1. 1
Summer, 2015 Virginia Child Protection Newsletter Volume 103
Sponsored by
Child Protective
Services Unit
Virginia Department
of Social Services
Editor
Joann Grayson, Ph.D.
Editorial Director
Ann Childress, MSW
Editorial Assistant
Wanda Baker
Computer Consultant
Phil Grayson, MFA
Student Assistants
Anthony Chhoun
Tigrai Harris
Marissa Noell
Jessica Woolson
POVERTY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
TO CHILD MALTREATMENT
continued on page 2
Poverty and child maltreatment are related.
The association was noted at least as early as
1979 (Wolock & Horowitz, cited in McSherry,
2004). Almost twenty years later, in 1996,
Sedlak & Broadhurst highlighted the associa-
tion when the Third National Incidence Study
of Child Abuse and Neglect found that fami-
lies with annual incomes below $15,000 were
22 times more likely to experience an incident
of child maltreatment than were families with
incomes above $30,000. Child maltreatment
has been shown to correlate with community
and state-level poverty rates, with unemploy-
ment rates, with welfare receipt rates and
with benefit levels (studies cited in Cancian,
Slack &Yang, 2010; Carter & Myers, 2007).
CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy,
2009) and others (Hutson, 2010) claim that
poverty is the single best predictor of child
maltreatment, although it should be noted that
the majority of poor parents do not neglect
children (Carter & Myers, 2007; Hutson,
2010; McSherry, 2004).
The causal effect of income on maltreat-
ment is unknown (Cancian, et al., 2010).
Some postulate that the stress of dealing
with poverty can negatively impact parents’
abilities to relate to their children. Struggling
parents can feel anxious, depressed, fearful
and overwhelmed. The stress of dealing with
poverty, according to these researchers, can
result in inconsistent discipline, failure to
respond to children’s emotional needs, or
even failure to address potential safety risks
(studies cited in Duva & Metzger, 2010;
Hutson, 2010).
It is also possible that poverty is cor-
related with other conditions that relate to
maltreatment (Cancian et al., 2010; Hutson,
2010). For example, poverty rates are highest
for single mothers (Bassuk, DeCandia,
Beach, & Berman, 2014). The stress of
single parenting, rather than poverty per se,
may be a factor related to child maltreat-
ment. Other factors that raise the risk for
maltreatment such as maternal depression or
substance abuse may be more prevalent in
parents who are living in poverty, and could
be causative both of child maltreatment and
of the family being in poverty. Alternatively,
poverty may cause changes in mental health,
caretaking behaviors, and family dynamics
that then lead to maltreatment (Cancian et
al., 2010). It has also been hypothesized
that poverty may increase the visibility and
scrutiny of low income families to potential
reporters, such as case workers, artificially
raising rates of maltreatment for those in
poverty.
Incidence
In 2013, more than 45 million people
(about 14.5% of the population) lived at or
below the federal poverty threshold. The
poverty rate for children under age 18 was
19.9% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). An esti-
mated 20 million Americans account for the
“poorest of the poor” or those living at 50%
or less of the federal poverty level. Compris-
ing about 7% of the U.S. population, this
group had income less than $5,570 for an
individual or $11,157 for a family of four
(Bassuk et al., 2014).
The poverty rate for children under age
18 declined slightly from 21.8% in 2012 to
19.9% in 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).
However, while children account for 23%
of the U. S. population, they represent 33%
of all people in poverty (Jiang, Ekono &
Skinner, 2015).
Female-headed households are among
the poorest households with nearly one-
third living in poverty compared to 6.2% of
married families. Additionally, three-quarters
(77.9%) of homeless families nationwide
are headed by single women (Institute for
Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2013).
Single mothers with young children tend to
have less education and work experience,
resulting in lower wages. Their children are
among the most vulnerable in the country
(Mather, 2010).
Characteristics that raise the
risk of child abuse
Providing for children’s basic needs is a
fundamental responsibility of parents. Qual-
ities of parenting that are associated with
children’s competence include warmth and
positive affectivity, monitoring of children’s
behaviors, contingent responsivity, develop-
mentally appropriate guidance, and encour-
agement of autonomy (studies reviewed in
Torquati, 2002). Parent negotiation with oth-
er systems such as child care and education
are also instrumental in promoting children’s
competence.
While poverty is related to child maltreat-
ment, the link is not a simple one (Houshyar,
2014). For example, parents who are preoc-
cupied with basic survival needs may have
less time and energy to devote to providing
children with adequate support. Stressors
predict negative parenting and are associated
with negative affect and lowered self-es-
teem. Stresses associated with poverty and
homelessness and compromised physical and
mental health of parents can disrupt parents’

2. 2
continued from page 1
Poverty and Child
Maltreatment
ability to relate to children and to provide
limits and supports (Torquati, 2002).
High rates of substance use disorders
have been found in low-income mothers
(34.7% according to Bassuk et al., 1998).
Parents with substance use disorders are four
times more likely to neglect their children
than parents who are not abusing substances
(Carter & Myers, 2007). Among low-income
families, those with family exposure to
substance abuse exhibit the highest rates of
child maltreatment (Ondersma, 2002, cited
in APA, no date).
Close to 70% of low-income mothers
have a mental disorder (Bassuk et al., 1998).
PTSD rates are high (34.1%) as are major
depressive disorder (42.8%) and Anxiety
Disorders (23.1%). Additionally, 79% of
low-income mothers have been victimized
violently in their lifetime (Bassuk et al.,
1998). Parental depression is associated with
CPS involvement (see VCPN, Volume 56 &
59). Co-morbidity can raise the risk further,
for example, if parents have both substance
dependence and mental health diagnoses
(Carter & Myers, 2007).
While mental health and substance abuse
are more frequently investigated, Torquati
(2002) found after interviewing parents
in temporary shelters that physical health
conditions were even more instrumental
than mental health conditions in disrupting
parenting. One third of parents (32.4%) in
Torquati’s study could not accomplish daily
activities because of health problems that in-
cluded asthma, back problems, lupus, ulcers,
and fatigue. A similar percentage (29.7%)
had serious or chronic health problems
during the prior year. Poor physical health
significantly predicted negative parenting.
Poverty and poor health are inextricably
linked according to Health Poverty Action
(no date). Overcrowded and poor living con-
ditions contribute to the spread of disease.
Those in poverty may lack health insurance
and have limited access to health care.
Poor families move 24% to 77% more
frequently than non-poor families, and chil-
dren who change schools four or more times
are disproportionately poor according to
research reviewed by Popp (2014). Mobility
can harm children’s nutrition and health and
is associated with increased grade retention
and lower academic achievement.
Poverty May be a Causative Factor
for Child Maltreatment
A first-of-its-kind study examined the
likelihood of a screened-in child maltreat-
ment report for two groups of low-income
families. In the experimental group, the
family was able to receive child support
payments with no change in benefits and in
the control group the child support reduced
benefits (as was required by state policy).
The mothers eligible to receive all of their
child support payments had modest increases
in income. In the sample of 13,519 econom-
ically-disadvantaged mothers, those with
modest increases in income were about 10%
less likely to have a screened-in report of
child maltreatment (Slack et al., 2004).
Berger’s (2006) economic research
(cited in Carter & Myers, 2007) found that
low income families with more economic
resources were less likely to experience CPS
interventions. Research reviewed by Slack
et al. (2004) found that states with stricter
welfare policies and shorter time limits for
assistance had greater rates of substantiated
child maltreatment, suggesting that increased
financial pressure is associated with neglect.
A later analysis of three large-scale longitu-
dinal studies (Slack et al., 2011) found that
economic hardship was the most consistent
finding that predicts CPS involvement. These
findings are similar to the analysis by Paxson
& Waldfogel (1999) where a rise in the
numbers of children in extreme poverty was
shown to correlate with a rise in substantiat-
ed maltreatment cases. The authors comment
that moving women from welfare to jobs that
do not pay more than welfare could result
in greater child maltreatment as the mothers
may be stressed by job responsibilities, still
have difficulty financially, and have less
energy available to care for their children.
Which parents living in poverty are
most at-risk for neglect?
Parents living in poverty are not at equal
risk for neglect and maltreatment of their
children. Research by Slack et al. (2004)
examined what characteristics and condi-
tions were associated with neglect reports to
CPS among low-income parents. They found
that among low-income families, abused and
neglected children received poorer quality
parenting than non-maltreated children and
specific aspects of parents in poverty were
predictive of a CPS neglect report.
Slack et al. found that employment
seemed to operate as a protective influence,
with more frequent work associated with
fewer CPS complaints. The parent’s percep-
tion of hardship was also predictive, with
greater hardship associated with a higher
level of CPS involvement. Low-income
parents who allowed children frequent tele-
vision viewing (more than 4 hours per week-
day) were more than 4 times more likely to
have a CPS report. Frequent television-view-
ing has been associated with other adverse
child outcomes such as obesity, lower
academic achievement, aggressive behaviors
and ADHD. Television may be used as a
substitute for adequate supervision and/or
children who are difficult may be permitted
more television viewing as a respite from the
parent dealing with their difficult behaviors.
Parents with greater numbers of chil-
dren had more CPS reports, as did parents
who reported having a diagnosed learning
disability.
Further, the Slack et al. literature review
found studies that had identified additional
parenting factors that mediated the relation-
ship between poverty and neglect. These in-
cluded the parent’s level of frustration, their
difficulty in managing parenting stress, and
the frequency of punishing children. Parents
who reported higher use of spanking, more
authoritarian parenting style, and who were
unlikely to use reasoning were at greater risk
for both physical abuse and neglect. Parents
with less warmth and less physical affec-
tion and less empathy were associated with
CPS intervention. Those with less proficient
caretaking skills (such as meal preparation
and home maintenance) and who knew less
about child development were more likely
to neglect children. Less frequent and lower
quality interaction, responding inconsistently
to children’s needs, and attributing negative
intentions to children’s behaviors were more
common in neglectful parents.
Hunger and Poverty
The U. S. Department of Agriculture
(Coleman-Jenson et al., 2012) reported that,
between 2009-11, an average of 14.7% of
American households were food insecure
at least part of the year. Food insecurity is
defined as not having access at all times to
enough food for an active, healthy life for all
household members. There was a significant
increase in the subgroup of persons who
were very low in food security (from 5.4%
to 5.7%).
