado Division of Child

Coloradob

Department of

Welfare

Local Affairsc

Broward

Broward County

Fort Lauderdale

ChildNet

County, Florida

Housing Authority

Housing Authority

Salt Lake

Utah Division of Child and

Salt Lake City

of the County of

County, Utah

Family Services

Salt Lake

PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

a The Massachusetts site visit focused on the Lowell and Lawrence region.

b At the time of the visit, Colorado was serving youth mainly in the Denver metropolitan region.

c Colorado’s PHA contracts with Mile High United Way to allocate Family Unification Program vouchers to youth.

Table III.1

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 13

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH THROUGH FUP

judgments on a case-by-case basis regarding

home placement; providing a FUP voucher to a

whether to refer an eligible family as opposed to

youth does not have that effect. Finally, whereas

an eligible youth.

providing a FUP voucher to a family can help

PROMISING

The third community allowed the balance to

reduce the number of children in out-of-home

PRACTICES

establish itself by referring all eligible youth and

care, the caseload of out-of-home care does not

FOR HOUSING

families for FUP and serving them on a first-

decline when youth are the recipients (at least in

YOUTH

come, first-served basis. At the time of the visit,

states that have not extended federal foster care

THROUGH FUP

about 30 vouchers were issued to youth and 70

to age 21).

vouchers were issued to families. Although this

COMMUNITIES MAY TARGET

Setting aside a

approach achieves a fair balance of families and

YOUTH WITH SPECIFIC

proportion of

youth in the first year of operations, without a

CHARACTERISTICS FOR FUP

vouchers ensures

set-aside, many, if not all, vouchers may end up

their availability for

with families over time. That is, after the first 18

other youth when

months, the 30 youth vouchers will expire and

With the need for FUP vouchers available for

the 18-month terms

become available for other families and youth

youth outstripping supply, some communities

expire.

who are referred to the waiting list. Assuming

targeted vouchers to a subset of eligible youth,

the waiting list holds a similar proportion of

which raises the question, “Which former foster

families and youth (a ratio of 70 to 30), fewer

youth should be given preference for the time-

than 10 vouchers would be issued to youth after

limited FUP voucher?” Responses to this question

18 months, and only a few would be available

varied within and across the four communities,

for youth after 36 months. Although some

but generally reflected four rationales.

families exit FUP over time, thereby opening

• Youth who appear to be focused on

those vouchers to youth or other families, this

education and employment. According to

example illustrates the importance of a set-aside

some staff, youth who are motivated

for youth.15

and ready to improve their prospects for

In the fourth community, the PCWA made

independence are the ones most likely

case-by-case decisions about whether to refer a

to attain self-sufficiency in 18 months.

FUP-eligible youth or family, and the proportion

Although such youth may be at somewhat

of vouchers that went to youth dwindled over

lower risk of homelessness, lack of

time. An initial allotment of vouchers was

supportive and subsidized housing can

allocated fairly evenly between youth and families,

be a barrier to completing a degree or

but as the youths’ 18-month voucher terms

training program (for example, such

expired, eligible youth competed against families

individuals might have to drop out of school

for referrals. Decisionmakers at the PCWA chose

to pay for housing), jeopardizing their long-

to refer more families than youth, and few youth

term outcomes. In three communities, at

were receiving FUP vouchers by the time of the

least some PCWA staff target youth who

visit. As this community’s experience illustrates,

are “on track”; all the staff at one of the

set-asides are needed to ensure that vouchers

communities do so.

remain available for youth over time.

