While the United States government currently remains shutdown, it has highlighted the importance of government programs that assist working class families across the country.
It may seem ambitious to discuss policy changes while the government is at a standstill. Still, it is a critical time to evaluate and advocate for appropriate changes to the government welfare programs that promote positive outcomes for families.
One of those cornerstone policies, the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), could prove to be increasingly useful if policy was adopted to unlock the potential of the act to provide housing support for families in need.
Allowing the act to address housing insecurity for the individuals who qualify would widen the overall mission of the act to preserve families in the same environment.
The act benefits from bipartisan support and has been a key piece of legislation in reducing the number of children who are placed into institutionalized care and preserving families who are navigating the challenges of substance use and mental health disorders.
The act, in its current deployment, provides resources for mental health disorders, substance use disorders and parental supports, all with the intention of keeping children in the home with their immediate families.
While these resources are invaluable, individuals facing housing insecurity face further challenges that could ultimately prevent them from being able to access these resources.
Research and practical evidence demonstrate that housing security is a key component in positive outcomes and supports individuals being able to access treatment.
Imagine for a moment that you are the breadwinner for a family and need to access these supports, but they conflict with your working hours. How would you manage?
Taking a step further, imagine you and your family are without housing altogether – is your priority seeking treatment or securing housing? Housing security will always take precedence, especially when children are involved.
Those who may be concerned with this suggestion are likely concerned with the cost associated with including housing resources in the act.
While an exact allocation of funds would need further exploration, the existence of housing programs that could partner with those who are administering act services should provide relief to those concerned about financial feasibility.
The cost associated with supporting housing for families should be offset by a reduction in the cost associated with children being placed into foster care or institutional settings.
The recommendation of including housing support in the act is not as simple as directing funds toward families in need.
Instead, funds would be used not only to provide housing support but also to allocate staff who can be trained to promote housing security and utilize interagency collaboration to connect families in need to already existing housing resources.
Including housing-specific resources for act providers is an example of creating an on-ramp to connect families in need with a broad scope of services.
The act was a tremendous step towards keeping children and families together and reducing the burden on our foster care and institutional structures.
The need to address housing insecurity for these families is critical to ensure a whole person’s approach to providing services.
The primary benefit of this change is simple: Ensuring housing security allows families to remain together and receive the support services necessary to establish a foundation to build upon and reduce the need to access to services in the future.
This is an ambitious suggestion for the current political climate, but an adjustment that could yield significant positive returns for our communities.
—Thomas Pike,
Master of Social Work student at Fort Hays State University