Participation in SNAP (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program) has varied in
recent years. As of February, 2015 nearly
45.7 million people received benefits which
was a decrease of nearly 500,000 from
February, 2014 (Food Research and Action
Center, 2015). In recent years, more than one
in seven Americans receive SNAP (15.1%)
which is comparable to unemployment and
under-employment rates (U. S. Conference
of Mayors, 2012). For struggling fami-
lies, SNAP is making a huge difference in
economic well-being and health. In addition,
SNAP benefits local economies with each
one dollar in federally-funded SNAP benefits

3. 3
continued on page 4
generating $1.79 in economic activity (Food
Research and Action Center, 2015).
A report on charitable food distribution
in the United States in 2013 titled Hunger
in America 2014 discusses characteristics
of households served by food distribution
agencies.
v The majority of recipients were White
(43%) with Blacks at 26%, Latinos at
20% and ‘Other’ representing 11%.
v Children were living in 39% of the
households served, a rate higher than
in the general population (32%).
v Most recipients (93%) resided in stable
housing. However, 1 in 6 families had
experienced eviction within the past
five years.
v For households with children, 71%
reported that at least one adult in the
household had been employed within
the past year. In some cases, the work
was part-time.
v Most (72%) of the households lived in
poverty.
v Twenty percent of households had a
member that had served in the military
and 4% had a household member
currently in the military.
Families face difficult decisions. They
sometimes must choose between food and
medication or between food and transpor-
tation or food and utilities. Sometimes the
choice is between food and medical care or
food and education. Some families purchase
inexpensive and unhealthy food. Some ask
for help from friends and family. Others
‘water down’ food, drinks, or baby formula.
Some sell or pawn personal property in order
to pay for food. A few grow food in a garden
(Hunger in America, 2014). Addressing food
insecurity will require collaborative efforts
between government and the charitable sec-
tor. Many families rely upon both to secure
food for their families.
Effects of poverty on the
child’s developing brain
There is mounting evidence that growing
up in poverty can negatively affect a child’s
brain. Neuroscientists are recognizing that
the brain is a responsive, constantly evolv-
ing organ that can change at cellular and
larger-scale levels due to environmental in-
fluences and experiences (Stromberg, 2013).
For example, those who grow up in poverty
when shown emotionally-upsetting images
show increased activity in the amygdala (in-
volved in anxiety, fear, and emotional disor-
ders) and decreased activity in the prefrontal
cortex (which helps limit the influence of
the amygdala and allows long-term deci-
sion-making to prevail over impulse) (Kim
et al., 2013). A Washington University study
(Luby et al., 2013) found children of parents
with poor nurturing skills had slowed growth
in white matter, grey matter, and the volumes
of several brain areas involved in learning
skills and coping with stress. A Northwestern
University study (Skoe, Krizman, Kraus,
2013) found children of low socioeconomic
status had less efficient auditory processing,
perhaps due to noise exposure.
A team of researchers at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison partnering with research-
ers at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill have studied the developing brains
of children using MRI brain scans (Han-
son et al., 2013). They eliminated children
whose brain development might be altered by
maternal smoking or drinking alcohol during
pregnancy, birth complications, head injuries,
or family psychiatric history. The infants’
brains were similar at birth but over time grad-
ually showed differences. By age 4, children
in families with incomes under 200 percent of
the federal poverty line had less grey matter
(brain tissue critical for processing of infor-
mation and executive actions) than children in
families with higher incomes.
The list of potential environmental factors
effecting brain development is lengthy. Poor
nutrition, lack of sleep, lack of books and
educational toys, parental stress, unsafe
environments, limited enriching conversation
and interaction are just a few of the potential
contributors. The brain changes described
in the studies above have damaging effects
ranging from poor cognitive outcomes and
school performance to a higher risk for anti-
social behaviors and mental disorders.
The Vocabulary Gap
Hart and Risley (1995) describe the War
on Poverty’s optimistic effort to intervene
early to forestall the terrible effects that
poverty has on some children’s academic
growth. Discouraged by witnessing early
gains fade over time, Hart and Risley under-
took a project to observe 42 families for an
hour each month to learn about interactions
in homes as children are learning to talk.
They found that ordinary families differed
immensely in the amount of experience
with language and the amount of interaction
provided to children. The differences were
linked to the children’s language develop-
ment at age three.
Hart and Risley found that 86 to 98 per-
cent of the words recorded in the children’s
vocabulary consisted of words in their par-
ents’ vocabularies. By age three, children’s
numbers of different words were very similar
to the parents. Simply in words heard, the
average child in the families receiving
welfare benefits was having half as much
conversation per hour compared to the aver-
age working-class child and less than a third
of the average child in a professional family.
A linear extrapolation showed that by age
four, the average child in a family receiving
welfare might have 13 million fewer words
of cumulative verbal experience than the
average working-class child and 32 million
fewer words of cumulative experience com-
pared to a child in a professional family.
Not only did the quantity of language
experience differ between the groups in the
Hart and Risley experiment, but the quality
of verbal interaction was also different. The
average child in a professional family was
accumulating 32 affirmatives and five pro-
hibitions per hour (a ratio of six encourage-
ments to each discouragement). For the child
in a working-class family the ratio was two
encouragements for each discouragement.
For the children living in families receiving
welfare, the ratio was 1 encouragement to
two discouragements.
Hart and Risley conclude that the
magnitude of the differences in children’s
experiences by age 3 gives an indication
of the enormity of the gap. The day-to-day
and hour-to-hour experiences are crucial
for brain development, for setting cognitive
patterns, and for training children in how
National Center for Children in Poverty
215 W. 125th Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10027
(646) 284-9600
Fax: 646-284-9623
E-Mail: info@nccp.org
Website: http://www.nccp.org/
The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) is a nonpartisan, public
policy center dedicated to the promotion of economic security, health, and well-being
of low-income families and children in the U.S. It uses research in order to inform pol-
icy and practice to ensure positive outcomes for the next generation. NCCP envisions
a country of strong, nurturing families with economic security and healthy child devel-
opment. The organization was founded in 1989 as a division of the Mailman School
of Public Health at Columbia University. NCCP is a trusted source for policymakers,
service providers, advocates, and the media.

4. 4
continued from page 3
to think about experiences. More recently,
Fernald, Marchman, and Weisleder (2013)
found that significant disparities in vocabu-
lary and language processing were already
evident at 18 months between infants from
higher- and lower-SES families and by 24
months there was a six-month gap between
SES groups in processing skills critical to
language development.
While variability in verbal abilities is influ-
enced to some extent by genetic factors, the
contributions of early experience to differenc-
es in language proficiency are also substantial.
In families where adequate resources and sup-
port are consistently available, children can
be buffered from adverse circumstances and
are more likely to achieve their developmental
potential (Fernald et al., 2013).
While some have cited limitations in the
Hart and Risley study (see for example, Saiyed
Smirnov, 2015), there is recent research
(such as Fernald et al., 2013, cited by NAEYC,
2014) that confirms a vocabulary gap between
wealthier children and low-income children.
The vocabulary gap is a robust finding in re-
search such as the Early Childhood Longitudi-
nal Study, Kindergarten Cohort, a comprehen-
sive analysis of young children’s achievement
scores in literacy and math based on a large
and nationally representative sample. Even
prior to Kindergarten, children in the highest
SES-quintile group had scores that were 60%
above children in the lowest SES group (cited
in Fernald et al., 2014).
There is increasing scientific evidence
that experiential factors play a critical role
in infants’ early language development.
It appears that rich and varied engagement
with language from an attentive caretaker
provides the developing infant and child not
only with models for language learning but
also with valuable practice in interpreting
language in real time. Child-directed talk
sharpens processing skills, enabling faster
learning of new vocabulary.
Other Child Effects Linked to Poverty
Not only does parent interaction and
verbal stimulation differ for advantaged chil-
dren compared to children in poverty, but the
physical conditions of daily life can differ
on safety, sanitation, noise level, exposure to
toxins, adequate nutrition and medical care.
Higher levels of stress, instability, and ex-
posure to violence all have known negative
effects (Fernald et al., 2014).
Poverty and Child
Maltreatment
Poverty has been linked to a wide range
of negative effects on both physical and
mental health. It is linked to lower academic
achievement, school dropout, behavioral
problems and emotional difficulties. So-
cially, children living in poverty may have
trouble with friendships, have higher levels
of aggression, and are more likely to be diag-
nosed with ADHD or conduct disorder.
Economic Costs
Other authors (Holzer et al., 2008) stress the
economic costs of poverty. Forgone produc-
tivity and earnings, costs of crime, and health
costs due to poverty total to 3.8% of the gross
national product (GNP) each year. Costs in
2007 totaled about $500 billion per year.
Supportive factors
It is believed that negative effects of
poverty on the brain can be mediated by the
level of support in the child’s caregiver as
well as the level of stressful events. Further,
the vast majority of parents who are poor
are adequate or better than adequate parents
and do not come to the attention of child
protective services. Protective factors can
buffer the risks and stress of poverty. These
include maternal employment, parents who
were competently parented themselves, a
strong informal social support network, and
availability of supportive family members
(studies cited in Duva Metzger, 2010;
Mental Health America, no date).
According to the Child Poverty Action
Group, Inc. ( 2013) the greatest protective
factors are good parenting, strong bonds
between children and parents, and a stable
family unit. Schools can function as a pro-
tective factor if children have strong supports
at school and feel successful. Mentoring and
healthy engagements with adults outside of
the home can be a protective factor, as can
help from immediate and extended family
(Mental Health America, no date).
Concluding Thoughts
Attempts to reduce violence and maltreat-
ment in the lives of children must take into
account their entire environment as well as
the protective factors in those environments.
Circumstances such as low income, low edu-
cational attainment, and poor mental and
physical health can easily trigger poverty.
While improving income, by itself, is
unlikely to end maltreatment, strategies that
improve the entire family’s functioning and
status are promising (Child Poverty Action
Group, Inc., 2013).
Strategies that might improve overall
outcomes include: safe, affordable housing;
better access to primary health care; and
early childhood education (Child Poverty
Action Group, Inc., 2013). Strategic initia-
tives of the Annie E. Casey Foundation such
as “Creating Opportunity for Families: A
Two-Generation Approach” (see AECF.org)
are being piloted in Virginia and elsewhere.
A comprehensive approach to reducing
poverty connects low-income families with
early childhood education, job training,
home visiting services and tools to achieve
financial stability.
Children succeed when their families
succeed. Comprehensive strength-based in-
terventions that consider the whole family’s
needs can break the cycle of poverty as well
as reduce child maltreatment.