• Pregnant youth and those with their own

The tradeoffs the fourth community faced may

children. Targeting pregnant and parenting

shed light on why communities tend to serve

youth makes the most sense to some because

relatively few youth. First, staff noted that more

the voucher would be used by more than

families than youth are typically identified at a

one person (at least for 18 months), and such

given time. One staff member mentioned that for

youth may have the greatest need for

a single FUP voucher, the PCWA might receive

housing and support. (Note, however, that

30 to 35 referrals, of which fewer than 10 are

some of these youth may be eligible for FUP

youth. Second, serving a single family can help

for families if they meet the definition of a

15 At the time of the visit, youth had not

multiple children, whereas awarding a voucher to

FUP-eligible family, which provides

yet reached the 18-month time limit,

a youth generally helps only one individual (unless

potentially longer term support.) Staff from

so the community had not yet

experienced a decline in the number

that youth is a custodial parent or has another

only one of the PCWAs visited expressed a

of vouchers available for youth. Staff

household member, such as a spouse). Third,

preference for targeting pregnant and

were beginning to consider options

for serving new youth when that

providing a FUP voucher to a family allows for

parenting youth.

decline does occur, however.

the PCWA to avoid the high costs of out-of-

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 14

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH THROUGH FUP

• Youth who appear likely to engage in

more control over the referral process so only

supportive services. Staff at some programs the youth they felt would be most appropriate thought that youth are more likely to be

for FUP would be referred. The agency that

helped by FUP when they take advantage

filled the PHA role in this community permits

of the supportive services that programs are

youth to self-refer, in part to ensure that all the

required to offer. Several of the communities available vouchers will be leased up. Youth in that visited indicated that it was important to

community can arrive at the PCWA and request

take into account the likelihood of

an application; the PHA then asks the PCWA

participation in services when considering

to determine the youth’s eligibility for FUP. In

which youth should receive a FUP voucher.

the second community, the PCWA preselected

• All eligible youth. One of the communities certain youth over others before making referrals, visited believed that all youth should have

without input from the PHA.

equal access to FUP on a first-come, first-

OPEN COMMUNICATION AND

served basis, because no research indicates

AGENCY FLEXIBILITY ENHANCE

which type of youth is likely to benefit

PROCESS

most from the assistance. Without objective

information about the characteristics of

PROMISING

youth who are mostly likely to avoid

Effective operation of FUP for youth involves

PRACTICES FOR

homelessness through FUP, staff did not

cross-agency trust, openness, and flexibility.

FUP STARTUP

feel confident ranking youth or selecting

PHAs and PCWAs—which typically do not

some for priority over others.

have a history of collaborating—must build a

foundation to work together. As one caseworker

Decisions on how to

JOINT DECISIONMAKING ON

noted, the seemingly simple task of submitting

balance the needs of

TARGETING AND ALLOCATION

a referral to another agency can feel like putting

youth and families—

and which youth to

IS VITAL

the welfare of one’s client in someone else’s

hands. Staff must have faith that others are as

target—should reflect

the goals of all agency

Collaborative decisionmaking regarding how to committed to the client as they are. Creating partners and be

distribute vouchers between youth and families

and maintaining a trusting relationship is also

included in the MOU.

and whether to target certain youth minimizes

necessary for ensuring workers feel comfortable

Doing so can minimize

cross-agency tension. The communities in

voicing concerns to staff in other agencies.

tension relating

which leaders made an upfront decision about

For example, a PHA staff member may have

to these difficult

decisions.

how to distribute the vouchers between youth

to inform the PCWA when he or she learns a

and families—via set-asides or first come, first

youth is not being offered the agreed-on services.

served—seemed to experience much less tension

Flexibility in institutional processes and patience

related to this tradeoff. In the community that

is also important. One PHA, for instance, adapted

did not do so, tension arose, as the number

its procedures to notify staff in the PCWA when

of available vouchers diminished, among the

a youth failed to turn in all required paperwork

involved PCWA, PHA, and youth-serving

in time or did not show up for an appointment.

organizations regarding the resulting distribution PHA staff may also need to have more patience between youth and families. This finding

with youth than with other HCV holders and

PROMISING

suggests that establishing a policy reflecting

more willingness to advocate with landlords on a

PRACTICES FOR

all stakeholders’ goals is an important step

youth’s behalf (for example, if rent is not paid on

ONGOING

when first applying for FUP vouchers and also

time).

