Mental HealthNCT04596176
Partnerships to Demonstrate Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for Families in the Child Welfare System
A study testing Program Supportive Housing Services and Intensive Supportive Housing Services in people with Mental Health and Physical Health, run by Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Trial summary
This was a randomized controlled trial comparing child welfare business as usual (BAU) with two levels of supportive housing (SH). To identify eligible families, a screening tool was developed that helped social workers apply a "housing lens" very early in family child welfare involvement. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Mental Health, Physical Health
- What is being tested?
- Program Supportive Housing Services and Intensive Supportive Housing Services
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 217 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2013to 31 Dec 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Families who were newly involved with the child welfare system, demonstrated high housing instability or homelessness, and evidenced high service needs.
Who cannot join
- N/A
About this study
This was a randomized controlled trial comparing child welfare business as usual (BAU) with two levels of supportive housing (SH). To identify eligible families, a screening tool was developed that helped social workers apply a "housing lens" very early in family child welfare involvement. The study examined the extent to which implementation was faithful to the model and how well state and community partners collaborated. The research included a process evaluation, outcomes study, and economic analysis. Access to either intervention group was associated with higher family preservation and reunification, with service model intensity demonstrating minimal impact. An economic evaluation revealed that the intensive model cost the most, but the existing SH program and routine care incurred equivalent per-child costs.
Read the detailed description
Supportive Housing for Families is a care management program that serves families who are experiencing child welfare needs (risk of losing custody of children or difficulty regaining custody of children) and severe housing needs. The program has been in operation for over 10 years and has been demonstrating positive outcomes for clients in terms of housing stability and family environment outcomes.
A federally funded, five-year demonstration project and evaluation focused on a new and enhanced version of the program, the Intensive Supportive Housing for Families program (ISHF). Through a three arm randomized controlled trial, this study compared clients in three groups: parents who are randomly assigned to (1) enroll in ISHF, (2) participate in the existing Supportive Housing for Families (SHF) program, and (3) receive Child Welfare Business as Usual Services. This was the first randomized evaluation of this program, and the grant required examination of whether those who participate in an enhanced version of the program, which incorporates prompt access to evidence-based interventions, vocational services, and trauma services, show superior outcomes than clients randomized to the existing program. Further, clients in both of these conditions (SHF and ISHF) were compared to those receiving child welfare services in Connecticut as usual (BAU) without a supportive housing intervention.
This research has three components: a) a process evaluation, b) a cost/economic analysis, and c) an impact analysis.
The process evaluation and cost analysis were previously completed while the project was ongoing. Now that the project has ended, the final report on all project activities has been submitted to the funder, the Administration for Children and Families.
This impact analysis addressed the following primary research questions:
- Do clients who receive supportive housing services (SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child welfare outcomes compared to those in the Child Welfare (DCF) Business as Usual (BAU) intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved parental well-being compared to those in the Child Welfare (DCF) Business as Usual (BAU) intervention?
- Do clients who receive supportive housing services (SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved parenting skills compared to those in the BAU intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate increased self-sufficiency compared to those in the BAU intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child development compared to those in the Child Welfare Business as Usual intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child well-being compared to those in the Child Welfare Business as Usual intervention?
A set of secondary research questions ask: across each of these outcomes (i.e., child welfare, parental well-being, parenting skills, self-sufficiency, child development, child well-being), are there differential effects across the three intervention options, ISHF, SHF, and BAU [such that those in ISHF show greater improvement than clients in the SHF program who show greater improvement than those in BAU]?
Main outcome measures were assessed at 12, 18, and 24 months post-randomization. Housing outcomes included shelter stay and subsidy deployment. Child welfare outcomes included child removal and reunification, subsequent allegations and substantiations, and case closure.
Results: Access to either intervention group was associated with higher family preservation and reunification, with service model intensity demonstrating minimal impact. An economic evaluation revealed that the intensive model cost the most, but the existing SH program and routine care incurred equivalent per-child costs.
The PI of this research was originally at the University of Connecticut and moved to Chapin Hall. The research has concluded and the investigators are drafting a manuscript.
- Conditions
- Mental Health, Physical Health
- Being tested
- Program Supportive Housing Services, Intensive Supportive Housing Services
- Medical subject headings
- Psychological Well-Being
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Program Supportive Housing ServicesOther
The existing statewide SH model that included routine access to housing (voucher) and case management
Intensive Supportive Housing ServicesOther
an intensive treatment SH model with a higher dosage of case management, family teaming, and access to a vocational specialist
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Business As Usual | No intervention | Families who were involved in the child welfare services |
| Intensive Supportive Housing for Families | Active comparator | Families who were randomly assigned in this group Receives: Other: Intensive Supportive Housing Services |
| Program Supportive Housing for Families | Active comparator | Families who were randomly assigned in this group Receives: Other: Program Supportive Housing Services |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Preservation
Number of children not being removed from their family
Measured: 2 years
Reunification
Number of children being reunified with their family
Measured: 2 years
Housing stability
Whether family remained stably housed or experienced recidivism on homelessness or near homelessness
Measured: 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Oct 2020
- Study start1 Nov 2013
- Primary completion31 Dec 2017
- Study completion31 Dec 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Mental HealthStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 217 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Connecticut
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Anne Farrell, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
- Investigators
- Anne Farrell, Ph.D., Principal investigator, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04596176
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB18-0174
- Status last verified
- Oct 2020
- First submitted
- 8 Jun 2020
- Last updated
- 22 Oct 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Oct 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Partnerships to Demonstrate Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for Families in the Child Welfare System
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04596176
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB18-0174
- Conditions
- Mental Health, Physical Health
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 217 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Chapin Hall at the University of ChicagoUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Connecticut
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2013 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This was a randomized controlled trial comparing child welfare business as usual (BAU) with two levels of supportive housing (SH). To identify eligible families, a screening tool was developed that helped social workers apply a "housing lens" very early in family child welfare involvement. The study examined the extent to which implementation was faithful to the model and how well state and community partners collaborated. The research included a process evaluation, outcomes study, and economic analysis. Access to either intervention group was associated with higher family preservation and reunification, with service model intensity demonstrating minimal impact. An economic evaluation revealed that the intensive model cost the most, but the existing SH program and routine care incurred equivalent per-child costs.