Reference List Available on the Website
Prevention Resource Guide
Making Meaningful Connections 2015
Prevention Resource Guide
Administration on Children, Youth, and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Website: https://www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/preventionmonth
This 2015 Resource Guide was created to support service providers who work with
parents, caregivers, and children to prevent child abuse and neglect. The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect,
its Child Welfare Information Gateway, the FRIENDS National Resource Center for
Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention, and the Center for the Study of Social Policy
Strengthening Families worked together to develop this Resource Guide. Its contents are
informed by input from over 25 National Child Abuse Prevention Partners and members
of the Federal Interagency Work Group on Child Abuse and Neglect.
The Resource Guide primarily supports community-based child abuse prevention profes-
sionals; however, it may be useful for policymakers, parent educators, family support workers,
health-care providers, program administrators, teachers, child care providers, mentors, and
clergy members. It offers support to service-providers as they work with parents, caregivers,
and their children in order to prevent child maltreatment and promote socio and emotion-
al wellness. Specifically, the Resource Guide focuses on protective factors to build family
strengths and promote appropriate child and youth development. Furthermore, it covers topics
concerning protective factors that promote well-being in families, engage communities, and
protect children. It includes tip sheets for parents and caregivers and other resources that can be
used on the national level to strengthen families. The tip sheets are translated into Spanish.

5. 5
continued on page 6
Incidence of Poverty
There are a number of ways to define
poverty. Differences in statistics can be due to
differing ways of defining poverty. Poverty can
also be affected by the cost of living, which
can vary in different sections of the country.
According to Virginia Performs (Virginia.
gov), in 2013 Virginia’s overall poverty rate
was 11.7%. This rate was the 9th lowest
in the nation. Still, more than one in ten
Virginians live in poverty and one in twenty
live in “deep poverty” which is less than half
of what is defined as the poverty level (The
Commonwealth Institute).
Using the federal definition of poverty,
the KIDS COUNT data center, a project of
the Annie E. Casey Foundation, reports that
in 2013, 288,000 children in Virginia (16%)
lived in poverty. The percentage of children
in poverty has gradually risen since 2006
when 12.2% of Virginia’s children lived in
poverty.
Using a somewhat different measure,
the Virginia Poverty Measure or VPM
that includes ‘near poverty,’ researchers
from University of Virginia (Rorem
Juelfs-Swanson, 2014) found that one in
three Virginia children in 2011 lived in a
home where parents struggled to provide
basic necessities. According to the federal
poverty measure, in 2011 a two-adult, two-
child family living in the Commonwealth
needed $22,000 per year to be above poverty
level and 15% of Virginia’s children lived in
families under that cut-off. Under the VPM
developed by the researchers, the cut-off for
a two-adult and two-child family is $29,000
per year including any social safety net
benefits. Using this definition, 13% of Vir-
ginia’s children were living in poverty. The
researchers defined ‘near-poor’ as income of
$29,000 to $43,000 (including the value of
any benefits). An additional 19% of Virgin-
ia’s children live in families with this level of
resource, making a total of 32% of children
in Virginia living either in poverty or ‘near
poor’ and struggling to provide necessities.
Poverty in Virginia affects some groups
more than others. Black children are the
most likely to be impoverished with Hispan-
ic or Latino children next most likely, then
non-Hispanic White children, and finally
Asian or Pacific Islander children. Children
in a single-parent household are five times
more likely to be poor than those living with
two parents. Only 5% of children living in
two-parent families are poor versus 28% of
children in single-parent homes (Voices for
Virginian’s Children). Small cities and rural
areas are struggling. Danville and Peters-
burg have the highest poverty rates, each
at around 41%. Eight of the 10 locations in
Virginia with the highest poverty rates are
rural areas (Voices for Virginia’s Children).
Training
Mylinda Moore works with CHIP of
Virginia. CHIP stands for Comprehensive
Health Investment Project which serves
at-risk families in poverty who are expecting
a child or have a child under age seven. The
project offers home visitation and health
supervision in five counties in Southwest
Virginia, in the New River Valley, in the
Charlottesville area, in Richmond and in
South Hampton Roads. Moore is a certified
trainer for Bridges Out of Poverty, a training
based on the book with the same name by
Dr. Ruby Payne, Phillip DeVol and Terie
Drussi Smith.
The training helps service providers
understand the mind set and the realities of
families living in poverty. “Their choices are
functional given the circumstances,” relates
Moore, “but are likely not the choices that
someone in the middle or upper classes
might make. Relationships are a driving
force for people in poverty. They don’t have
as many other resources to use in times of
crisis as those who live in the middle class.
This makes relationships even more essential
in helping people get through difficult
circumstances.” Moore explains that people
living in poverty live in a reactive world.
They don’t earn enough to save, so any
emergency can start a downward spiral. If a
car needs repair, the person may miss work
and then lose their job. The loss of income
means that the family loses housing.
“Something simple can cause the family’s
circumstances to spin out of control,” she
says.
Moore says the training is “eye-opening”
and can translate into better relationships
with the families. Service providers can
begin to approach families in a non-judg-
mental way. “Change occurs in the context
of relationships. Our program is voluntary
so parents do not have to participate unless
they want to do so,” says Moore. A service
provider who understands and can empathize
is in a better position to be helpful.
Moore generally trains only for her own
organization. She offered a short overview at
a conference last year and a 1-hour Webinar
for Part C workers. She has no trainings
planned for 2015.
VIRGINIA’S PICTURE–
POVERTY
Hunger in Virginia
Virginia has an 11.8% food insecurity
rate, according to the Federation of Virgin-
ia Food Banks. This rate means that over
912,790 people do not know from where
their next meal will come. Food banks in
Virginia account for 76% of items distribut-
ed by food pantries, 57% of food at kitchens
and 34% of food distributed by shelters. The
food bank recipients are children (42%),
elderly (6%), households with an employed
adult (45%) and homeless (6%). Most
recipients (76%) are living below the poverty
level.
The primary mission of the Federation
of Virginia Food Banks and its network
is to feed hungry Virginians. In 2014, the
Federation’s network distributed over 142
million pounds of products to more than
1,199,500 individuals through more than
2,608 member agencies that directly serve
those in need. Individuals needing food
assistance annually visited food bank dis-
tribution agencies 9,654,900 times. These
agencies operate programs such as soup
kitchens, after school programs, senior
centers and elderly feeding programs, Head
Start, transitional housing programs, and
homeless and domestic violence shelters as
well as individual household distribution.

6. 6
Mylinda Moore can be reached at: (804)
783-2667.
The website for the national training is:
ahaprocess.com
Commonwealth of Virginia’s
Poverty Reduction Task Force
Virginia’s Poverty Reduction Task Force
was formed in early 2009. It was comprised
of 31 individuals with diverse professional
backgrounds and strong expertise in their
fields. Additionally, over 1,200 Virginians
participated in public input sessions or con-
tributed via a website survey.
In 2008, more than 10% of Virginians
lived below the poverty level. (Readers can
note that figure is a bit different in recent
years than in 2008.) The most vulnerable are
children (13.8 percent living in poverty),
those over age 85 (27 percent poverty rate)
and those with disabilities (19 percent
poverty rate). More than 750,000 Virginians,
including 250,000 children, live in poverty.
According to the Task Force, the current
federal poverty measures do not adequately
capture the extent to which some Virginians
struggle with economic self-sufficiency.
Existing measures fail to consider the high
cost of living in Northern Virginia and some
other parts of the commonwealth.
While Virginia’s poverty rate has gen-
erally been below the national average, it
also has been consistent. Virginia’s poverty
rate has not decreased substantially over the
past 30 years. The factors in Virginia that
influence the poverty rate are educational
attainment, household type, and the num-
ber of full-time employment incomes in
the household. The typical Virginian below
the poverty line is a white female head of
household, ages 25 to 34, with less than a
high school education, with children and
who is employed. The primary avenues out
of poverty are education, work, and living in
a household with more than one worker. The
rise in single-parent households and the lack
of inflation-adjusted earnings for less skilled
workers are two factors cited by the Task
Force as the most challenging trends that
work against poverty reduction.
According to the Task Force, preschool
interventions that focus not just on cognitive
skills but also on social-emotional skills have
a higher return than interventions later in life.
Richmond’s Anti-Poverty Commission
In the spring of 2011, Mayor Dwight C.
Jones appointed an anti-poverty commission
and launched an effort to create a compre-
hensive plan to tackle Richmond City’s
poverty crisis. The Mayor’s Anti-Poverty
Commission Report (2013) noted that a
quarter of Richmond City and 2/5ths of its
children lived in poverty. The report details
recommendations and strategies ranging
from investing in workforce development to
supporting early childhood education.
Virginia’s Supports to Reduce Poverty
v A strong economic and employment
base- Virginia’s unemployment rate
is consistently lower than the national
average and Virginia’s median family
income is consistently higher than the
national average.
v An exceptional educational system-
Virginia’s public university system
is one of the best in the nation. The
commonwealth’s community college
system is large and innovative. The
public school system is well-regarded.
In recent years, Virginia has increased
its focus and investment in early child-
hood education.
v A Workforce Development program
serves more than 250,000 individuals
a year. It includes traditional programs
and outreach to disadvantaged high
schools and an apprenticeship program
between community colleges and the
Virginia Department of Labor and
Industry.
v SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assis-
tance Program (formerly food stamps)
continued from page 5
Virginia’s Picture–
Poverty
is enhanced by local food banks and
food pantries and soup kitchens.
v TANF benefits.
Some of these support systems are dis-
cussed in more detail below.
TANF (Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families)
In 1996, TANF replaced Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF is
cash payments to families that meet certain
criteria (such as having a child under age
18; regular school attendance of school-
aged children). Virginia’s TANF program
emphasizes personal responsibility. Par-
ticipants may be provided with job skills
training, work experience, job readiness
training, child care assistance, transportation,
and work-related expenses. There is a two-
year limit to receiving TANF benefits and
a 5-year lifetime limit. In Virginia, TANF
currently serves about 25,000 families with a
dependent child.
In 1995, over 70,000 families were
receiving TANF. After VIEW (below) was
implemented, the TANF enrollment fell dras-
tically. By 2000, about 30,000 families were
receiving TANF. Since 2000, there have
been some fluctuations, presumably due to
economic conditions, and the numbers have
fluctuated but the highest was 37,628.
