“Barriers to Reunification” Recommends Policy Changes, Investments in Supportive Housing, Like the Emerson-Davis Family Center Model, Dedicated to Reconnecting Families
Implementing Recommendations Would Help to Shorten Foster Care Placements and Shelter Stays, Building Upon City’s Progress in Reunifying Families
(New York, N.Y.)—Today, the Institute for Community Living (ICL) released a policy paper that finds parents in the single adult shelter system and their children in foster care who are eligible to reunify have no direct path to appropriate housing—delaying families’ reunification and ability to rebuild their lives together.
ICL developed the paper—and its recommendations—based on its three decades of experience operating New York City’s only supportive housing program dedicated to reunification. ICL’s innovative Emerson-Davis Family Center program offers 24/7 support for adults with mental health challenges who have been or are at risk of being separated from their children.
The organization also observed bureaucratic red tape that hampers reunification for shelter residents like Amanda and her son. Despite being legally allowed to regain custody of her 7-year-old eight months ago, Amanda has been unable to secure permanent housing for the two of them—the final step to reunification. She remains in a single adult shelter and her son remains in foster care.
“Barriers to Reunification” lays out the following obstacles to reunification for parents living in single adult shelters and their children in foster care:
- There is no direct path for parents in single adult shelters to access the appropriate housing size needed for their family. The current supportive housing application process does not have an eligibility category for family reunification, requiring parents in single adult shelter to return to a family shelter to qualify for the correct size housing. For those seeking apartments in the community with vouchers, there is no process for a parent residing in a single adult shelter to increase their voucher size to secure appropriate size housing with their children.
- City agencies do not have a mechanism to track the extent of this issue, nor can single adult shelters systematically identify reunification needs. Sharing data across involved agencies is challenging, and shelters cannot reliably track whether reunification is part of a resident’s service plan, making it difficult to best meet families’ housing needs.
- Individuals with mental health challenges often face significant stigma, which becomes even more complex for parents trying to reunite with their children. There is a lack of training and public awareness that supports the notion that parents with mental health challenges can be great parents.
“The City has made great progress in reunification, and our policy paper recommendations will help to build upon this work so more families can reconnect as quickly as possible,” says Jody Rudin, President and CEO of ICL. “With 30 years of experience operating our Emerson-Davis program, we know that supporting families to reunite and remain together in permanent housing goes a long way toward mitigating the trauma of separation.”
Rapid reunification has profound mental health implications, as children who live in long-term foster care experience significantly higher rates of behavioral and emotional challenges compared with their peers. Children who spend more time in foster care are also more likely to grow up to experience homelessness and incarceration. Furthermore, only 3% graduate from college.
Evidence indicates that reuniting families in permanent housing, rather than shelter, may reduce returns to foster care—families that entered the shelter system within 90 days of reunification were 7% more likely to re-enter foster care within one year, compared to families who did not enter the shelter system. Helping families transition from shelter more quickly also makes fiscal sense, as reductions in the time that children spend in foster care are able to generate cost-savings of $628 million in the projected foster care budget.
“I do not want my son to have to live in a shelter, so we have no practical way to reunite in a stable housing situation,” says Amanda. “I want to see changes so that parents like me can reconnect with our children in housing that meets our needs.”
ICL’s policy paper presents the following recommendations, which will reduce the trauma of separation and promote long-term stability:
- Establish specific funding streams by City and State agencies—including Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), Department of Human Services (DHS), Office of Mental Health (OMH), and Department of Health (DOH)—for impactful family supportive housing models like Emerson-Davis Family Center that are dedicated to reunification. The program has shown notable and lasting results: since 2008, 49 families have transitioned out of Emerson-Davis Family Center, with 74% remaining unified.
- Enable greater flexibility in the housing system to facilitate families’ reunification process, including modifying the supportive housing application rules and revising the voucher process to allow parents leaving single adult shelters to qualify for larger apartments.
- Improve communication and develop a systemized tracking mechanism for data sharing between DHS and ACS to identify parents in single adult shelters with children in foster care.
- Incorporate appropriate clinical care, including trauma treatment and parental skills training, into housing models that support family reunification.
“The Institute for Community Living’s policy paper on the effects of rapid reunification of parents and children in foster care is a welcome resource in helping the City Council create solutions that positively impact separated families,” said Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala ofthe New York City Council. “It’s important that we put in place systems that prioritize reuniting families from the very beginning rather than worrying about it after the fact. Entering the shelter system is already traumatizing enough; there is no reason we should add to that experience with a prolonged period of separation between parent and child.”