COLLABORATION

when implementing FUP. Including agreed-on

PCWA leaders in one community emphasized

decisions in the memorandum of understanding

that occasional or even standing meetings are not

Build a foundation of

can help establish clear expectations.

sufficient for generating an open and trusting

trust, openness, and

The experiences of the four communities visited

dialogue. Operating a collaborative program

flexibility.

suggest that mutual agency agreement on the

requires breaking down silos and building

Clear communication

type of youth targeted for FUP is another

relationships. They recommended that when

channels facilitate

important decision point for partners. Tension

parties first come together, they focus on finding

information sharing,

arose in two communities regarding whether the

common ground and determining what each

which is especially vital

PCWAs should be able to refer only a subset of

agency can gain through the collaboration, rather

among many partners.

eligible youth. In one of the communities, the

than on what each stands to lose (in other words,

PCWA caseworkers expressed a desire to have

turning the “zero-sum game” into a “win-win”).

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 15

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH THROUGH FUP

The more agencies and stakeholders are

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS AND

involved, the greater the need for clear

POLICIES MAY ENCOURAGE

communication channels to facilitate a regular

PARTICIPATION IN SUPPORTIVE

and open exchange of information. At a

minimum, FUP requires a partnership between

SERVICES

a PHA and a PCWA, but, in practice, many

partners and staff at each partner agency might

A concern voiced by some of the communities

play a regular role in referring youth to FUP,

visited was what might be described as an

providing services, and managing relationships

unfunded mandate for supportive services.

with landlords. Thus, FUP may require extensive

PCWAs are required to provide supportive

communication and a great deal of relationship

services to youth who are leased up with a

building. In the regions visited, the number of

FUP voucher. They receive no additional funds

agencies involved in FUP on a regular basis

to provide those services, however. Although

ranged from 3 to more than 20.16

PCWAs can pay for these services with their

Chafee funds, that funding is already stretched

Partners must keep each other informed

thin. Moreover, in some states, such as Colorado,

throughout the process—from referral, to

youth who leave care before their 18th birthday

voucher issuance, to lease up, to exit. For

may be eligible for FUP but not for Chafee-

instance, the PCWA should be notified of the

funded services. Communities use differing

status and ultimate outcome of their referrals

strategies to identify additional resources for

so the agency can ensure supportive services are

providing supportive services.

begun. If a youth is found to be HCV-eligible, the

PCWA should be informed when the voucher

Strategic partnerships can bring in additional

briefing will be held and whether the youth

resources for referrals and services. The type,

showed up for the briefing. The PHA should be

amount, and intensity of supportive service

informed of any assistance the PCWA provides

available to youth are typically driven by the

youth in searching for housing. After a youth

agency providing support or funding. In three

is leased up, the PHA should keep the PCWA

of the communities, a mix of community-

apprised of any problems that put the youth at

based organizations (CBOs), foundations,

risk of being evicted. Finally, as the 18-month

and other public agencies provided supportive

limit approaches, it might be useful for the PHA

services to youth or provided funding for those

to know whether the PCWA or its contracted

services. Rallying local and state advocates and

service providers are working with the youth on a policymakers in support of youth aging out of transition plan.

foster care helped create these relationships in

some communities visited.

Filtering communication through a single point

of contact at the PHA or PCWA may streamline

• CBO partners were responsible for

communication but should not hinder it. Each

providing case management to the youth

of the four communities appointed single points

they refer for FUP in two communities.

of contact at the PHA and PCWA. This structure

CBOs paid for this service through their

may be especially beneficial in communities

own resources. The CBOs typically

where multiple agencies are involved or turnover

provided the same or similar services to

is high. For instance, it means that PHAs and

non-FUP youth who are similarly at risk

landlords need not keep track of which case

for homelessness or other undesirable

16 In the visited community with the most

manager or life coach to call on behalf of each

outcomes.

partners, the state-level PHA contracts

youth. These benefits, however, must be balanced

• Foundations (one private, one public-

with a nonprofit agency to administer

FUP for youth. Because the child

against the need for open dialogue among all

private) sponsored life coaches to fill

welfare system is supervised by the

partners. Ensuring that all staff working on FUP

gaps in services provided by case

state and administered by the

county, many county-level PCWAs

have the opportunity to voice concerns, learn

managers in two communities. These

provide referrals and services. In

about another agency’s processes, and directly ask

services included helping youth find an

addition, referrals and services also

come from community-based

questions is likely to enhance collaboration and

apartment, developing a transition plan,

organizations.