Mark Golden supervises the common-
wealth’s TANF program. He feels the pro-
gram is successful. For example, he relates
that 75 to 80% of those who receive diver-
sionary assistance (a lump sum payment of
up to four months’ worth of TANF at once to
resolve an emergency), do not return to the
program.
Virginia Initiative for Employment
Not Welfare (VIEW)
VIEW supports the efforts of families
receiving TANF to achieve independence
through employment. VIEW focuses on the
participants’ strengths and provides services
to help overcome job-related challenges, as
well as personal, medical and family chal-
lenges that affect employment.
Adults receiving TANF who are able to
work must participate in VIEW when their
youngest child is 12 months of age or older.
Participants must work or engage in work
activities (such as volunteer work or training
or attending a vocational school) the entire
time they are in VIEW. Participation in
VIEW is a full-time commitment.
TANF eligibility is limited to 24-month
periods for a VIEW participant followed by
a 24-month break. Federal law limits TANF
assistance to 60 months. VIEW participants
may earn up to the federal poverty level and
still receive the TANF benefit.
The program provides supports such
as: child care; transportation; medical or
dental services needed to obtain or maintain
employment; screening and evaluation for
hidden disabilities; help with emergencies
and crises; referral and help with local
Federation of Virginia Food Banks
800 Tidewater Drive, Norfolk, Virginia 23504
Website: http://vafoodbanks.org/
The Federation of Virginia Food Banks is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit association of
food banks and the largest hunger-relief association in the state. The Federation’s
mission is to build collective power within its network to create a hunger-free region. It
is comprised of the seven regional Virginia/Washington DC food banks and is affiliated
with Feeding America. The Federation assists the food banks in providing food, fund-
ing, education, and other services and programs throughout Virginia. It served over
1,199,500 Virginians in 2014 and distributed over 142 million pounds of food through
almost 3,000 agencies around the state.

7. 7
services. Education and training (such as
help obtaining a GED or learning English or
training for a specific job) may be available
for some participants.
Virginia Health Care Foundation
The website (www.vhcf.org) has informa-
tion about state-sponsored health insurance
(the FAMIS Programs and Medicaid). They
also have a comprehensive listing of free and
reduced cost medical care and prescription
medications at “Health Safety Net Organi-
zations.” At some organizations, those who
income-qualify can obtain dental care and
mental health services. The site also has the
Health Insurance Marketplace where indi-
viduals can view various insurance plans and
learn how much financial help is available
for health insurance.
ConnectVA
This site (www.connectva.org/basic-
needs/) contains a Basic Needs Directory.
Individuals can locate food, health, housing,
and education programs based on need by
entering their zip code.
211 Virginia
This easy-to-remember phone number
connects people with information on avail-
able community resources.
WIC (Women, Infants, and Children)
VCPN reported on WIC in volume 98.
Readers are referred to that volume for a full
description of Virginia’s WIC program. It is
interesting that some research has suggested
that recipients of WIC are less likely to have
a substantiated neglect finding. It is speculat-
ed that the program is effective in changing
diet, infant feeding practices, childhood
immunization rates, and even cognitive de-
velopment of children. Since WIC specifical-
ly targets young children who are vulnerable
to neglect, the program’s effectiveness is
reflected in lowered rates of substantiated
neglect (Carter Myers, 2007).
What Additional Measures Can Help?
Virginia’s Poverty Reduction Task Force
(2010) made many recommendations. A
sample are:
v Continue to expand early childhood
education
v Increase support for at-risk students
v Expand Smart Beginnings
v Increase high school graduation rates
(those who graduate are 50% less
likely to live in poverty)
v Increase support for subsidized child
care
v Expand English as a second language
(ESL) services
v Enhance prisoner re-entry programs
v Reduce teen pregnancy
Other recommendations and rationales
are available in the complete report (see
www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/
agency_wide/poverty_long.pdf).
VIRGINIA’S CHILDREN’S CABINET AND
THE COMMONWEALTH COUNCIL ON
CHILDHOOD SUCCESS
Children are the commonwealth’s most important resource. In order to
provide all children with the tools and resources they need to survive in the
21st century economy, both the Children’s Cabinet and the Commonwealth
Council on Childhood Success are working on the complex issues that
affect children’s development.
Governor McAuliffe signed an Executive Order in August, 2014 creating
the Children’s Cabinet solely dedicated to the education, health, safety and
welfare of Virginia’s children and youth. The Children’s Cabinet co-chairs
are Secretary of Education Anne Holton and Secretary of Health and
Human Resources Dr. William Hazel, Jr. Other members are Lt. Gover-
nor Ralph Northam, Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran, Secretary
of Commerce and Trade, Maurice Jones and the First Lady of Virginia,
Dorothy McAuliffe. The Children’s Cabinet will develop and implement a
policy agenda that will help better serve Virginia’s children and also foster
collaboration between state and local agencies.
The second Executive Order established the Commonwealth Coun-
cil on Childhood Success. This Council is chaired by Lt. Governor Ralph
Northam. It is focusing on improving the health, education and well-being
of the youngest children in the Commonwealth. Children’s early years are
extremely formative and have a significant impact on the child’s readiness
to succeed.
The work of the Commonwealth Council on Childhood Success will
include a comprehensive, statewide assessment of current programs,
services, and local, state, and federal public resources that serve Virginia’s
children ages 0-8. In coordination with the Children’s Cabinet and relevant
state agencies, the Council will serve as a central coordinating entity to
identify opportunities and develop recommendations for improvement,
including but not limited to: 1) funding for preschool; 2) Kindergarten readi-
ness; 3) strategies to close the achievement gap in early elementary years;
4) the quality and accountability of child care programs and providers; and
5) coordination of services for at-risk families.
The Commonwealth Council on Childhood Success has been meeting
regularly. They are divided into several workgroups: School Readiness
Workgroup; Data and Governance Workgroup; Health and Well Being
Workgroup. Each has generated detailed reports and recommendations.
More information is available from Patricia Popp, E-mail: pxpopp@wm.edu
Virginia Community Action Partnership
Phone: 804.644.0417
Website: http://www.vacap.org/
Virginia Community Action Partnership
707 East Franklin Street
Suite B
Richmond, VA 23219
Virginia Community Action Partnership (VACAP) is a statewide membership associa-
tion comprised of Virginia’s 31 non-profit private and public community action agencies. The
agencies work together to fight poverty and build self-sufficiency for families and commu-
nities throughout Virginia. Each agency focuses on its unique local needs. Each is also part
of the community action network, coming together to discuss common issues, and to share
ideas, experiences and strategies for success.
VACAP serves its members with state and federal legislative representation and advoca-
cy, member training and education, public relations and marketing, resource development,
facilitating collaboration, and statewide efforts to increase public awareness of Virginians in
poverty and strategies to improve their lives and their communities.

8. 8
In 2002, VCPN reported on Homeless
Children and Families. Over a decade has
passed. VCPN is updating the 2002 infor-
mation. The older issue makes an interesting
comparison to the present.
Definitions
The HEARTH (Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing)
Act of 2009 defines homelessness as:
v An individual who lacks a fixed, regu-
lar and adequate nighttime residence;
v An individual whose primary night-
time residence is a public or private
place not designated for or ordinarily
used as a regular sleeping accommoda-
tion for humans (including cars; parks;
abandoned buildings; bus or train
station; airport or camp ground);
v An individual living in a supervised
public or private shelter designated
to provide temporary living arrange-
ments;
v An individual who was residing in a
shelter or a place not meant for human
habitation who is now temporarily in
an institution;
v Someone who might imminently lose
their housing and lacks resources for
acquiring permanent housing;
v Families that have experienced a
long-term period without living inde-
pendently in permanent housing.
Some sources use a broader definition
of homelessness. For example, they include
parents and children who are “doubled up”
(living with family and friends) or living
temporarily in hotels or motels as well as
those facing eviction, lacking resources to
continue to pay for housing, showing perma-
nent instability, or fleeing domestic violence.
The VCPN website contains a document
detailing several definitions of homelessness.
Incidence
Almost by definition, homeless chil-
dren are difficult to count. Some homeless
families disguise their status. Researchers
and entities such as schools, governmental
bodies and agencies use disparate counting
techniques and different definitions. As a
result, there are widely different estimates of
the numbers of homeless children.
In the 1980’s, families accounted for less
than one percent of all homeless people.
Over the last three decades, the numbers of
homeless families have increased and now
AN UPDATE ON HOMELESS
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
they are 32 percent of the overall homeless
population (Bassuk, 2010). A typical shel-
tered homeless family is comprised of a
single mother with two or three children,
often younger than six years old (U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, 2009).
A report by the National Alliance to End
Homelessness, The State of Homelessness in
America 2013, identified a total of 633,782
homeless people on a given night in 2012
with 239,403 living in families. The major-
ity of these individuals were in emergency
shelters or transitional housing, but 38%
were unsheltered (living on the street, in
cars, or in places not intended for human
habitation).
A U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services Research Brief (2011) reported that
an estimated 168,000 families with 567,000
persons had used an emergency shelter or
transitional housing program at some point
during 2010. In 2011, families experiencing
homelessness increased 1.4% (reported in
U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2012).
The United States Conference of Mayors
reported that in 2010 more than 1.6 million
children (1 in 45 children) in America were
homeless. About 650,000 of the children
were below age six. The 2012 status report
indicated an average increase of 8% in fam-
ilies experiencing homelessness with 71%
of 25 cities reporting an increase, 12.5%
reporting a decrease and 26% saying the rate
remained the same.
Using a broader definition of homeless-
ness, schools reported about 1.3 million
students were homeless during the school
year of 2012-2013 (Child Trends Data Bank,
2015). The data from 2012-13 became
available in September, 2014. Using the
assumption that half or more homeless
children are under school age, some estimate
the total number of homeless children at 2.5
million or 1 in 30 children (Bassuk et al.,
2014; National Association for the Education
of Homeless Children and Youth, no date).
The majority of the 1.3 million homeless stu-
dents (76%) were “doubled up” with other
families while 16% were staying in shelters,
6% were in hotels or motels, and 3% were
‘unsheltered’ and living in places not meant
for human habitation (Child Trends Data
Bank, 2015).
Changing Numbers
Since there are differing definitions and
differing counting methods, it is not surpris-
ing that some reports indicate that homeless
families with children are increasing while
others report a decrease.