Detailed description
Supportive Housing for Families is a care management program that serves families who are experiencing child welfare needs (risk of losing custody of children or difficulty regaining custody of children) and severe housing needs. The program has been in operation for over 10 years and has been demonstrating positive outcomes for clients in terms of housing stability and family environment outcomes.
A federally funded, five-year demonstration project and evaluation focused on a new and enhanced version of the program, the Intensive Supportive Housing for Families program (ISHF). Through a three arm randomized controlled trial, this study compared clients in three groups: parents who are randomly assigned to (1) enroll in ISHF, (2) participate in the existing Supportive Housing for Families (SHF) program, and (3) receive Child Welfare Business as Usual Services. This was the first randomized evaluation of this program, and the grant required examination of whether those who participate in an enhanced version of the program, which incorporates prompt access to evidence-based interventions, vocational services, and trauma services, show superior outcomes than clients randomized to the existing program. Further, clients in both of these conditions (SHF and ISHF) were compared to those receiving child welfare services in Connecticut as usual (BAU) without a supportive housing intervention.
This research has three components: a) a process evaluation, b) a cost/economic analysis, and c) an impact analysis.
The process evaluation and cost analysis were previously completed while the project was ongoing. Now that the project has ended, the final report on all project activities has been submitted to the funder, the Administration for Children and Families.
This impact analysis addressed the following primary research questions:
- Do clients who receive supportive housing services (SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child welfare outcomes compared to those in the Child Welfare (DCF) Business as Usual (BAU) intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved parental well-being compared to those in the Child Welfare (DCF) Business as Usual (BAU) intervention?
- Do clients who receive supportive housing services (SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved parenting skills compared to those in the BAU intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate increased self-sufficiency compared to those in the BAU intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child development compared to those in the Child Welfare Business as Usual intervention?
- Do clients who receive any supportive housing services (those in the SHF and ISHF interventions combined) demonstrate improved child well-being compared to those in the Child Welfare Business as Usual intervention?
A set of secondary research questions ask: across each of these outcomes (i.e., child welfare, parental well-being, parenting skills, self-sufficiency, child development, child well-being), are there differential effects across the three intervention options, ISHF, SHF, and BAU [such that those in ISHF show greater improvement than clients in the SHF program who show greater improvement than those in BAU]?
Main outcome measures were assessed at 12, 18, and 24 months post-randomization. Housing outcomes included shelter stay and subsidy deployment. Child welfare outcomes included child removal and reunification, subsequent allegations and substantiations, and case closure.
Results: Access to either intervention group was associated with higher family preservation and reunification, with service model intensity demonstrating minimal impact. An economic evaluation revealed that the intensive model cost the most, but the existing SH program and routine care incurred equivalent per-child costs.
The PI of this research was originally at the University of Connecticut and moved to Chapin Hall. The research has concluded and the investigators are drafting a manuscript.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Business As Usual | No intervention | –Families who were involved in the child welfare services |
| Intensive Supportive Housing for Families | Active comparator | Other: Intensive Supportive Housing ServicesFamilies who were randomly assigned in this group |
| Program Supportive Housing for Families | Active comparator | Other: Program Supportive Housing ServicesFamilies who were randomly assigned in this group |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Families who were newly involved with the child welfare system, demonstrated high housing instability or homelessness, and evidenced high service needs.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- N/A
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Program Supportive Housing ServicesThe existing statewide SH model that included routine access to housing (voucher) and case management | Other | Program Supportive Housing for Families |
| Intensive Supportive Housing Servicesan intensive treatment SH model with a higher dosage of case management, family teaming, and access to a vocational specialist | Other | Intensive Supportive Housing for Families |
Primary outcome
Preservation
Time frame: 2 years
Number of children not being removed from their family
Reunification
Time frame: 2 years
Number of children being reunified with their family
Housing stability
Time frame: 2 years
Whether family remained stably housed or experienced recidivism on homelessness or near homelessness
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Oct 2020.
- Study description and link to final report to the Administration on Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human ServicesLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Mental Health
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Stress Ball Use During Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal After Coronary Angiography
Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal, Stress Ball
Not yet recruiting
Preventive and Personalized Digital Emotion Regulation Skills Intervention to Reduce Depression and Anxiety in Youths With Adverse Childhood Experiences
Adverse Childhood Experience, Depression / Major Depressive Disorder
Recruiting
Effect of a Brief Daily Digital Meditation on Well-Being in US Young Adults (BEGIN II)
Mental Health and General Well-being
Recruiting
NightWare and Cardiovascular Health in Women With PTSD
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Cardiovascular Diseases
Active, not recruiting
Intervention to Address Disparate Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic on Latinx and African Newcomers
Mental Health Issue, Mental Health Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Anne Farrell, Ph.D. principal investigator
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Program Supportive Housing Services and Intensive Supportive Housing Services in people with Mental Health and Physical Health, run by Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Oct 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Preservation (time frame: 2 years). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Oct 2020.