ensure smoother operations.

or providing ongoing support for

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 16

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH THROUGH FUP

independent living. One of these

contingent on participation in those services,

communities had 3 life coaches for 117

however. That said, the communities visited

youth; in the other, life coaches carried low

seemed to believe that youth who participate in

caseloads, served as mentors to youth,

services are more likely to be successful, and those

and may have had more frequent contact

communities take a variety of steps to strongly

with youth than their PCWA case manager.

encourage participation. For example, youth in

• A state-level workforce agency coordinated one community are asked to meet weekly with an education and training supports in one

outreach worker; in another, they are asked to sign

community.

Through a youth-focused

a statement agreeing to work with a life coach.

workforce program, FUP-eligible youth

Pairing youth with a life coach or mentor may

(and non-FUP youth) accessed education

provide much-needed support. Three of the four

and training classes, stipends, or scholarships communities visited matched youth with a life funded by the Workforce Investment Act of

coach or mentor, and staff in the one that did not

1998 , 17 Chafee, and the state.

noted this kind of support would be helpful. In

Advocacy efforts in two communities led to

one community with multiple housing programs

the formation of interagency teams focused

for youth, the contractor providing supportive

on transitioning youth. Such teams can build

services expected all participants to meet regularly

PROMISING

awareness of the risk of homelessness among

with a life coach; they believe youth with a

PRACTICES

youth aging out of foster care and improve

life coach are more likely to maintain housing.

FOR SERVICE

coordination of existing resources. In one

Having someone to call for help with basic life

PROVISION

community, for example, state and local advocacy

skills (such as raising issues with landlords or

for youth transitioning out of foster care resulted

writing a check) or more serious issues (such as

Coordinating and, in

in the formation of a Transition to Adult Living

an unexpected pregnancy) is extremely helpful

some cases, formally

Network. Representatives from several public

for some youth, especially those with little or no

partnering with other

and private agencies gather monthly to discuss

other support network.

organizations can

specific youth and the broader issues affecting

AGENCIES SUGGEST

enhance available

resources.

this population. In another community, public

RECONSIDERING THE TIME LIMIT

and private agencies formed a Transitional

ON FUP VOUCHERS FOR YOUTH

Partnering with

Independent Living System of Care. Among

CBOs or other public

other benefits, the network helps ensure resources

agencies to provide

are available to all youth aging out of foster care,

Most staff in all four communities thought FUP

services may increase

that the resources spread over many agencies are

for youth should have a time limit but suggested

participation of youth.

well coordinated and not duplicated, and that

the voucher term be longer. The mission of most

youth outcomes are measured.

PCWAs and CBOs that work with youth is to

Agencies can set

help them achieve independence. They view the

policies to encourage

Partnering with service providers may help

time limit as a strength, without which youth

youth participation.

engage youth in services. In some communities,

may grow dependent on the system. Some staff

PCWA staff responsible for providing supportive members who work with youth in other housing Having a dedicated life

services found it difficult to engage youth, many

programs that do not have limits experienced

coach or mentor is an

of whom appear to be eager to cut ties with the

this dependence first hand. The time limit also

important support for

child welfare system. In addition, PCWA staff

prevents complacency among staff, forcing service

youth.

often have large caseloads that allow for only

providers to actively help youth transition out of

infrequent meetings. The same youth, however,

FUP nearly from the time they lease up. A few

welcome or even seek out support from CBOs

staff, however, especially those in PHAs, said

or other providers. Thus, partnering with such

the time limit should be eliminated, believing it

organizations was helpful for some communities.

unfair to treat families and youth differently.