In October, 2014 HUD, using a ‘point-in-
time’ counting method, reported an overall
reduction in family homelessness from 2010
to 2014 of 10.6%. The HUD PIT count is
criticized for excluding “hundreds of thou-
sands” of homeless children living ‘doubled
up’ with friends and relatives (Bassuk,
DeCandia, Beach, Berman, 2014).
In contrast, Bassuk et al. (2014) report
that from 2012 to 2013, the number of chil-
dren experiencing homelessness annually in
the United States increased by 8% national-
ly. Increases were documented in 31 states
and the District of Columbia. In the fall of
2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita led to
massive evacuations that drove the numbers
of homeless children to 1.5 million. Over
the next two years, numbers of homeless
children dropped to 1.2 million in 2007.
The national economic recession triggered a
rise in homelessness to 1.6 million children
in 2010. To summarize, in 2006, 1 in 50
children experienced homelessness annually
compared to 1 child in 45 in 2010 and 1
child in 30 in 2013.
Characteristics of Homeless Children
Sheltered homeless children are dispro-
portionately young. In 2012, 10% of children
in shelters were under age one, 40% were
between ages one and five, 33% between
ages 6 and 12, and 17% between ages 13 and
17 (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015). These
statistics are similar to others studies (Sam-
uels, Shinn, Buckner, 2010). Runaway
youth who are homeless will be discussed in
a future issue of VCPN.
Characteristics of Homeless Parents
As mentioned above, the typical homeless
family is a single mother and several young
children. The mothers are likely to lack a
high school education or GED, have few job
skills and limited employment opportunities.
As a group, homeless parents have many
more mental health and substance abuse
diagnoses compared to parents who were
housed (studies cited in Bassuk, 2010;
Bassuk et al., 2014). According to Bassuk et
al., (2014) homeless parents have higher than
average rates of chronic medical conditions
and histories of untreated trauma. They often
lack positive role models for parenting.
According to the American Psychological
Association (2009), homeless single mothers
often have histories of violent victimization
and over a third have experienced diagnos-
able symptoms of PTSD. Half experience
major depression while homeless. An esti-
mated 41% have substance dependency.

9. 9
continued on page 10
The U.S. Conference of Mayors (2012)
reports on homeless adults which include
mothers. In their most recent survey, 30%
of homeless adults were severely mentally
ill, 18% were physically disabled, 83%
were unemployed, and 16% were victims of
domestic violence.
Findings of direct studies of homeless
mothers have found:
v Criteria for clinical depression are met
by 19% to 85%
v Criteria for diagnosable anxiety are
met by 20% to 43%
v In the past year, 21.6% have been
hospitalized.
v Over 32% report being unable to
accomplish daily activities because of
health reasons.
v The incidence of substance use dis-
orders is almost twice as high as the
general female population. Studies
found incidences as high as 41%.
v Between two-thirds and almost
three-quarters of mothers who are
homeless met criteria for at least one
mental disorder.
v A high percentage (88%), have been
violently victimized at some point in
their lives.
v Over a third (36%) of homeless
mothers meet criteria for a diagnosis
of PTSD.
v Between one-fourth and one-third
report at least one suicide attempt
(Bassuk Beardslee, 2014; Bassuk et al.,
1998; studies cited in Bassuk, 2010; Gewirtz
et al., 2009; Torquati, 2002)
Once parents are homeless, relationship
difficulties may increase the duration of
housing instability. The absence of strong
informal and family support systems can
exacerbate economic and housing problems
(Torquati, 2002). Being unmarried, lacking
literacy skills, suffering from chronic unem-
ployment, and having few supportive people
in their lives are all barriers to effective par-
enting (studies cited in Swick Williams,
2010).
The challenges experienced by homeless
parents compromise their ability to form
safe, trusting relationships, work consistent-
ly, and parent effectively. Since the health
and well-being of children is inextricably
linked to the health and well-being of the
parent, the effects of homelessness can be
devastating for children (Bassuk, 2010).
Racial Differences
Black families are disproportionately
represented among homeless families with
children (Bassuk, 2010). In 2012, Black
families were 14% of the general population
with 25% living in poverty. However, they
were 44% of sheltered homeless families.
Whites comprised 55% of all families with
children and 27% of sheltered homeless fam-
ilies. Hispanics were also under-represented.
They were 23% of families with children
and 37% of those in poverty but only 21% of
sheltered homeless families. Asian families
were under-represented while American
Indians, Pacific Islanders and those with
multiple racial backgrounds over-represented
(Child Trends Data Bank, 2015).
The Institute for Children, Poverty and
Homelessness (2013), reports that in 2010,
American Indian family members experi-
enced homelessness at a rate 11 times higher
than members of White families. Black
families were seven times more likely than
White families to stay in shelters and His-
panic family members were three times more
likely to reside in shelters.
Effects of Homelessness on Children
For children, homelessness is more than
the loss of a residence. It disrupts every
aspect of life. Children are challenged by un-
predictability, insecurity, and chaos. Home-
lessness adds an additional layer of vulnera-
bility and deprivation that may increase the
child’s risk for continued exposure to various
forms of violence. Additionally, the process
of becoming homeless involves the loss of
belongings, one’s neighborhood and perhaps
one’s community, and one’s sense of safety.
Living in shelters is isolating and can lead to
a loss of personal control (Guarino Bas-
suk, 2010; The National Center on Family
Homelessness, 2012). Despite the challenges
for all homeless children, it is important to
note that they are not a homogenous group.
Some homeless children may be doing well
while others struggle (Samuels, Shinn,
Buckner, 2010).
Poverty and hunger can predate home-
lessness for children and children may
enter the homeless status already damaged
by poverty (see main article, this issue).
Children whose parents have major depres-
sion or substance abuse diagnoses can show
compromised attachment and cognitive
development, behavioral regulation, aca-
demic performance and socialization can be
negatively affected (see VCPN volumes 16,
53, 56, 59, and 79).
It is important to note that many home-
less mothers are able to maintain a positive
family dynamic in spite of stressful circum-
stances (Swick Williams, 2010). Positive
parenting can be especially important in
homeless families. Research has shown
that higher levels of positive parenting are
related to higher levels of academic success
and better executive functioning in children
(Herbers et al., 2011).
As one examines the research below,
Buckner (2008) offers a word of caution.
The state of being homeless is a changing
status and but one of many stressors that
children living in poverty may encounter.
Homelessness is generally a temporary state
through which families may pass. Homeless
children share characteristics with other
impoverished children and those symptoms
may be more related to the effects of poverty
than the effects of lacking housing. Buckner
notes that the studies comparing housed and
homeless low-income children have incon-
sistent results. Also, some homeless children
may have significant needs while others have
fewer problems.
Overall, the risks of adverse outcomes
for children are high. According to the Child
Trends Data Bank (2015) and information
published by the American Psychological
Association (2009), among other authors,
children experiencing homelessness are vul-
nerable to a number of adverse outcomes:
v They are more likely than other
children to have moderate to severe
acute and chronic health problems.
For example, studies have shown
higher prevalence of asthma, low birth
weight, ear infections, and ADHD.
v Homeless children are twice as likely
to experience hunger as non-homeless
peers. Hunger and malnutrition have
negative effects on the physical, social,
emotional and cognitive development.
v Homeless children have less access to
medical and dental care and experi-
ence inconsistent health care.
v Children without stable homes are
more than twice as likely to repeat a
school grade, have a learning disabil-
ity, be expelled or suspended, or drop
out of high school. They have had
disruptions in schooling that negatively
impact academic performance.
v A quarter or more of homeless children
have witnessed violence. Exposure to
violence can cause emotional difficul-
ties (depression; anxiety; withdrawal)
and behavioral difficulties such as
aggression or acting out. (For more
information see VCPN, volume 60.)
v More than half of homeless children
have diagnosable anxiety or depression
and one in five homeless preschool
children have emotional problems that
require professional care, three times
the rate of housed children. There
are also higher rates of behavioral
problems, delayed developmental
milestones, emotional dysregulation,
and attachment disorders.

10. 10
v Family homelessness increases the
likelihood of separation from parents,
whether through parental placement
with relatives/friends or entry into fos-
ter care. Nearly a fourth of homeless
children experience separation from
parents. Those most likely to be sep-
arated from their parents are children
with a mother who is drug dependent,
in an institutional placement, and/or
experiencing intimate partner violence.
v Attachment difficulties can result if
parents have been traumatized and are
unable to be responsive to children’s
needs.
Over half to 85% of homeless single
mothers experience diagnosable depression,
over a third have PTSD, and over 40% have
substance dependency. Having a parent
with a substance dependency or with major
depression can cause negative outcomes for
children. In brief, mothers with depression
who are homeless display limited parent-
ing skills. They can be disengaged, lack
understanding of child development, provide
inadequate structure, use harsh and inconsis-
tent discipline, communicate infrequently,
lack empathy and warmth, and have trouble
establishing predictable routines (studies
reviewed in Bassuk Beardslee, 2014).
Overall, the impact of homelessness
on children can be devastating, leading to
changes in brain architecture that can inter-
fere with learning, emotional self-regulation,
cognitive skills, and social relationships
(Bassuk et al., 2014). The cumulative risk
factors and multiple traumatic stressors, not
simply the impact of being homeless, must
be considered when assessing the effects on
a child (Bassuk, 2010).
Causes of Homelessness
Causes of homelessness are varied and
complex and appear intertwined with other
social and personal difficulties. Causes cited
in many publications include:
v Poverty-See the main article for further
information about poverty. Single mothers
have the highest rate of poverty (32% com-
pared to 16% of households headed by single
men and 6% of married couple households)
(Bassuk et al., 2014; Institute for Children,
continued from page 9
Homeless Families
Poverty and Homelessness, 2013).
v Unemployment-Although the loss of
a job may not immediately result in housing
instability, it can cause families with limited
resources to deplete savings and eventually
lose their homes (Institute for Children,
Poverty and Homelessness, 2013).
v Lack of Affordable Housing-Af-
fordable housing has not kept pace with the
rising number of renters with incomes at
or below 50% of the area median income
(National Low Income Housing Coalition,
2013). For every 100 extremely low-income
households seeking to rent housing, there
are just 30 affordable units. Households on
a waiting list for housing assistance have
a median wait time of two years (Leopold,
2012). The National Low Income Housing
Coalition calculated that in no state could
one individual working a 40-hour-per-week
minimum wage job afford a two-bedroom
unit for his or her family. While there is
variation in costs nationally, an average wage
of $18.92 is needed to afford a two-bedroom
dwelling (Arnold et al., 2014). Additionally,
homeless families are often in precarious
financial condition pre-dating the homeless-
ness (Hayes, Zonneville Bassuk, 2013).
Over three decades, decreased production
of federally subsidized housing units, rising
rental costs and shrinking incomes mean that
over half (53%) of all U. S. households are
cost burdened and spending 30% or more
of their income on housing with more than
a quarter (27.4%) experiencing severe cost
burden by spending over 50% of income on
housing (Institute for Children, Poverty and
Homelessness, 2013). Severe cost burden
means families cut back on food, medical
care, transportation and other necessities.
v Impact of the 2007 Recession and
the Widening Income and Wealth
Inequality-Families at the bottom of
the income distribution continue to experi-
ence declines (Bassuk et al., 2014).
v Lack of Educational Attainment-
Between 39 to 65% of homeless mothers did
not graduate from high school or earn a GED
compared with 17.7% of mothers nationwide
(Institute for Children, Poverty and Home-
lessness, 2013).
v Wage Discrepancy-Female workers
earn significantly less than males and Whites
earn more than Blacks or Hispanics in
almost every income bracket. Homeless fam-
ilies are predominately minority households
headed by single women who can expect to
earn lower wages, regardless of education-
al attainment level (Institute for Children,
Poverty and Homelessness, 2013).
v Challenges of Single Parenting-The
poverty rate for single-mother families was
39.6% in 2013, nearly five times the rate for
married couple families (7.6%) (Bassuk et
al., 2014).
v Traumatic Stress-While it is not clear
whether trauma always predates the home-
lessness, studies have shown higher rates of
traumatic events for homeless women (some
of whom are also mothers and responsible
for children). Intimate partner violence (IPV)
is cited as the reason for homelessness for
20% to 50% of women (studies cited in
Bassuk et al., 2014; Institute for Children,
Poverty and Homelessness, 2013).
v Health-A single serious illness or in-
jury can result in prohibitively high medical
expenses and create housing instability. Over
half (62.1%) of personal bankruptcies in the
U.S. are caused by health problems (Institute
for Children, Poverty and Homelessness,
2013).
v Mental Health Challenges-According
to studies reviewed in Bassuk et al. (2014),
lifetime rates of depression in homeless
mothers range from 45% to 85% compared
to a 12% rate in all women. Depression can
affect a person’s management, their employ-
ability, and the ability to maintain routines
and meet daily responsibilities. Depression
adds to a mother’s difficulty in parenting,
and is one of the strongest predictors of
poor parenting and child maladjustment.
Children of depressed mothers are at risk
for compromised growth, development, and
school readiness. Substance abuse disorders
have a detrimental effect on a parent’s ability
to maintain employment and can cause
financial strain as money is drained for sub-
stance use. Homeless mothers have a rate of
substance abuse (41.1%) which is twice that
of women in the general population (20.3%)
(Institute for Children, Poverty and Home-
lessness, 2013).
v Intimate Partner Violence-It is
estimated that half of all homeless mothers
experienced IPV and over one quarter of
women in shelters cite domestic violence
as the cause of their homelessness (Insti-
tute for Children and Poverty, 2010). An
analysis of data from the 2003 California
Women’s Health Survey (Pavao et al., 2007)
found that IPV was associated with housing
instability. After adjusting for all covariates,
women who experienced IPV within the past
year were four times more likely to report
housing instability than women who did not
experience IPV.
Homelessness and Child
Maltreatment
There are several intersections between
homelessness and child maltreatment. A sig-
nificant percentage of homeless adults report
a history of being in foster care as children.
Findings range from 25% to 58% (studies
reviewed by CWLA, no date).
Poor housing or lack of housing can
trigger CPS involvement, in some cases
(Shdaimah, 2009). While families should
not be separated solely because of lack of
housing, neither should children be left in
unsafe conditions. A lack of consensus about
the definition of “adequate housing” makes
assessing the adequacy of housing more
difficult. Furthermore, CPS workers are not
generally trained in knowledge of building

11. 11
continued on page 12
structures, electrical wiring, and housing
safety and may lack guidelines for evaluat-
ing dwellings (Shdaimah). CPS generally
partners with building inspectors and the
department of health if there are issues about
the safety of dwellings.
Housing can become an issue after
CPS involvement, for example, if a parent
loses housing due to entering a residential
program for substance abuse. The parent
needs the treatment, but the loss of housing
will complicate being reunited with their
children. Loss of housing can also be due
to fleeing domestic violence, and leaving
an abusive situation may even be a part of a
service plan.
According to Dworsky (2014), research
has consistently found higher rates of child
welfare system involvement among homeless
families than among low income families
that are housed. Homeless families are more
likely to be the focus of a CPS investigation,
to have an open child welfare case, or to
have a child placed in out-of-home care. It
may be that the stress of homelessness leads
to child maltreatment or it may be that living
in shelters makes family interactions more
observable to mandated reporters.
It should be apparent that while CPS is
not a housing agency, housing can become
a CPS problem as workers are challenged
to try to keep families together. Neither
CPS nor other parties such as judges have
the ability to require housing agencies to be
responsive to the needs of a family involved
with CPS. Yet families arrive on CPS case-
loads when lack of safe and adequate hous-
ing puts children at risk (Shdaimah, 2009).
Responses to Family Homelessness
While there is housing assistance
available in most communities, housing
assistance is not an entitlement. Only one
in four eligible households receive any
form of federal rental assistance (Steffen
et al., 2011 cited in Leopold, 2012). To be
eligible for public housing or the Housing
Choice Voucher Program (“Section 8”), a
household’s income must be less than 80%
of the Area Median Income within a Public
Housing Authority’s area. Although no one
knows exactly how many households are
currently on waiting lists, the number is
thought to be in the millions. The wait for
housing assistance is a year or longer in
most areas (Leopold, 2012).
Obviously, safe, affordable housing
is the primary response needed when a
family is homeless. However, housing is not
enough. Housing only addresses structural
needs which do not completely alleviate
the complex stresses that led to homeless-
ness (Hinton Cassel, 2012). Parents must
have access to education and employment
opportunities. There should be comprehen-
sive needs assessment of all family mem-
bers. In particular, attention is needed to
Resources from the National Center on Family Homelessness
National Center on Family Homelessness
201 Jones Road, Suite 1
Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: (781) 373-7072
Email: info@familyhomeless.org
America’s Youngest Outcasts: A Report Card on
Child Homelessness
By: Ellen Bassuk, Carmela DeCandia, Corey Anne Beach,
and Fred Berman, 2014, 130 pages.
Available at: http://new.homelesschildrenamerica.org/mediadocs/280.pdf
This publication describes child homelessness in America and pro-
vides data on children who are homeless, including statistics, individual
state reports, causes of child homelessness, and federal response to the issue. In the article,
Bassuk and colleagues stress the increase of child homelessness and the importance of
awareness in the United States. The authors propose solutions to child homelessness, such
as providing safe and affordable housing, offering education and employment opportunities,
conducting comprehensive needs assessments of all family members, providing trauma-in-
formed care, providing parenting support, and developing and funding a research agenda.
Trauma-Informed Organizational Toolkit for Homeless Ser-
vices
By: Kathleen Guarino, Phoebe Soares, Kristina Konnath, Rose Clervil,
and Ellen Bassuk, 2009, 100 pages.
Available at: http://www.familyhomelessness.org/media/90.pdf
This toolkit was developed to help programs meet the needs of trauma
survivors by stating the prevalence of traumatic stress among homeless
family members and emphasizing the family’s needs. The authors also provide the definition
and principles of trauma-informed care, support systems, and tips on developing a trauma-in-
formed plan. The toolkit includes an organizational self-assessment, a user’s guide, and a
how-to manual for creating organizational change.
Understanding Traumatic Stress in Children
By: Ellen Bassuk, Kristina Konnath, Katherine Volk, 2006, 28 pages.
Available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535527.pdf
This article highlights prevalent traumatic events and the effects that
these traumas have on children and their caregivers. The article defines
trauma and common traumatic events. The authors explain the effects
of trauma on children, including physical, emotional, academic, and
relational symptoms. The article also explains factors that may increase, decrease, or interfere
with the likelihood of a child recovering from trauma. Common stress-related disorders,
such as posttraumatic stress disorder, are explained throughout the article. Finally, the article
explains both acute (short exposure) trauma and complex (long exposure) trauma and the
effects both have on children. The article offers tips to caregivers on avoiding trauma, as well
as handling the issues, should they arise.

12. 12
identify, prevent and treat major depression
in mothers and to treat mental health issues
such as substance abuse. Services need to
incorporate trauma-informed care, as parents
and children are likely to have experienced
traumatic events. Parenting supports need to
be made available to parents and develop-
mentally-appropriate services and activities
made available for children (Bassuk, et al.,
2014).
While children are resilient and can
recover from negative experiences, time is
precious. Services for parents and children
should be provided as soon as families enter
emergency shelters or housing and essential
services should follow children when the
family has permanent housing (Bassuk et al.,
2014).
Bassuk et al. (2014) note that a sys-
tematic review of the literature found no
evidence-based program models or practic-
es to address family homelessness. While
promising practices have emerged, there is
no consensus or research data to support
what mix of housing models and services is
most effective for which families. Housing
programs may use evidence-based practic-
es from other fields, such as child welfare.
Readers should note that the practices dis-
cussed below are not proven practices.
Promising Practice # 1–Assessment and
Individualized Plans
Incorporating a comprehensive assess-
ment into the intake process of housing
programs has some advantages. The needs of
the parent(s) and children can be identified,
services can be delivered as early as possi-
ble, urgent needs can be addressed, health
difficulties can be known and treated earlier,
and the family resiliency is strengthened
(Bassuk et al., 2014). Ideally, this assessment
would start at the point of intake into the
emergency housing system (Perlman et al.,
2012).
To avoid stigma and blaming parents for
the challenges that they face, a strength-
based assessment is recommended. Ap-
proaches that are trauma-informed and
strength-based try to maximize the parent’s
choices and autonomy, and share power and
control. Reviews of some publications detail-
ing this approach are available on VCPN’s
website.
Promising Practice # 2–Rapid Re-Housing
Rapid re-housing is a method to as-
sist families and individuals experiencing
homelessness to access housing as quickly
as possible and then deliver uniquely tailored
services to help people maintain stable hous-
ing. This strategy does not require families
or individuals to live in an emergency shelter
or transitional housing prior to obtaining
permanent housing. The core components
of rapid re-housing include housing identifi-
cation services, financial assistance for rent
and moving in, case management, and sup-
portive services (U.S. Interagency Council
on Homelessness, no date).