One PCWA did, however, use Chafee funds to

hire outreach workers whose caseloads are low

• Most staff felt a longer time limit would

enough that they could meet with youth weekly

better serve youth; they generally thought

and provide individualized life skills.

assistance should last 2 to 5 years. Some

staff advocated for a flexible time limit so

Takeup appears to be greater when engagement

youth could exit FUP as they become more

in services is strongly encouraged. FUP requires

independent and self-sufficient. As one staff

that the PCWA offer youth supportive services.

member noted, youth are at different stages

17 Public Law 105-220.

Youths’ eligibility for FUP cannot be made

with respect to maturity and independence,

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 17

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH THROUGH FUP

and FUP should be able to accommodate

• Longer time limits would better align with

those who need more time to learn how

educational opportunities. Some staff

to live on their own. Others recognized

pointed out that it takes longer than 18

that youth exiting foster care face

months to earn an associate’s degree and

tremendous hurdles and questioned

suggested that the housing assistance

whether it is realistic to expect foster youth

payments continue long enough for

transitioning to adulthood to achieve

individuals to complete school. Enabling

complete self-sufficiency within 18 months.

them to finish their education in the short

Staff in one agency noted that 18 months is

term could increase the chances for

especially challenging for those who have

long-term self-sufficiency. Without that

been homeless, inasmuch as it can take a full

assistance, they could drop out to work full

year for chronically homeless youth to stop

time to pay their rent. One community is

seeing themselves as homeless.

using Moving to Work funds to extend

• At a minimum, staff favored a 24-month

housing subsidies to FUP youth for 3

rather than 18-month time limit because

additional years. Youth are eligible if

lease terms are typically 12 months. The

they received the full 18 months of HAP,

18-month time limit creates complications

are in school, and are working at least part

when it comes to signing a new lease after

time.18 The subsidy is $600 to $800 a

the first year. If youth with a FUP voucher

month for the first year then declines 15

sign a second 1-year lease, they become

percent each year thereafter.

solely responsible for the final 6 months

• It can take a full year for some youth to

of rent. This provision can be a deterrent for

fully comprehend that the housing

18 Moving to Work (MTW) is a HUD

some landlords or property managers and

voucher does not last forever, leaving only

demonstration program that grants

participating PHAs exemptions from

can limit the housing options available

6 months to concentrate on taking

many existing public housing and

during youths’ last 6 months of housing

steps to achieve self-sufficiency.

voucher rules to give them more

flexibility about how they use their

assistance. Youth and their advocates

federal funds to reduce costs, help

sometimes negotiate with landlords or

residents find employment, and

increase housing choices. MTW

property managers to permit an

PHAs are expected to design and test

18-month lease (or a 6-month lease after

innovative strategies and inform HUD

about ways to better address local

the 12-month lease term), but many

community needs (HUD, n.d.b.).

landlords will not do so.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 18

IV. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

IV. DISCUSSION

staff suggested that a flexible term might work

better, so youth can exit FUP as they become more

AND FUTURE

self-sufficient.

DIRECTIONS

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The FUP surveys and site visits represent first

Youth aging out of foster care face many barriers

steps in understanding how FUP is used for

to obtaining stable housing, and a real need

eligible youth, and they point to several areas that

exists for housing assistance programs to prevent

warrant further research.

their homelessness. Research on homelessness

prevention programs for youth aging out of foster

• The findings suggest that FUP can be a

care is very limited. This report focuses on one

useful resource, but for various reasons it is

federal resource, FUP, which can be used to address

not widely used for youth. More research is

this concern. Four key findings shed light on how

needed to fully understand why more than

this program is viewed and how it is currently

one-half of the communities that are issued

being used to address the housing needs of youth.

FUP vouchers do not use any for youth

despite the apparently high need.

First, although not all communities implementing

FUP serve youth, the communities visited

• The visits to communities using FUP

consider the program to be a valuable resource in

revealed that some communities target

an environment in which housing for youth who

certain types of youth. Research identifying

age out of care is scarce. In one community, staff

whether FUP is more effective in preventing

referred to FUP as the gold standard, because it

homelessness among certain types of youth

offers youth maximum flexibility in where they

could help communities make these difficult

live and enables them to gain experience living

decisions.

independently.

• At present, no research addresses the quality,

Second, communities are challenged to carve

intensity, or even takeup of supportive

out space to serve youth in a small program with

services in FUP. It remains to be seen

high demand, which was originally intended to

whether merely offering supportive services

reunify and preserve families whose children are

to youth (without requiring them) improves

at risk of placement because they lack housing.

youth self-sufficiency and whether certain

Communities must find ways to balance the

types of services are more useful than others

housing needs of young people and families at

in contributing to positive outcomes.

imminent risk of homelessness. Some communities

• Finally, FUP has not been evaluated to

are more successful at achieving this balance than

determine whether it is effective in

others. Set-asides for youth are important to ensure

preventing or ending youth homelessness

the continuing availability of housing vouchers for

after assistance expires or whether its main

eligible youth.

benefit is to provide short-term housing.

Third, interagency collaboration among PHAs,

Although additional research into the use of

PCWAs, and their partners is essential for

FUP for youth is warranted, FUP is a small,

providing housing vouchers and supportive services resource-constrained program, and it should not to youth, but such cooperation may be challenging be considered the only solution or even perhaps because the agencies are not accustomed to sharing a main solution to the problem of housing for decisionmaking. Communities may need more

youth aging out of foster care. Additional policy

guidance for working together effectively.

innovations should be considered and explored to

Fourth, both the survey findings and site visits

prevent and address homelessness among these

suggest that the 18-month time limit on FUP for

vulnerable youth.

youth often presents problems. A 24- or 36-month

time limit would alleviate mismatches between

the program’s time limit and annual lease terms

and would also give youth time to complete their

education. Most survey respondents thought the

time limit should not be eliminated, but agency

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 19

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 20

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX A.

and Urban Development as operating FUP. The

PCWA sampling frame included the PCWA

METHODOLOGY

contacts for the 83 PHAs that reported serving

youth in the survey. The surveys were fielded in

the fall of 2012 and yielded information about

SURVEY OF FUP PROVIDERS

211 PHAs and 73 PCWAs. Response outcomes

for the survey samples are presented in table A.1.

The purpose of the survey of Family Unification

Program (FUP) providers was to determine

Analyses of PHA responses focused on the 195

which communities serve youth via FUP

PHAs that currently serve youth (91), served

and how they serve youth. To obtain several

youth in the past (6), or never served youth (98).

perspectives, two online survey instruments—one Analyses of PCWA responses were based on the for public housing agencies (PHAs) and one for

70 PCWAs named as partners by the 91 youth-

public child welfare agencies (PCWAs)—were

serving PHAs.

developed. These surveys were designed to be

To examine responses at the community level,

self-administered via the Internet and take about

youth-serving PHAs were matched with their

30 minutes to complete. The PHA sampling

PCWA partners, based on the name each

frame included administrators of the 249 PHAs

provided for the PHA. Of the 70 PCWA records,

identified by the U.S. Department of Housing

58 could be definitively matched to a PHA

Response

Number of PHAs

Number of PCWAs

Outcomes for

Total PHA respondents

211

Survey Sample

Currently serves youth with FUP

91

Served youth with FUP in the past

6

Never served youth with FUP

98

Does not currently serve youth with

FUP but did not indicate whether

16

served youth in the past

Total PCWA respondents

73

PHA partner currently serves youth

70

with FUP

PHA partner does not currently

3

serve youth with FUP

Total ineligiblea

14

1

Not operating FUP

14

Not a PCWA

1

Total nonrespondents

24

9

Did not complete most of the

6

2

survey

Refused to participate

1

0

Unable to contact

17

7

TOTAL SAMPLE

249

83

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

a Responses to the screener questions at the beginning of the PHA survey suggested that 14 of the 249

PHAs were ineligible for the survey because they did not operate FUP. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, subsequently determined that at least 7 of these PHAs were, in fact, operating FUP.

Table A.1

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 21

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY

partner in the analysis sample and are the basis of

the PHA-PCWA analyses included in this report,

11 PCWAs could not be definitively matched to

a PHA based on the PHA name each provided,

and 1 PCWA was matched to a PHA that was

excluded from the analysis because the PHA did

not sufficiently complete the survey.