Other options are Permanent Supportive
Housing (long-term affordable housing with
ongoing services for families with a parent
with disabilities or a high level of need) or
Transitional Housing (which combines a
temporary residence for up to 24 months
with intensive services).
Promising Practice # 3–Housing First
Efforts
Housing First provides permanent (not
time-limited) housing to homeless women
and their children immediately and does not
make housing contingent on requirements
such as employment, treatment attendance,
or abstinence. The theory is that subsistence
needs must be met prior to addressing the
substance abuse. The approach recognizes that
few mothers are willing to attend a long-term
residential treatment program and that drop-out
rates for these programs are high (U.S. Inter-
agency Council on Homelessness, no date).
A study (Slesnick Erden, 2012)
pilot-tested a comprehensive intervention
administered to 15 substance-abusing and
homeless women with children. At the six-
month mark, 66% were still in their housing.
One woman moved in with her mother after
utilities were cut off, three women moved
in with romantic partners, and one woman
entered residential treatment. Only two of
the 15 women were able to maintain jobs.
Half of the women who had experienced do-
mestic violence (4 of the 8 women who had
reported intimate partner violence at base-
line) continued to report abuse by intimate
partners. Substance use declined but not
significantly. However, there were improve-
ments in children’s behaviors after moving
into housing and the mothers’ mental health
showed improvements.
To succeed with housing, families with
extensive needs require more assistance
(Bassuk et al., 2014). When problem behav-
iors arise that might violate the terms of the
lease, service strategies such as motivational
interviewing are used and service providers
try to work with landlords to avoid evictions
(U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness,
no date). A number of model programs in
New York, Seattle, Washington, DC, Rhode
Island, Portland, Oregon, California, Maine
and Chicago, Illinois have demonstrated
effectiveness and offer guidance about im-
plementation (see usich.gov).
Promising Practice # 4–Education and
Employment Opportunities
Limited education and employment
histories, coupled with unreliable child care
arrangements are risk factors for continued
unemployment among single mothers. Some
homeless mothers may have worked spo-
radically at service jobs that pay minimum
wage, but many mothers have never worked
at all (Bassuk et al., 2014).The National
Transitional Jobs Network suggests that
employment programs for homeless families
provide skills training and placement in local
industries. Jobs should offer flexible sched-
ules. Family life skills such as budgeting
should be taught in addition to job placement
to promote family self-sufficiency (Bassuk et
al., 2014).
Promising Practice # 5–Parenting Support
Quality parenting is the single most ro-
bust protective factor for children exposed to
various adversities, including homelessness
(Reed-Victor, 2008). Research has found
that there are resilient families. For example,
parents who are more positive, less coercive,
and better at problem-solving had children
rated with more strengths and fewer emo-
tional and behavioral symptoms (Gewirtz et
al., 2009).
Given the extreme stress experienced by
homeless mothers, both prior to and after
homelessness, it is not surprising that studies
have documented that homeless mothers
tend to provide less structure and stimula-
tion, are less warm towards their children,
and tend to use coercive disciplinary prac-
tices compared to housed mothers (studies
reviewed in Bassuk et al., 2014). Providing
parenting classes and parenting support can
make a large difference in the lives of home-
less children.
One parenting program that has been
adapted for homeless mothers is Parenting
Through Change. The program is a group
14-week parenting program based on the
work of Gerald Patterson and the Parent
Management Training–Oregon developed in
his lab. The program targets five core parent-
ing practices: skill encouragement; prob-
lem-solving; limit setting; monitoring; and
positive involvement. The 90-minute group
sessions emphasize active learning and role
play as methods for parents to practice the
skills being taught.
Parenting Through Change was original-
ly developed to address children’s behavioral
problems emerging in the context of separa-
tion and divorce. Studies with this popula-
continued from page 11
Homeless Families

13. 13
tion demonstrated significant benefits for
238 mothers and their Kindergarten to sec-
ond-grade sons. Positive outcomes included
improved parenting practices, reduced child
behavior problems, and increased academic
performance. Additionally, maternal arrests
and maternal depression were lower in the
program group. The effects lasted over a
9-year time period. At the 9-year follow
up, mothers who had participated in the
program were outperforming control group
participants on socioeconomic indicators of
education, income, and occupation (Forgatch
Patterson, 2010 reviewed in Perlman et
al., 2012).
In a series of studies, Gewirtz and col-
leagues modified and evaluated Parenting
Through Change for homeless families in a
domestic violence shelter and in 16 sup-
portive housing agencies. At the domestic
violence shelter 9 of 10 participants com-
pleted the program, even though some had
left the shelter by the end. At the housing
units, 64 parents (about two-thirds of those
eligible) participated and retention was 70%.
Preliminary data indicated positive outcomes
(studies reviewed in Perlman et al., 2012 and
in Herbers Cutuli, 2014).
A second parenting program being
piloted and tested with homeless families
is Family Care Curriculum (FCC). FCC
is a strengths-based 6-week program that
meets once a week for 60 minutes. It was
developed specifically for families living
in temporary and transitional shelter. FCC
integrates principles of attachment theory
and social-learning theory and incorporates
aspects of trauma-informed practice, Effec-
tive Black Parenting, and self-care. The core
hypothesis is that learning to think about
and reflect upon what parents and children
need will lead to more responsive parenting
and greater sensitivity to children’s needs.
Research on this program is in process but
not yet published.
Information on additional programs (such
as: Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral
therapy; Early Risers; Building on Strengths
and Advocating for Family Empower-
ment- BSAFE) are available on the VCPN
website.
Promising Practice # 6–Involving
Consumers in the Plans
A major barrier to effective parenting
for mothers in shelters is feeling loss of
self-control (Swick Williams, 2010).
Shelters may have schedules that are differ-
ent from how the family is accustomed to
operating. Certain child-rearing practices
(such as prohibitions on corporal punishment
or enforcement of curfews) may mean that
mothers must adjust and adapt their parent-
ing to suit the shelter staff. Individualizing
the plan for the family with their input can
help restore some feelings of control. Staff
should avoid negative stereotypes by ap-
proaching each family unit by listening with
open and creative thinking and individual
attention (Swick Williams).
Promising Practice # 7–Mental Health
Treatment
Treatment for parents with substance
dependence, depression, PTSD and other
mental health disorders is essential to the
successful maintenance of housing (Bassuk
et al., 2014). Intervening to address the par-
ent’s mental health needs may be necessary
to support child adjustment (Gewirtz et al.,
2009). While shelters are unlikely to employ
licensed mental health treatment profession-
als, arrangements can be made with clinics
for expedited intake and services or perhaps
shelters could arrange for treatment profes-
sionals to deliver services at the shelter.
In their 2014 review, Bassuk and Beards-
lee found that evidence-based treatments for
depression were rarely provided to homeless
mothers. They found that most programs for
homeless mothers do not screen for depres-
sion or mental health treatment. Further,
women of color were much less likely to be
identified as depressed or offered treatment,
indicating a need for culturally-competent
care.
When mothers are treated for depression,
their children have fewer emotional and be-
havioral problems. There are numerous brief
screening tools for depression, which take
only minutes to administer and score.
Promising Practice # 8–Trauma-Informed
Care
Homeless mothers report extremely
high rates of trauma. Traumatic experiences
involve a threat to one’s physical or emotion-
al well-being that is overwhelming, results
in intense feelings of fear, helplessness
and lack of control, and changes the way a
person understands himself or herself, the
world, or others (Guarino Bassuk, 2010).
In one study (Hayes et al., 2013 cited
in Bassuk et al., 2014) 79% of homeless
mothers reported experiencing trauma in
childhood, 82% reported significant trauma
experienced during adult years, and 91% re-
ported trauma in both childhood and during
adult years. The mental health consequences
were thought to be profound with PTSD,
depression and anxiety disorders having high
prevalence.
Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) offers a
framework for providing services to trauma-
tized individuals within a variety of service
settings, including homeless service settings
(Hopper, Bassuk Olivet, 2010). Trau-
ma-informed care is a strengths-based frame-
work that is grounded in an understanding of
and responsiveness to the impact of trauma.
Trauma-informed care emphasizes physical,
psychological, and emotional safety for
both survivors and providers. The approach
aims to create opportunities for survivors to
rebuild a sense of control and empowerment
(Hopper et al., 2010).
Homeless providers should understand
and be able to recognize the signs of PTSD.
Screening with validated instruments can be
helpful in alerting staff to the presence of a
trauma victim. Staff needs to learn how to
engage parents in trusting relationships that
promote choice, empowerment and self-ef-
ficacy. Because trauma survivors often feel
unsafe (and may be in danger, especially
if they are victims of domestic abuse), TIC
works towards building both physical and
emotional safety. Because interpersonal
trauma often involves boundary violations,
providers should establish clear roles and
boundaries as well as collaborative deci-
sion-making. Because control is often lost
during trauma and victimization, providers
should seek opportunities to help homeless
mothers rebuild control.
According to Hopper et al. (2010), there
is no data to indicate whether or not TIC
is effective specifically within homeless
services, as quantitative studies are lacking.
However, in other settings, the authors note
that TIC leads to better outcomes, including
lessened psychiatric symptoms and decreas-
es in substance use. Children who receive
TIC show better self-esteem, improved
relationships, and improved safety. TIC may
result in a decrease in crisis-based services
such as hospitalization. It also results in
increased residential stability. Since the
cost of TIC is similar to standard care, the
methods are cost-effective. Hopper et al.
conclude that the implementation of TIC is
in its infancy but is an important area for
further exploration. They discuss six separate
approaches that are being piloted.
The National Center on Family Home-
lessness has created a resource, Trauma-In-
formed Organizational Toolkit for Homeless
Services, which is also available through
the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (see review, this issue, page 11).
Promising Practice # 9–Intensive Service
Packages
According to Herbers and Cutuli (2014),
an analysis of housing stability revealed that
families receiving case management and
more intensive services in addition to the
‘Section 8’ housing voucher fared better on
housing stability.
Additional Needs
According to the National Center on
Family Homelessness (2012), change is
needed in how mainstream services coordi-
nate and collaborate. There is also a need for
training of service providers about the needs
of homeless families. Homeless families
should be prioritized. In order to gather more
useful data and to eliminate confusion, a
single definition of homelessness across all
federal programs would be helpful.
continued on page 14

14. 14
Children’s Needs
It is not enough to simply obtain housing
for the family. Services that help children
attend school regularly (such as enrollment
assistance; bus tokens; transportation) are
needed as are services that support student
success in school (dental care; medical
care; hearing and vision care; tutoring).