SITE VISITS TO FUP COMMUNITIES

The goal of the site visits was to obtain a more

fine-grained understanding of how selected

communities are using FUP to serve youth

and to identify lessons that could be useful to

other communities. Four communities were

selected from among those that reported in the

survey that they had served youth in the past 18

months. To narrow the pool of potential sites,

communities were excluded in which less than

75 percent of referred youth ultimately leased

up and in which PHAs had been serving youth

for less than 3 years. The resultant 17 sites were

ranked based on the number of youth referrals

the PHA reported receiving from the PCWA in

an average quarter and the top 4 were selected.

The number of youth referred to the PHA by

the PCWA each quarter ranged from 10 to 30

among the four communities visited. Three of the

communities had less than 5 years of experience

serving youth; the other had more than 10 years

of experience. The PHAs were county based

in two sites (Broward County, Florida, and

Salt Lake County, Utah) and state based in the

other two (Massachusetts and Colorado). The

visit to Colorado focused on Denver because

FUP vouchers were provided to youth primarily

in the Denver metropolitan area. The visit

to Massachusetts focused on the Lowell and

Lawrence region, which serves relatively more

youth than the state’s other regions.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 22

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS). 2012. The AFCARS Report:

Preliminary FY 2011 Estimates as of July 2012.

Brown, Stephanie, and Dina Wilderson. 2010.

Washington, DC: Administration for

“Homelessness Prevention for Former

Children and Families, Administration

Foster Youth: Utilization of Transitional

on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s

Housing Programs,” Child Youth Services

Bureau. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

Review 32 (10): 1464–1472.

sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport19.pdf

(accessed June 11, 2013).

Dworsky, Amy, and Mark Courtney. 2010.

Assessing the Impact of Extending Care Beyond

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban

Age 18 on Homelessness: Emerging

Development. 2010. “Fiscal Year (FY) 2010

Findings From the Midwest Study. Chicago,

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA),

IL: Chapin Hall at the University of

Family Unification Program (FUP).”

Chicago. Available at http://www.chapinhall.

Available at http://archives.hud.gov/funding/

org/sites/default/files/publications/Midwest_ 2010/fupsec.pdf (accessed June 11, 2013).

IB2_Homelessness.pdf (accessed June 30,

2012).

———. N.d.a. “Sample Memorandum of

Understanding-Family Unification

Dworsky, Amy, Keri-Nicole Dillman, M.

Program.” Available at http://portal.hud.gov/

Robin Dion, Brandon Coffee-Borden, and

huddoc/sample_moufy10.doc (accessed

Miriam Rosenau. 2012. Housing for Youth

June 11, 2013).

Aging Out of Foster Care: A Review of the

Literature and Program Typology. Washington,

DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

———. N.d.b. “Moving to Work (MTW).”

Available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/

HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_

Fowler, Patrick, Paul Toro, and Bart Miles.

housing/programs/ph/mtw (accessed June 25,

2009. “Pathways to and From Homelessness

2013).

and Associated Psychosocial Outcomes

Among Adolescents Leaving the Foster

Care System,” American Journal of Public

White, Catherine, Amanda Gallegos, Kirk

Health 99 (8): 1453–1458.

O’Brien, S. Weisberg, Peter Pecora,

and R. Medina. 2011. “The Relationship

Between Homelessness and Mental Health

Harris, Kathleen. 2009. “The National

Among Alumni of Foster Care: Results From

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

the Casey Young Adult Survey,” Journal of

Wave III, 2001–2002.” Machine-readable

Public Child Welfare 5: 369–389.

data file and documentation. Chapel

Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Osgood, Wayne, Michael Foster, and Mark

Courtney. 2010. “Vulnerable Populations

and the Transition to Adulthood,” The Future

of Children 20: 209–229.

Monograph

THE FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care 23

Document Outline

A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON FUP USE AND PROCESSES

III. SITE-VISIT FINDINGS ON STRATEGIES FOR SERVING YOUTH THROUGH FUP

IV. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY

REFERENCES