Training staff to promote positive parent-
ing and to create parent-centered family
shelter or housing is essential (Bassuk et al.,
2014). However, a review of interventions
to address the needs of homeless children
(Herbers Cutuli, 2014) found that within
the guidelines of the What Works Clearing-
house (WWC) standards for evidence-based
practices, none of the interventions reviewed
had sufficient evidence to be rated as having
‘Positive Effects.’ While the needs of home-
less children have been documented, inter-
ventions to assist have not been rigorously
evaluated. Evaluation is complicated by the
highly mobile families and high attrition
rates.
Promising Practice #1- Screening
Universal screening for homeless children
ages birth to five years of age is essential
in order to identify possible developmental
problems (Bassuk et al., 2014). For infants
and toddlers, this service is available through
Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEA or
IDEIA), created in 1986. In each state, a
lead agency administers early intervention
screening. (See VCPN Volume 99 for more
information.)
Children should be assessed using brief,
standardized measures. Children should be
assessed for developmental delay as well
as the presence of mental, emotional and
behavioral disorders and referrals should
be made based on the results. One resource
(reviewed in this issue) is the Early Child-
hood Self-Assessment Tool for Family
Shelters (by the Administration for Children
Families).
Promising Practice #2–Enable Families to
Maintain Routines
Interviews of families experiencing
homelessness have suggested that main-
taining family routines is important and
sometimes difficult to accomplish in tem-
porary housing (Guarino Bassuk, 2010;
Mayberry et al., 2014). Family routines can
reinforce a sense of control and self-efficacy.
Children fare better with predictable rou-
tines. Routines can contribute to a sense of
security for children. Collaboration between
shelter staff and parents at the entry into the
shelter can include how to manage family
routines within the restrictions of shelter
programs.
Promising Practice #3–Child Care
Support
Quality child care and preschool ex-
periences provide homeless children with
a greater likelihood of academic success
and decrease the risk for later behavioral
problems (Reed-Victor, 2008). The provi-
sion of after-school programs and tutoring
are important supports for parents who are
working.
Promising Practice # 4–Child Centered
Spaces
It is important for shelters and transi-
tional housing to provide both indoor and
outdoor play spaces with developmentally-
appropriate toys and equipment. Provision
of activities and opportunities for positive
interactions between parents and children
can enhance children’s adjustment (Perlman
et al., 2012). Creating safe environments that
are welcoming and relaxing can provide a
sense of security (Guarino Bassuk, 2010).
Promising Practice #5–Mentoring
Mentoring has proven effective in diverse
settings and with many populations. The im-
portance of a caring adult such as a mentor
or teacher can be a crucial support for a child
experiencing homelessness (Mitchell, 2011;
Powers-Costello Swick, 2011; Whelan,
2015).
Promising Practice # 6–Involving Schools
as a Support System
A positive school environment can be a
child’s refuge. School is not only a source
of learning, but also has important social as-
pects. Involving homeless children in activi-
ties such as a sports team or musical groups
can offer a sense of belonging. For younger
children, early childhood professionals can
function both as supports to children and as
support and guidance for the parent (Swick,
2009). Schools can even address practical
aspects of daily living. Some schools have
taken on the stigma of poor hygiene and
provided laundry facilities and showers to
homeless children. Some schools maintain
clothing closets where children in need can
obtain clothing, shoes, coats and boots.
Schools have sometimes provided medical
and dental services and even treated head
lice (Berliner, 2002).
Promising Practice # 7–Trauma-informed
Care
High numbers of homeless children have
experienced the effects of witnessing IPV
and high numbers have themselves been
maltreated and neglected (Bassuk et al.,
2014). For those children who have not been
abused or neglected, there still are the effects
of stress due to homelessness. The term
complex trauma refers to the multiple trau-
matic events that are recurrent or ongoing
and of long duration. Complex trauma often
originates with the care-giving system during
critical developmental stages and can lead to
both immediate and to long-term difficulties
in many areas of functioning, but commonly
is associated with disrupted attachments. The
prevalence of chronic interpersonal violence,
for example, coupled with the stress of strug-
gling with daily survival may not be unusual
for homeless children and their mothers
(Guarino Bassuk, 2010).
When providers understand trauma
responses, they can assist children in prac-
ticing self-control and can teach techniques
to de-escalate situations. Providers can help
children understand what happens in their
bodies and brains and teach techniques for
self-soothing and for coping (Guarino
Bassuk, 2010).
Two resources (reviewed in this issue
of VCPN) are: A Long Journey Home:
A Guide for Creating Trauma-Informed
Services for Mothers and Children Experi-
encing Homelessness (by the National Child
Traumatic Stress Network) and Understand-
ing Traumatic Stress in Children (by the
National Center on Family Homelessness).
The care components of intervention should
involve both the child and the care-giving
system. Homeless children who experience
positive parenting are likely to show fewer
trauma symptoms (Bassuk et al., 2014).Care
components should include attention to safe-
ty, self-regulation, information-processing,
relationships and strategies for integrating
the traumatic experiences (Bassuk, 2010).
An Additional Idea
Some innovative programs such as the
DeKalb KidsHome Collaborative in Decatur,
Georgia also offer financial assistance for
school supplies and extracurricular activities
(such as rental fees for band instruments,
uniforms, and summer enrichment camps).
Resiliency
Not all children who experience home-
lessness do poorly. Many, perhaps even a
majority, maintain or even thrive in the face
of adversity (Bassuk, 2010). Resilience is
defined as the capacity of children to exceed
expectations when faced with hardship
or adversity (Reed-Victor, 2008). Under-
standing how resilient children process and
incorporate traumatic experiences can assist
in developing interventions and preventing
negative outcomes.
Herbers et al. (2014) examined expo-
sure to potentially traumatic events among
children residing in emergency housing with
their families. They found that parenting
characterized by warmth, structure, and
responsiveness was consistently associated
with positive child outcomes such as better
self-regulation, higher executive function-
ing, and fewer behavioral and emotional
problems. Therefore, parents and caregivers
can provide some protection from negative
impacts of adversity through supportive
parenting behaviors.
continued from page 13
Homeless Families

15. 15
Prevention-Addressing Root Causes
Why are families unable to afford housing?
This issue is political, in part, and opinions
vary about root causes. Prevention efforts
vary, according to perceived causative factors.
Societal Factors
Some authors (such as APA, 2009; Child
Trends Data Bank, 2015; National Alliance
to End Homelessness, 2013) cite a “lack of
affordable housing” and low minimum wage.
A parent working a full-time minimum-wage
job still cannot afford housing in most parts
of the country. Therefore, even in families
where the parent is working full-time, the
family lacks housing because housing costs
more than 50% of their income. Economic
downturn, high levels of foreclosure, and
high poverty rates can all contribute to larger
numbers of homeless individuals and fami-
lies. Provision of affordable day care can be
a factor. Some parents cannot afford quality
day care (Bassuk et al., 2014).
Individual Factors
Some parents cannot find work or cannot
keep work. Factors that are associated with
poor work histories include: low levels of ed-
ucation (dropping out of school); substance
addiction; serious mental health difficulties;
low level of work skills; lack of motivation
to work. Teen parents without family support
are particularly vulnerable. Domestic vio-
lence or intimate partner violence is cited by
sources as a reason for family homelessness.
IPV can be a factor in teens that run away
and are homeless.
Prevention Thoughts
Preventing homelessness equates to
having youth arrive at adulthood happy,
healthy, able to care for themselves, and
ready to work. Efforts to educate youth, to
steer them from hazards such as drug abuse,
to encourage delaying parenting until the
youth is financially stable, to help youth
have positive relationships with others and
to provide a support network for those who
need additional assistance will all help pre-
vent homelessness.
Concluding Thoughts
Housing is essential but not sufficient
for ending homelessness (Bassuk, 2010).
Housing must be accompanied by services
and supports. The needs of families are
heterogeneous and each family has strengths
and challenges. Individualized plans and
approaches can reflect the family’s and the
children’s needs. Given the complex needs
of homeless families, it is essential that
staff be well-trained and responsive. As
our knowledge base grows, evidence-based
methods with high effectiveness should be-
come available. Until then, use of promising
practices can move us closer to the goal of
reducing homelessness.
Reference List Available on VCPN’s Website
P.O. Box 26274
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Website: http://www.naehcy.org/
NAEHCY is a national grassroots membership organization with a vision to see every
child and youth experiencing homelessness be successful in school at all levels, from early
childhood through higher education. NAEHCY is the only professional organization ded-
icated exclusively to meeting the educational needs of children and youth who experience
homelessness. The organization provides resources, training, and support for anyone interest-
ed in improving the academic achievement of children and youth experiencing homelessness.
The NAEHCY website also contains helpful information on current legislation, research, and
professional development opportunities.
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is the first significant
federal response to homelessness. It was signed into law in 1987, amend-
ed in 2001, and was reauthorized in 2009 as the Homeless Emergency
Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. The law is
designed to remove barriers to education created by homelessness, there-
by increasing enrollment, attendance, and success of children and youth
affected by family homelessness. Under this law, funds are made available
to local school districts to hire liaisons to coordinate services for homeless
children attending public school.
The educational rights of homeless children are several. According
to the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and
Youth, key provisions are:
v Students who are homeless can remain in their school if that is in
their best interest, even if the student is housed temporarily in anoth-
er school district or attendance area. Schools must provide transpor-
tation.
v Children and youth who are homeless are permitted to enroll in
school and to begin attending immediately, even if they cannot pro-
duce normally-required documents such as birth certificates, immuni-
zations, or proof of residency.
v Every school district must designate a homeless liaison to ensure
that the McKinney-Vento Act is implemented in their district. Home-
less liaisons have many critical responsibilities, including identifica-
tion of homeless children, enrollment, and collaboration with commu-
nity agencies.
v Every state must designate a state coordinator to ensure that the Act
is implemented properly in the state.
v State and school homeless liaisons must coordinate with other agen-
cies serving homeless children to enhance educational attendance
and success.
v State departments of education and local school districts must review
and revise school policies and practices in order to eliminate barriers
to enrollment and retention of homeless youth.
Phone: (866) 862-2562
Fax: (763) 545-9499
Email: info@naehcy.org